| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Nastassya Saad | Planning Commission meeting to order it is 633. Director Phipps. |
| 00:00:07.57 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much, Chair, and good evening to you, Vice Chair Junius, Planning Commissioners, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chamber, 420 Litho Street, as well as the Ville Verde Lisboa Hotel and Garden at Avenida de Liberdade, 164 Lisbon, Portugal, and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. Before I call roll, this is in connection with my Portugal reference, I note that Commissioner Moore is attending this meeting virtually. Commissioner Moore, could you please confirm for the record that you are attending this meeting in accordance with the traditional Brown Act's requirements for remote meeting attendance? |
| 00:01:00.56 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:01:08.58 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Moore, are you able to hear me? |
| 00:01:16.54 | Director Phipps | Seems as though Commissioner Moore can't hear me. |
| 00:01:27.48 | Director Phipps | Do we have city attorney present? |
| 00:01:31.29 | Andrew Junius | cannot hear. |
| 00:01:31.97 | Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 00:01:32.02 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:01:33.84 | Director Phipps | Uh, |
| 00:01:35.00 | Attorney Rudin | Yes, I can hear you. So I anticipate it is a technical issue with Commissioner Moore's participation. |
| 00:01:42.38 | Director Phipps | That's my concern as well. Based on that, what's your recommendation as far as how to proceed with respect to Mr. Moore's attendance and ability to weigh in? |
| 00:01:53.06 | Attorney Rudin | Do we have another way to reach him? |
| 00:01:56.91 | Director Phipps | We can probably attempt at reaching him. I cannot confirm. Is there also a chat? Let's see. |
| 00:02:07.27 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to send him a text message. |
| 00:02:10.66 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:02:11.59 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:02:11.69 | Director Phipps | Sure. |
| 00:02:16.53 | Andrew Junius | So well, that's very correct. |
| 00:02:19.40 | Attorney Rudin | Yeah, before before we talk about options to proceed with the meeting, I'd like to try to resolve the technical issues first. |
| 00:02:26.05 | Director Phipps | Likewise. |
| 00:03:00.81 | Fred Moore | Can you hear me? |
| 00:03:03.82 | Nastassya Saad | Can you speak again, please, Commissioner Moore? |
| 00:03:15.21 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Moore, just checking once again, can you hear us? |
| 00:03:28.91 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:03:33.38 | Nastassya Saad | Since we have quorum, |
| 00:03:34.73 | Director Phipps | Well, and just to note, it seems as though we just lost Commissioner Moore. We do have a quorum in person chair. I also imagine Commissioner Moore may attempt to rejoin at some point. Interested in your feedback as to how you'd like to proceed. I think given that we have quorum and given that we're past the 630 hour, we may want to proceed. I will defer to city attorney who I see is disjoined. |
| 00:04:03.10 | Attorney Rudin | Yeah, I would recommend that we give Commissioner Moore another couple of minutes. The issue here is, of course, we have noticed this meeting as simultaneously occurring at his location. So if his location is not available. anyone who theoretically would want to join from his location would be unable to join. So that is one of the wrinkles of the traditional Brown Act rules. So I think we should try to see if we can resolve this issue before proceeding. |
| 00:04:33.29 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:04:38.89 | Andrew Junius | Is it possible for him to attend via phone if he just calls in? Thank you. No. |
| 00:04:44.92 | Director Phipps | I believe there is a requirement to have a video. |
| 00:04:47.36 | Attorney Rudin | No, there is not. He can attend via phone if he can call in. |
| 00:04:50.57 | Director Phipps | Oh, excellent. I must be thinking about the new remote requirements. |
| 00:04:54.25 | Attorney Rudin | Yes, there are remote requirements for just cause and emergency circumstances where you have to participate via audio and video. That is not required under the traditional Brown Act rules. |
| 00:05:03.16 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Attorney Rudin. I'm Are you able to? |
| 00:05:07.46 | Nastassya Saad | I have not heard back from him. I'm going to send him the. dial in information at the off chance. Thank you. |
| 00:05:13.91 | Director Phipps | Chair, if you would indulge me, I could run to my office and send him an email and request that he attempt to join virtually via phone. |
| 00:05:23.34 | Nastassya Saad | Am I at liberty to do that? May I? |
| 00:05:26.29 | Andrew Junius | actually communicating with him just now would be a test. So he was just a few minutes ago, he was responding. |
| 00:05:31.05 | Nastassya Saad | Has he responded to you? He's not responded to me. |
| 00:05:32.08 | Director Phipps | Okay. Thank you. Well, I'll take that as good news then, that he's aware of the issue, and it sounds like he's trying to resolve it. So that's fine. |
| 00:06:50.03 | Director Phipps | So I see a... |
| 00:06:55.22 | Director Phipps | new participant named Fred who has joined us, and I'm hoping this is Commissioner Moore. Commissioner Moore, second attempt, or maybe third or fourth, can you hear us? |
| 00:07:14.07 | Director Phipps | I saw your lips move, but I didn't hear anything. And I'm hoping that you can hear what I'm saying right now. |
| 00:07:24.60 | Director Phipps | Based on a lack of response, I'm going to assume that Commissioner Moore is not hearing me. |
| 00:07:42.46 | Nastassya Saad | Understanding what Attorney Rudin said about their remote attendance, can we just get an official way in if we would be able to continue this hearing if this does not get resolved at his location, Sergio? |
| 00:08:01.75 | Attorney Rudin | Yeah, my recommendation would be not proceeding with the meeting. So hopefully we can just call him directly. |
| 00:08:14.01 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:08:14.03 | Bradley O'Brien | Thank you. |
| 00:08:14.05 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:08:14.15 | Bradley O'Brien | Thank you. |
| 00:08:18.26 | Bradley O'Brien | Thank you. |
| 00:08:32.44 | Fred Moore | to see us. |
| 00:08:53.35 | Director Phipps | Should we take a five minute recess as we attempt to contact our commissioner? |
| 00:08:56.81 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, and just to members of the public on Zoom, we're having issues communicating with a remote commissioner for audio. We're going to take... |
| 00:08:57.43 | Director Phipps | to get that. |
| 00:09:06.36 | Nastassya Saad | you very much thank you for the patience the members of the public and the applicants that are here uh item two on the agenda is approval of the agenda |
| 00:09:15.94 | David Marlatt | Move to approve. Second. |
| 00:09:18.32 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Any commentary? |
| 00:09:20.18 | Director Phipps | I just wanted to provide one piece of commentary due to some recently uncovered new information. Staff are now recommending the item 6C related to 715 Bridgeway be continued to a date uncertain in order to allow time for the applicant team to respond to the aforementioned new information and to give commissioners a chance to review all that new information following applicants' ability to respond. So I think we'll still take public comment on that item, but that would be staff's recommendation. |
| 00:09:38.07 | Andrew Junius | new information. |
| 00:09:50.52 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Director Phipps. Do we need to then amend the motion to continue 6C to a date uncertain? |
| 00:09:59.06 | Andrew Junius | No, we just wait until that item's called and we continue at the end. |
| 00:10:01.73 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:10:03.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let me ask, should we move 6C up and take it first so you can take public comment and people don't have to sit here all next to that? |
| 00:10:03.97 | Nastassya Saad | Go ahead. |
| 00:10:12.46 | Director Phipps | I'll defer to the chair on that. Thank you. |
| 00:10:13.98 | Nastassya Saad | I think that's a great idea. |
| 00:10:17.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I would amend the motion for us to move 6C up and hear it first. |
| 00:10:24.85 | Nastassya Saad | Maker of the motion? Second. Okay. Can we take roll, please? |
| 00:10:27.78 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Commissioner Merlot? Yes. Commissioner Moore? |
| 00:10:36.18 | Fred Moore | Agreed. |
| 00:10:37.87 | Director Phipps | I'm going to take that as a yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Assad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:10:39.97 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Yes. Thank you. Item three is public comments on items not on this agenda. Director Pips. |
| 00:10:52.18 | Director Phipps | This is the time for the commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. The planning commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct that the subject be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom app, please raise your hand and you'll be called upon when it is your time to speak. And to raise your hand from a phone, press star 9 and we will notify you when your time has elapsed. |
| 00:11:27.49 | Director Phipps | I don't believe we have any received speaker cards looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. Seeing none, and back to you, Chair. |
| 00:11:36.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Item four is approval of the planning commission minutes. This is from May 14th, 1-25. |
| 00:11:43.65 | Andrew Junius | May 1st, 325. you and |
| 00:11:52.38 | Nastassya Saad | Sir, did you have public comment for items that were not on this agenda? |
| 00:11:58.82 | Nastassya Saad | Not quite yet, thank you. No problem. So I'm looking for approval of the Planning Commission minutes from May 14th. |
| 00:12:10.97 | David Marlatt | I had a question actually for the director on the minutes, if I |
| 00:12:14.04 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Is it on the May 14th minutes? OK, let's first take the May 14th minutes, and then you can definitely ask your question. Any comments or? as I said. |
| 00:12:24.64 | Andrew Junius | As I was absent for that meeting, with the exception of the 2015 Bridgeway matter, I'm going to have to recuse myself from commenting on the minutes or voting on the minutes otherwise. |
| 00:12:33.74 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Luxembourg did you comment? No comments. Do I have approval of the Planning Commission minutes? |
| 00:12:37.45 | David Marlatt | Do you have a comment? |
| 00:12:42.24 | David Marlatt | Yes, I make a motion to approve the minutes. |
| 00:12:45.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:12:45.90 | David Marlatt | second. |
| 00:12:47.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:12:48.60 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Commissioner Merlot? Yes. Commissioner Moore? |
| 00:12:49.97 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:12:55.96 | Andrew Junius | So yeah. |
| 00:12:56.69 | Director Phipps | I heard a yes. Vice Chair Junius. Abstain. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:13:00.99 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Motion passes. Thank you very much, Director Phipps. Commissioner Marlott, do you have a question about minutes? Thank you. |
| 00:13:06.83 | David Marlatt | Yes, we haven't seen the minutes for the April 2nd and April 9th meetings. Will those be forthcoming or is there |
| 00:13:14.76 | Director Phipps | Yes, they are. Thank you for the question. Thank you. |
| 00:13:18.46 | David Marlatt | they are. |
| 00:13:18.77 | Director Phipps | forthcoming to clarifying. |
| 00:13:20.72 | David Marlatt | Is there a timeline? Is there an expectation of when we'll have those minutes? |
| 00:13:26.35 | Director Phipps | Staff bring the meetings forward as early as we are able. And I would anticipate that there won't be much time between now and the opportunity for you to hear those minutes. Thank you very much. |
| 00:13:38.71 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. Item five are communications. Director Phipps, any communications from staff? |
| 00:13:44.21 | Director Phipps | Absolutely, I have an excellent item to communicate to the commission tonight. This is related to a public hearing at a special meeting that the city council held yesterday at this council chamber, unfortunately not in Portugal. But at that meeting, the communication item is city council voted to approve the six cycle amended housing element, as well as the complimentary amended housing element environmental impact report, along with corresponding general plan amendments, as well as approved the rezoning of sites that are not impacted by voter initiatives. This has been a significant and all hands on deck type process for the city for some time in collaboration with both local and state entities. And we are very excited to have received that approval. Thank you very much commissioners for your role in getting us to this point. In addition to all the folks on the dais today, I'd give a special shout out to Commissioner Feller, who was instrumental as a member of one of the Housing Element Planning Commission working groups. So commend her, in addition to all of you, for all of your efforts in connection with the element. And Commissioner Junius and Saad as well for their presence on certain housing element working groups and odds working groups. So applaud is deserved all around and that does it for my communication item. Thank you. |
| 00:15:17.36 | Nastassya Saad | That is excellent news. Thank you, Director Phipps. Commissioners, any other items for communications from anybody? I just have one actually in light of that. The housing element working group was still ongoing, so I would just like to officially disband the working group that was with Commissioner Feller and myself for many years and glad that that work is now done. Thank you for the update. Those are all the communications. Before we get to the public hearing, I'd actually like to look for expert take communications from the commissioners. Commissioner Luxembourg, anything to declare? |
| 00:15:58.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | PB, David Ensign PB, David Ens |
| 00:16:13.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg, Commissioner Marlott, anything to declare? |
| 00:16:16.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:16:16.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:16:16.98 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:16:18.02 | Nastassya Saad | you. Commissioner Moore, any ex parte community? Thank you. I have nothing to declare. Excellent. Vice Chair? |
| 00:16:23.51 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:16:23.98 | Andrew Junius | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:16:27.40 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:16:27.42 | Andrew Junius | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:16:28.15 | Nastassya Saad | And I also have nothing to declare. So with this, with our new agenda, we're going to move to item 6C, which will move up. This is 715 Bridgeway. It's a design review permit, variance, conditional use permit, minor use permit, sign permit, certificate of appropriateness. And we will open this up, I believe, for public comment if we're not gonna have our staff report since it's moving to a date uncertain. Is that correct, Director Phipps? |
| 00:17:01.22 | Director Phipps | If that is a commission's decision this evening, yes. |
| 00:17:04.19 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, yes, please. |
| 00:17:05.90 | Director Phipps | We may have to make a motion on that. Just want to confirm with Attorney Rudin |
| 00:17:14.69 | Attorney Rudin | Yeah, I would recommend that you... Motion. pass a motion to continue this item either to a date certain, in which case you would not have to re-notice it. Otherwise, if you continue it to a date uncertain, it will have to be re-noticed. |
| 00:17:29.20 | Director Phipps | So, Chair Saad, I think that we can open public comment, take public comment, and the commission can take that action if they so desire. |
| 00:17:36.44 | Nastassya Saad | Excellent, that is what I would like to do. |
| 00:17:39.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have a question about that item, which I sent to the city attorney but did not get an answer. I was unclear whether we were considering for public comment one CUP request or whether we were considering the whole thing all over again because it's an action that we approved that's been appealed and there's an appeal running so I'm very confused of What this item is and I sent that in advance so attorney Rudin probably has the answer to that |
| 00:18:11.83 | Attorney Rudin | Yes. So the council disposed of the previous appeal by remanding it to the planning commission. The planning commission has the whole of the project before it. So all of the prior approvals were voided, and now the whole project is before the Planning Commission when it eventually comes back for a, Timely noticed hearing. |
| 00:18:32.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for that. That's helpful. |
| 00:18:35.59 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. So with that, I'd like to open up 715 Bridgeway for public comment. |
| 00:18:43.67 | Director Phipps | I have a speaker card. From Paul Mowry. Mr. Mowry, welcome and thank you for being here. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:18:59.52 | Paul Mowry | Hi, I live at 108 Bulkley, which is at the corner of Bulkley and Reed. And that is, I live in a house on that corner. I am the pastor of the church, which is next door at the corner of Bulkley and Excelsior. And I think given that we haven't heard anything tonight, so it feels more like a overview comment. When I spoke at the appeal, since I spoke to the appeal, a couple of people reached out to me. kind of to talk about what they saw as a no culture, a culture of saying no in Sausalito. And I just wanted to make sure that everyone, the developer and the commission, that I don't see this as a no culture. There are a range of opinions, but I think what most, I think, first of all, I, for one, am realizing that I will have unbelievable, you know, congestion increase on Excelsior. I don't know if you know Excelsior, but it's small, it's steep. And... It gets a lot of strange traffic. Just last night, someone called me from my home because a pizza delivery couldn't find one of the addresses on Excelsior. But what I think is, you know, I'm willing to live with that. I think the restaurant sounds great. The hotel gives me some pause, but the outdoor space is what really, really concerns me because it would have a serious negative impact. And I feel like I'm going to have a negative impact, which I embrace and and and take with me because i want this project to succeed and that's my you know i feel accommodating that i know the city i think is accommodating in terms of adjusting the laws i just would hope that um in the development plans there could be an accommodation for as a good neighbor for the outdoor space really just the request would be just to close it in. And it would be it would give the space, you know, all weather use. But it really will have a great impact. And if you haven't been down there, really encourage you. It is Excelsior. lane basically runs almost through this party space. And I just think it's going to be a significant change to the neighborhood when we're already going to put up with stuff from nine to seven or whatever. I think that's all I wanted to say is that I hope you guys will see this. I think a lot of us are just looking for some, you know, accommodation. You know, I think everybody's offering some up except this one piece. Thank you. Thanks. I'll leave now, okay? |
| 00:21:50.32 | Andrew Junius | Thank you very much. |
| 00:21:50.32 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Thank you very much. Much appreciated. Thanks for being here. I do not believe we have received any additional speaker cards in hard copy. However, I do see some interested hands on the Zoom app. I'm going to call them in the order they were raised. That first hand is the hand of Robert Kahn. Robert, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:22:10.64 | Robert Kahn | Hi, thank you. And can you hear me okay? |
| 00:22:13.24 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:22:14.57 | Robert Kahn | Hi, so I'm Robert Kahn and I represent my mother, Sharon, who lives next door to this project. We submitted a comment letter, so at this time I won't kind of reiterate what we said in that comment letter, but there is an additional item that I wanted to. raise at this at this point, and that is that this project's appeal The applicant announced that they had committed to having a 24 hour employee onsite to address the very legitimate concerns of the neighbors about it just being an unsupervised Aaron Lindenberg, MD, Airbnb, which would then become a party house and at the at that appeal we said you know that this promise 24 hour on site employees should be included in the conditions of approval. And the city council agreed with us and made a recommendation. back to the planning commission that a 24 hour onsite staff be included as part of the conditions of approval. The applicant has now gone back on this promise, which turns out to have been another and kind of a long line of promises that the developers made that have not come through. And city staff, for their part, has not just gone along with that, but it went much further by removing a condition that, that this planning commission expressly directed staff to add to this project. When you approved it the first time you directed staff to include a condition that the project would have someone at least on call by phone 24 hours a day that's been taken out of the conditions of approval when submitted this time around. And so I'd ask the planning commission, you know, when this comes back around, or at least ask city staff to, you know, to add back that 24 hour staffing, which was promised by the applicant and recommended by the city council. Thank you. |
| 00:24:00.08 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Khan. Moving to the next raised hand, that is the hand of Adrian Brinton. Adrian, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:24:09.39 | Adrian Brinton | Hi, thank you for taking my comment. You know, there's a lot of concern about noise. Obviously, that was sitting out behind the no-name bar in their patio thinking about that. You know, there's a bit of noise back there downtown. And, you know, our downtown is really, really quiet right now. And I think that when we think about noise downtown, holding up the amount of noise that's appropriate to the current level is just not a great way to think about it. Our downtown is extremely quiet and extremely deaf. And I think that, you know, when I look at the noise that could potentially be generated by this project until 10 p.m., you know, it seems very, very reasonable in terms of the usage for the area in the commercial district downtown. And I hope that, you know, neighbors can understand. I know that people have lived there for a long time and they've gotten used to the quietness that's there now. But we need life downtown and life brings people and people bring a little bit of noise. And I think having, you know, a space where people can enjoy the outdoors until 10pm much earlier than the No Name Bars current set up downtown is really reasonable. And, you know, when I look at what this person who's opening this business has done in Carmel, another very nori sensitive area um They're able to make it work right in the middle of Carmel, which, you know, I've got to think that if they had a big bachelor party, you know, contingency that used their hotel, that would have been available in the records in Carmel. And, you know, I wasn't able to find anything about that. So I think this looks like a great project. You know, I hope this delay doesn't take too long. delays cost money you know opening wasn't able to find anything about that so i think this looks like a great project you know i hope this delay doesn't take too long delays cost money you know opening a business is very expensive every week we delay is a week where you know the person who's opening this doesn't earn money on his restaurant he's carrying the carrying cost for that every week um there's a high high cost and effectively by delaying this again we're weakening the business that's coming into our downtown. So I certainly hope that there's enough funding there to be able to deal with that. But again, whatever is causing the delay, I only hope that it's an extremely good reason and that it actually is worth whatever the hard costs are, you know, to this person who's coming and investing in Sausalito. Thanks for taking my comments. |
| 00:26:33.32 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Chair, seeing no additional hands raised, I'll give it back to you. |
| 00:26:39.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for all the public comment. And I just want to state for the record that we also received 12 total written comments that are all attached to the agenda for item 6C. And the Commission has all read those as well. Moving on back to Six. Oh, excuse me. No, I'm just moving on. Yes, we do need to make a motion. |
| 00:27:02.06 | Andrew Junius | Before we do that, can I ask a question? So is it, I mean, the applicant's not here. or I assume they're okay with a date uncertain. Yeah, correct. |
| 00:27:11.40 | Director Phipps | Yeah, correct. The applicant is not present as they were cognizant of staff's recommendation to commission this evening. |
| 00:27:18.93 | Andrew Junius | I don't know. |
| 00:27:18.96 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:27:19.03 | Andrew Junius | move to continue to. |
| 00:27:19.98 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:27:20.03 | Andrew Junius | at uncertainty. |
| 00:27:23.77 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:27:23.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Suck. |
| 00:27:24.11 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:27:26.24 | Nastassya Saad | Any discussion? Director Pips? |
| 00:27:28.58 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Commissioner Merlot? Yes. Commissioner Moore? |
| 00:27:35.00 | Fred Moore | Reluctantly, I'll vote yes. |
| 00:27:38.00 | Director Phipps | Vice-Churgenius. Yes. Chair Hassan. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:27:39.92 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:27:40.03 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:27:41.49 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:27:42.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:27:42.18 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:27:42.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:27:42.49 | Director Phipps | Spice chair. |
| 00:27:44.21 | Nastassya Saad | Moving on to item 6A, Commissioner Luxenberg, thank you, is going to recuse. We'll wait for him to leave the room. |
| 00:27:57.62 | Nastassya Saad | This is a public hearing for 416 Richardson Street. It's a design review permit with heightened review findings and an encroachment agreement. And we have associate planner, Katie Nelson here to present. Thank you. |
| 00:28:11.53 | Katie Nelson | Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Commissioners and members of the public. I'm Katie Nelson, Associate Planner with the City of Sausalito. Tonight, I'm presenting a design review and encroachment agreement application for 416 Richardson Street. Next slide. The site is zoned R2-2.5, which permits medium to medium-high density residential development, including single and two-family dwellings. The property is located in the Old Town or Hurricane Gulch neighborhood at the northeast corner of 4th and Richardson Streets. The lot is narrow and substandard. It's a rectangularly shaped parcel. of 1,173 square feet with an average slope of about 30%. Thank you. Next slide. The applicant is requesting a design review permit and recommendation of approval for an encroachment agreement. to the City Council, the scope of work includes a substantial remodel of an existing non-conforming structure, removal of unpermitted additions to bring the structure closer to good zoning conformance, conversion of an existing duplex to a single family residence, with no expansion to the building envelope or increase in height. And lastly, due to site... constraints and the historic home placement improvements within the public right of way are proposed, including a new entryway steps and landscape planters. |
| 00:29:34.96 | Katie Nelson | The applicant acquired the property in August 2024. It was built in 1922 and the structure has gone some undergone some unpermitted modifications over time and largely fallen into a state of disrepair. Due to the age of the structure, historic resource determination was conducted in September 2024 and concluded that the building does not qualify for historic protection under CEQA or local ordinances. In October 2024, a record of survey was recorded at the county and revealed as-built site conditions and encroachments into the public right-of-way. the This included the southern wall central bay window on the south wall and unpermitted second story additions on the west and north sides of the structure. The formal formal application for the design review permit and encroachment agreement was submitted in November. |
| 00:30:27.02 | Katie Nelson | And we can take a look at the survey. It's a bit hard to see, but it does show that the southern wall and the bay window encroach slightly into the public right-of-way by 0.3 feet and 1.7 feet, respectively. and the project proposes to remove unpermitted additions that encroach over the property line on the west and north sides. A centrally located entryway along Richardson Street will be also established. These improvements are designed to improve circulation, reduce nonconformity, and integrate the property better into the neighborhood fabric. |
| 00:31:04.72 | Katie Nelson | The comparative site plans here show removal of the detached rear shed, elimination of the illegal additions, and installation of new planter beds and entry steps. These changes reduce lock coverage and improve the interface between the structure and the public right of way. The project overall leverages challenging site conditions to reduce bulk, resolve parts of past nonconformance, and enhance visual character. By relocating the entry to the Richardson side and integrating landscaping into the streetscape, The project improves access, supports walkability, and aligns with neighborhood design patterns without creating public safety concerns. And as a side note, there is no tree removal or grading impacts as a part of the project. Next slide. The current layout reflects a two unit configuration, each with one bedroom and one bathroom. There was one unit on the lower ground floor and a separate unit upstairs. Circulation is segmented currently and many elements are in disrepair or out of compliance with current codes. |
| 00:32:16.49 | Katie Nelson | The remodel consolidates the building into a single family residence with two bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms. The interior will be reconfigured and fully upgraded with improvements to HVAC, plumbing, electrical, insulation, and finishes. This provides a more functional and efficient layout while maintaining the original footprint of the home. |
| 00:32:39.00 | Katie Nelson | Here we see how the elevations are updated. The exterior shingles will be replaced with hardy plank lap siding, the roof reclad with class A, will we compliant materials and all windows and doors replaced for improved aesthetics and energy performance. New boral poly ash trim will be added around the windows and corners and painted white to match the siding. Importantly, there is no increase in height as part of the project, ensuring there are no viewer privacy impacts. And by removing illegal additions and integrating landscaping along the streetscape, The project aligns with neighborhood context and supports safe pedestrian and vehicular flow. |
| 00:33:20.97 | Katie Nelson | Photos of the current structure show long-term wear, unpermitted alterations, and a general lack of cohesion with neighboring homes. The proposed improvements aim to update the building's architectural integrity while respecting the tone and scale of the Old Town neighborhood. |
| 00:33:38.48 | Katie Nelson | As noted in the zoning table, the project does not comply with the requirements for minimum parcel size, density or number of dwelling units, the front setback or floor area ratio. However... The project as proposed would not shift, exacerbate, or increase any of these existing nonconformities and would bring the project closer to compliance with current zoning standards. |
| 00:34:04.88 | Katie Nelson | While the parcel is substandard in size and width, the project does not require a variance or nonconformity permit due to the amount of demolition proposed. The demolition is limited to 20.8% of the exterior wall lineal footage and is thus deemed partial demolition by City Council resolution 5236. Setbacks number of dwelling units building coverage floor area ratio and impervious surfaces coverage are all brought closer to conformance. Furthermore, no parking requirements are triggered due to the lots legal non conforming status. |
| 00:34:42.29 | Katie Nelson | Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve application 2024-00215 for 416 Richardson Street and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the design review permit and recommending approval of the encroachment agreement to City Council. Staff finds the project... The proposed project in conformance with the required design review findings and SMC section 10.5405 OD. and the encroachment agreement findings in SMC 10.56060. and the approval is subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolution. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. |
| 00:35:22.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Katie. I'm going to look to the Commission for questions. Commissioner Marlett, do you want to start us off? |
| 00:35:29.42 | David Marlatt | Sure. Thank you very much. And thank you for the presentation. One important question I just want to ask. The municipal code 10.44.330C says maximum floor area, no single dwelling unit on a parcel in the R2-2.5 district shall exceed a maximum floor area ratio of the following, depending on parcel size and and then less than 3,000 square foot parcels at 0.65. So we're losing a dwelling unit, but how does the project either comply or comport with that requirement that's in our code? |
| 00:36:08.89 | Katie Nelson | The requirement is still the same as the underlying zoning ordinance in table 10.22. It's still 0.65 because the lot is so substandard. So... It didn't comply before as two units. It was non-conforming. And now it is still non-conforming. So based on the non-conformity section in 10.62050 and the table 10.62-1, |
| 00:36:31.77 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:36:39.43 | Katie Nelson | and the amount of demolition proposed the type of project, no variance nor non-conformity permit was required for the project. I see your point, and I think it's open to interpretation either way. |
| 00:36:53.49 | David Marlatt | Thank you for your question. Later when it comes to the dais. But basically... |
| 00:36:53.96 | Katie Nelson | Thank you for your question. |
| 00:36:58.94 | David Marlatt | You're saying for the other code section references, the section of the code that I've cited just does not apply in this specific case. |
| 00:37:05.57 | Katie Nelson | I'm not saying it doesn't apply. I'm saying it's the same requirements as if there would have been two units there. It's the same statistical number, the 0.65 floor area ratio. |
| 00:37:17.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:37:17.66 | Katie Nelson | Okay. |
| 00:37:17.93 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think staff's interpretation. Sure. Thank you. |
| 00:37:18.21 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I think staff, yeah, staff's interpretation. |
| 00:37:20.54 | Katie Nelson | Okay. |
| 00:37:23.16 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Moore, do you have questions for staff? |
| 00:37:28.12 | Fred Moore | The one question I had was the staff report talks about the fact that the encroachment, the applicant is aware that the encroachment improvements may need to be removed if the city needs to take those encroachments with an expansion of the right of way. So what mechanism is in place to ensure that happens? |
| 00:37:48.07 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 00:37:51.44 | Katie Nelson | There are standard conditions of approval in the encroachment agreements that state this. So when they're fully executed, once they're approved by city council, they're signed by both property owners and elected officials. So we always have the ability to fall back on those and utilize those in the event that we need to expand infrastructure. |
| 00:38:16.06 | Fred Moore | Okay, so I'm kind of new, I haven't seen an encroachment permit agreement. So that agreement that standard that city uses as language in it that allows the city to force the property owner to remove those improvements. |
| 00:38:33.16 | Katie Nelson | That's correct. |
| 00:38:34.71 | Fred Moore | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:38:37.31 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Vice Chair. No questions. And thank you. I had the exact same question, so we can save that. Thank you for answering that question. Katie, with no other questions right now, we can go ahead and turn it to the applicant for. |
| 00:38:54.64 | Katie Nelson | Sure, they're here. They don't have a presentation, but they're available for questions. |
| 00:38:59.70 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Okay. Can we identify who the applicant is? |
| 00:39:03.65 | Katie Nelson | Lou Barber and Rebecca Coles. |
| 00:39:05.34 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. Appreciate it, thank you, Katie. So you do have 15 minutes if you do wish to speak. If you wish to forego your time, then we're gonna open it up for public comment. It's completely up to you and you'll have 15 minutes |
| 00:39:22.45 | Director Phipps | And I'll just note, if you'd like to rebut any of the public comments, you can use your reserved time to do so. |
| 00:39:31.96 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 00:39:32.27 | Director Phipps | you |
| 00:39:32.89 | Nastassya Saad | Just for the record for anyone on Zoom, the applicant is going to hold their presentation time for rebuttal. So then we can open it up to public comment. Director Phipps, could you help out? |
| 00:39:45.19 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Okay, first speaker card received is from John Flynn. |
| 00:39:53.82 | Director Phipps | And I will admit I'm getting mixed up on the lettering based on the movement on the agenda. So excuse me. I'll come to that later. Sure. Unless I'm mistaken. |
| 00:39:59.08 | Nastassya Saad | Excuse me. |
| 00:40:05.66 | Nastassya Saad | 6B is now, since we've moved, this is for 416 Richardson Street. The other agenda item coming up will be original 6B, which is 2015 Bridgeway. Thank you. We will keep your speaker card for the next item. |
| 00:40:23.20 | Director Phipps | Very good, apologies Chair. Looking to the Zoom application, four hands raised in the order that they were raised. That first hand raised is Daniel Pellegrini. Daniel, welcome, you'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:40:35.30 | Daniel Pellegrini | Hi, thank you. Hopefully you can hear me. Can you hear me, I hope? |
| 00:40:40.24 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, we can. Thank you. |
| 00:40:41.72 | Daniel Pellegrini | Okay, super. I just want to sort of lend my support to Mr. Barber and his proposed improvements. I think I was in the House both before his taking it over and subsequently, and I have to say that the improvements that he's proposed are dramatic and I think important. I would be the unit just to his immediate, what, west, I guess, or north. Nevertheless, I think that, I think he's, all of his proposals are spot on and important and we fully support them. |
| 00:41:22.95 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:41:22.99 | Nastassya Saad | And we're going to have a |
| 00:41:23.29 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:41:28.42 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. |
| 00:41:29.26 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment, Mr. Pellegrini. Looking to the Zoom application for additional raised hand. The next hand is Bradley O'Brien. Bradley, welcome, you'll have three minutes. |
| 00:41:41.56 | Director Phipps | Hey, Bradley, I think you're on mute. If you could unmute yourself. Am I unmuted now? Absolutely. Please proceed. |
| 00:41:48.21 | Bradley O'Brien | Thank you. My name is Bradley O'Brien. I live at 305 4th Street, which is directly across the street from the proposed project. The house that's in question is between my house and the bay, so it directly impacts my bay view, including the bay and the city of San Francisco. I know from the notes from the presentation today that it states that there'll be no expansion to the building envelope or height increase, which is my primary concern, because I do think the house needs improvement. But I do want confirmation that the house will not extend beyond the current fingerprint, either vertically or horizontally. Other than that, I have no issue with the project. Thank you. |
| 00:41:48.72 | Director Phipps | Thank you. My name is |
| 00:42:33.17 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Looking to the Zoom app, a raised hand once again, Chair. And seeing none, back to you. |
| 00:42:42.09 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. So at this point, I think we have an echo here. look back to the applicant. You still have 15 minutes if you'd like to make any comments in relation to any of the public comment you heard. And I might ask one of you at least to approach just in case the commission has questions as well. But I will defer to you if you'd like to make any comments. |
| 00:43:08.28 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah, the last caller. |
| 00:43:13.20 | Nastassya Saad | Is the microphone on and can I ask you kindly to speak? Is it on? |
| 00:43:18.76 | Unknown | Can you hear me? |
| 00:43:19.30 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, that's better just for everyone on Zoom. |
| 00:43:20.59 | Unknown | PB, David Ensign PB, David Ens |
| 00:43:35.23 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 00:43:35.81 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:43:36.94 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, I understand you don't have much to say, so let's stop the clock at 1440, and I'll just first turn to the Commission. Do you have any questions, Commissioner Marlott, for the applicant? No, I didn't. |
| 00:43:48.95 | David Marlatt | I do not. |
| 00:43:49.56 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Commissioner Moore, do you have any questions of the applicant at this time? |
| 00:43:57.68 | Fred Moore | The applicant, no. |
| 00:43:58.98 | Andrew Junius | I know. |
| 00:43:59.03 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:43:59.05 | Andrew Junius | Do not... |
| 00:44:00.16 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Vice Chair. |
| 00:44:02.76 | Andrew Junius | Just one question. How long has the property been vacant? |
| 00:44:05.71 | Unknown | Um, the owner moved out last September. |
| 00:44:09.56 | Andrew Junius | And you're the new owner. Great, congratulations. |
| 00:44:12.73 | Unknown | Oh, yes. If you look closely at it, maybe sympathy. you |
| 00:44:19.41 | Nastassya Saad | Um, |
| 00:44:19.50 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Windows are falling out. Literally, the roof shingles are laying on the sidewalk. I mean, every time the windstorm, we have to pick something up. All right. |
| 00:44:29.99 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I don't have any questions for you as well. So we will allow you to sit back down. Thank you very much. And we will close that portion of the hearing and bring it back up to the dais. Commissioner Marlott, actually, I'll look to you to start us off. |
| 00:44:48.34 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much, Chair. It's a small lot. It's a small project. The House is dilapidated. Congratulate and commiserate with anybody who wants to take on such a project, which will ultimately serve the city. My issue is we have, for better or worse, the municipal codes and other people in the city. I know a few personally have gone through this same exercise with substandard lots and substandard situations with the floor area ratio and trying to reduce or eliminate second units. In the past, they've been limited in how much they could reduce it by this section 10.44.330C. So unless there's something that's really revealed to me new, I don't know how we can get beyond that. And then the other thing just to throw out as a consideration is in the design review findings, of course, we have to find that this project is in a new design review. |
| 00:45:22.76 | Andrew Junius | the |
| 00:45:54.42 | David Marlatt | is consistent with the general plan. And I'm not sure that the general plan would normally permit or certainly not encourage removal of an existing legal unit. So I'm really struggling with that. The total elimination of the second unit, it could go down to 250 or so square feet, which would just be a small studio. That would get the 0.65 FAR for the primary unit. And I'd be interested in the other commissioner's views on that. But I'm having trouble getting beyond what, to me, is the plain English written regulation. |
| 00:46:33.33 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Marlott. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:46:39.51 | Fred Moore | Well, I'm excited about the fact that this eyesore is going to be rectified for the neighborhood. Also, the fact that it's not going to be expanding the footprint, that it's going to be removing some of the illegally improved portions of the home. That it's not going to increase the size. It's not going to increase the height. It's going to have some fire retardant material used and potentially fire sprinklers depending on the ultimate percentage of improvements. So I'm very supportive of the project. |
| 00:47:15.84 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. |
| 00:47:17.95 | Andrew Junius | Question for staff. This is an unusual situation where the proposal is going from two units to one unit. There are no provisions of our planning code that would prohibit that. Is that correct? |
| 00:47:32.82 | Katie Nelson | Not that I'm aware of. The single family dwelling is a permitted use, permitted by right, just as the two family residences in that zoning district. |
| 00:47:44.28 | Andrew Junius | Right. So, I mean, in San Francisco, this is a big deal. Unit mergers are, you know, to Commissioner Marlott's comment, difficult. And conserving housing stock is an important issue. I don't see that here. I don't, I'm pretty confident there's nothing that specific in the general plan either. I'll go so far as to say that there's, that the unit merger concept and the idea of absent the FAR issue, going from two units to one unit is within our discretion. I don't think there's any question about that. um i mean the extraordinary non-conformities here i think would justify the staff's position i mean it's another one of these situations where um we'd hate to lose this opportunity somebody's really come forward with a wonderful you know um effort thank you for taking a chance on sausalito and buying a piece of property and putting money into our city and creating a single family dwelling unit where none exists now and where the building sounds like it's going to fall down soon so while I appreciate the technical details I do think you know the the raft of existing conditions non-conformities and so forth would you know, would, I mean, the word exempt isn't the right word, but since the structure's already there, the issue to me is, is there a prohibition against merging the units. And since there is none, it's hard to imagine that the code would have contemplated a situation where you wouldn't let somebody improve a building as proposed because |
| 00:49:18.78 | Andrew Junius | Right. |
| 00:49:22.45 | Andrew Junius | with it. |
| 00:49:30.32 | Andrew Junius | it just the two the two policies I don't see meshing as you do. So I'm prepared to make a motion and I'm going to move to approve as proposed. |
| 00:49:41.17 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I had the exact same feedback and reaction as Commissioner Marlott. I think 10.44330 is incredibly clear on where it stands with dwelling units in a two-family zoning district. The intent of that section is to ensure that we don't lose Thank you. Thank you. where there are existing two units into one, and to prevent a two-unit conversion going down into single family, even though to assistant planner Nelson's point, it's not that they can't have a single family in a R2 district, but to go from a two-family to a single family with the code being quite clear, it's objective, our new favorite thing. So I'm having a hard time as well. I don't know if I'm yet prepared. Of course, there are a lot, to your point, Vice Chair, there are a lot of issues with this lot. And I think it is unfortunately in terrible shape and something needs to be done. But the code is quite clear. So, you know, it's just the prerogative of the commission to disagree with staff's interpretation. I think respectfully I disagree with staff's interpretation. I think 10.44 upholds here. I don't think the nonconformity, in my opinion, outweighs a very straightforward piece of code. So I am not yet ready to approve but I'm definitely looking for more discussion from members of the Commission. Of course with one recusal we're at four. Again. And... |
| 00:51:23.97 | David Marlatt | And I would just add to |
| 00:51:25.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:51:25.66 | Nastassya Saad | I ask you just kindly to speak into the microphone. |
| 00:51:27.26 | David Marlatt | I would just add to Commissioner Junius' points. I'm also sympathetic with how small the project is, how the opportunity to improve real estate for the owners as well as the whole city presents itself. But what we're describing as exceptions or letting things slide sounds like the basis for a successful variance. And I hate the concept. I really don't like to suggest variances for people because they're cumbersome and they're expensive. But it seems to me that, unless I hear otherwise, I'm certainly open to suggestions, to get around the 10.44.330 requirement is a variance. And this particular project, due to the extremely substandard lot and other conditions, sounds like a good candidate for variance. I just don't see how we simply approve it. And I can tell you from professional experience in Sausalito with two projects which are not very far from this project, the owners did want to merge the secondary unit into the primary unit and they were prevented from doing that by staff at the time for the very logic that the elimination of a unit is not acceptable for the code. I think that's the purpose of this section. |
| 00:52:48.09 | Andrew Junius | Um, all good points. Um, and in response, I would say that while 10.4, 4.3, three, zero would discourage this. this merger of the units, it doesn't prohibit, I don't think it prohibits it. I mean, and the variance, I do think that there's no question that there's, grounds for a variance, but I've always been a little concerned when variances start to approach things like FARs that really change the, essentially change the zoning. So I'm still kind of convinced that the reason why the staff is proposing this is because there is no prohibition from the merger. It's, it's obviously the, the code is clear that it is discouraged, but this is a unique situation. I'm not familiar with the precedent that, that, um, commissioner Marlott's referring to, um, honestly, there is no precedent in land use law. Every lot is different. Every case is different. We look at the facts and the rules and we make a decision. So I really do think we can get this across the finish line without having to complicate it with a with a variance application that would be really unfortunate to send this back and a lot more paperwork to come back to basically do the same thing so I Hope we can figure this out. |
| 00:54:23.30 | David Marlatt | Yeah, me too. No, it really pains me to do this. But I also have to think, are we effectively neutering this section of the code for future projects, which may not have such extenuating circumstances as this one, and effectively we're setting a precedent that it's okay to go beyond a 0.65. It's okay to merge units and make a Mac mansion on your lot lot and I know that's not what's going on here but you know in a variance with findings we go on record saying very specifically here is the law here's how this could not apply and here's what we decided right I just feel like we don't have that but we should not you know afford ourselves that kind of discretion |
| 00:55:04.48 | Nastassya Saad | May I just, Sergio, Attorney Rudin has popped up. Did you have something you wanted to comment on? |
| 00:55:12.12 | Attorney Rudin | I think I'll weigh in on the issue of the variants. assuming that we do not reach a resolution here on the dais. I'm just keenly paying attention to the conversation at this point. |
| 00:55:27.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. We appreciate that. Any other comments? I mean, we can also attempt to make a motion. Commissioner Moore, do you have Any other feedback based on the conversation that you've heard here? |
| 00:55:44.84 | Fred Moore | do not. |
| 00:55:45.23 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay, vice chair. |
| 00:55:48.27 | Andrew Junius | Can I ask, how big is the total property with both units? |
| 00:55:52.45 | Nastassya Saad | I believe it's 1,173. |
| 00:55:55.00 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:55:55.42 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. That's the lot. Yeah. The building's less. |
| 00:55:57.55 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:55:58.70 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:55:58.73 | Nastassya Saad | that. |
| 00:55:58.97 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:55:59.56 | Andrew Junius | But the total square footage of the merged homes, of the merged units, approximately, |
| 00:56:04.45 | David Marlatt | 1,012. |
| 00:56:05.89 | Andrew Junius | So 1,012 feet, that's 1,000 square feet. So there's two 500 square foot tiny studios that are going to be merged into a tiny house. Certainly not going to create a precedent for a McMansion. Certainly going to create one dwelling unit where none exist now. I just think I've just don't like forcing people. when there's a way not to and I guess we agree we disagree on the code application and the discretion that this Commission have has but I do believe that that this is not a loss of a unit, this is a gain of a unit, and I really think it's unfortunate if we're gonna. send them back for variance paperwork that, you know, frankly, again, may or may that, you know, variances. Um, I'm a little worried that, that this isn't maybe not, opportunity for a variance i'd have to i haven't thought really about the the issues but i again i'm a little nervous about a variance for an far for example and if this would god forbid take us going to the city council to change the code for something like this that would be absurd so um we're either we're sending i i don't know i i think it's unfortunate that we might be sending these people away and and telling them you know thanks for trying to invest in sausalito. We know you thought you could do the right thing and build a home, but instead we're going to force you to spend money on repairing two substandard, you know, dwelling units or take a chance on a variance that I don't know if that's even possible. |
| 00:57:32.91 | Nastassya Saad | I don't disagree with you. I think we've seen variances on FAR recently, and we're not. keen on them. They are tough. Variances are tough. They should be tough. |
| 00:57:40.86 | Unknown | They are. |
| 00:57:41.36 | Andrew Junius | . |
| 00:57:41.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:57:41.47 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:57:48.16 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask a question of an assistant planner, Nelson, if you know? Do we know when the home was last occupied? Because it is not in good shape. Do we know how long ago there were potential occupants in that building? And were there two? Were each unit filled? |
| 00:58:10.54 | Katie Nelson | I'm not entirely certain the owner may have a better idea and be able to address that. I know it was in a trust and an estate for many, many years. The husband had passed away and the wife and then there was like an executor for several decades. I don't know about the occupancy, though. |
| 00:58:28.16 | Nastassya Saad | OK, thank you. Appreciate that. Oh, could one of you come approach the dais? And I'm going to ask you, you're a tall gentleman. Could you just speak into the, bend slightly to speak into the microphone so Commissioner Moore and the public can hear you? |
| 00:58:42.33 | Unknown | The prior owner lived upstairs and his son lived downstairs and they lived there till September and then they moved to Wisconsin. |
| 00:58:51.04 | Nastassya Saad | OK. |
| 00:58:51.88 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:58:51.97 | Nastassya Saad | I appreciate that, thank you. Thank you. So just for the record, in case anyone didn't hear, there were two occupants living in the home as a single family. Okay, I'm gonna go on record saying that I agree with 10.44330 as a concept, but I actually am based on this discussion, even though this code is clear and we do not want to encourage reduction of housing units. Of course, we just passed our housing element and we do have goals to meet, but I think based on the constraints, I'm gonna, I think i will lean towards a yes here if there's a motion to approve but i do think respectfully of our code 10.44330 is is very clear that it intends to keep the units and not to merge two into one but but based on the size of an incredibly substandard lot, I think I'm going to acquiesce in the interest of our applicant and a good project before us. I didn't have any other issues if this was any other project, the design, the landscape. I can make all the rest of the findings. So with that, I'll throw that out there. If anyone wants to go ahead and make a motion. I had a motion on the floor that did not get set. Oh, thank you. Can you just kindly repeat your motion? |
| 01:00:14.07 | Andrew Junius | I had a motion on the floor that did not get set. i'll be repeating the motion to approve the project as proposed by staff |
| 01:00:22.27 | Nastassya Saad | Do we have a second? I'll second it. OK, if no other motions or discussions, I'll look to Director Phipps, please. |
| 01:00:31.78 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Please let the record show Commissioner Luxenberg has stepped out. Commissioner Merlot? No. Commissioner Moore? |
| 01:00:38.11 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 01:00:38.38 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:00:38.48 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:00:41.39 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:00:41.74 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:00:42.41 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Assad. Yes. |
| 01:00:44.46 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Oh, shit. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we will now move on to... New 6B, which is 2015 Bridgeway, that's original 6B. Thank you. We have senior planner, Matthew Mandich. This is for a conditional use permit and zoning permit. If we can just give a second for Commissioner Luxembourg to come back and join us. |
| 01:01:17.06 | Director Phipps | Well, Commissioner Luxenberg gets comfortable returning back to the chamber. Just wanna confirm before we get covered on this, |
| 01:01:19.12 | Nastassya Saad | comfortable. |
| 01:01:19.96 | John Flynn | RETURNING BACK. before we get covered on this. |
| 01:01:25.90 | Director Phipps | with Vice Chair Junius, that you were able to review the record in connection with the last meeting and are able to make a vote on the item tonight. |
| 01:01:34.27 | Andrew Junius | I did in fact review the entire video of the May 15th hearing, review the materials, and I'm prepared to move forward tonight. |
| 01:01:36.03 | Unknown | of the May 15th hearing. |
| 01:01:42.07 | Director Phipps | Very good. Thank you. I know there's a lot of |
| 01:01:44.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:01:45.90 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry, there's some background noise, and I'm not sure if that's commission or... more or in the chambers? Okay, well, I'm gonna turn it over to you. Thank you. All right. |
| 01:01:52.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:52.75 | Matthew Mandich | about that. Thank you. All right, thank you chair very much. Yes, so the item before you tonight is a cup and a zoning permit as the lot line adjustment was approved at the last hearing on May 14th. So we'll just jump right in next slide please. So location to familiarize everyone with the lot again. These are two adjacent identical 6000 square foot lots on the corner of Bridgeway and Olive located in the CN one zoning district, which is our neighborhood commercial district. You can see the existing building right here in this L shape, which spans both lots of record across from the Marin ship and machine shop, Bay model right there, and then 711 as well. Next slide, please. So here's a photo from the street of the existing structure. You see the parking lot here, surface parking, some covered parking spaces here. It comprised of three total stories. And there actually originally was a pool over here when this was an apartment building. Next slide, please. So project summary for today is a conversion of an existing three-story office building into a 12-unit multifamily residential building with two affordable low-income units using the provisions of state density bonus law and the Housing Accountability Act. Permit is required or conditional use permit, which is required by the code for seven or more dwelling units above the ground floor and a zoning permit for both the change of use as well as the interior and exterior remodel. There will be no change to the existing envelope of the building, the height setbacks, far building coverage and building envelope all remain the same. A lot line merger to merge the two adjacent identical lots was approved by the Commission at the last hearing on the 14th. Next slide please. So originally built in the 1960s as the Vista Del Mar Apartments, this apartment building was then converted to an office building in 1975 and remained as such until the present day. A full application was submitted by the current applicants to CDD in April of 2021 following SB330 pre-app. That item was ultimately continued due to an issue with gurney access identified by SMFd and the project was ultimately withdrawn however a new sp330 pre-application was submitted to cdd in september of 2024 followed by a full application december of 2024 that application was then deemed complete in april of 25 and scheduled for hearing and just like to remind everyone too that as we just got our amended housing element passed yesterday, this is a or adopted rather. This is a housing element inventory site as you can see the two sides outlined in red here next slide please. So using state density bonus law, that's how we're able to get from 8 to 12. And I'm just going to break that down a little bit for you here. So the CM1 zoning district allows for one unit for every 1,500 square feet. So for the two combined lots of 12,000 square feet, that allows for eight base units. As such, the project is eligible for state density bonus laws. It is over five-unit build. The proposal is for two of those base units, so 25% of the eight base units to be affordable to low income renters. That qualifies the project for a 50% density bonus, which in this case would be half of the eight base units. So that's four units. This does comply with our affordability requirements for residential uses in commercial zones, which require 20% affordable in these mixed use districts. So the total for the project is those eight base units plus the four density bonus units for 12 total units which include the two low-income units in that count. The parking required by the zoning ordinance is 22 spaces. However, state density bonus laws are also for a deduction on this, 1.5 spaces for two bedroom units and one space for one bedroom or studio units that means a requirement of 16 spaces for this project however the proposal is providing 17 spaces as well as a number of bike parking spots the applicants are using one of the three concessions afforded to them for the affordability component they're providing and one of those three concessions is to request that the ground floor be used for residential uses which is typically prohibited in the cm1 zoning district next slide please Here's a breakdown of the zoning table. Won't spend a ton of time on this, but I just want to point out that we are in compliance here. There's some legal nonconforming issues here. So the setbacks building was built in the 1960s. It has some noncompliant setbacks. However, the building envelope and those setbacks will not be changed. The height will not be changed either. Building coverage is compliant. However, the floor area is over the allowance. But however, again, this is illegal, non-conforming, and the floor area will not change at all. All the existing floor will be converted from office space to residential. And then the parking we just covered in the last slide. 22 spaces would be required by the code. There are currently 21 on the lot, and the applicants will be providing 17 spaces. Next slide, please. So just want to go over some of these issues that arose at the last hearing concerning requirements for affordable units in our municipal code. I know these are kind of hard to read up here right now, but we have requirements for affordable units that appear in several sections of our code. One is in the density bonus section, inclusionary housing, as well as our residential units and commercial zones right there. I just want to point out that these code sections have a lot of language in them that could be considered subjective rather than objective. So they do not really apply to this project, which is why they weren't brought in at the last hearing. HHA defines objective as involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official. All three of these sections have references to a community development director decision, a city decision, or a director approval. So these again are all examples of where a public official would need to weigh in on some of these. So could not be considered objective. Continuing on with that definition of objective in the HHA, these sections need to be uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. Again, there is a number of sentences in here that require some, let's say, subjective interpretation, trying to understand, for example, an equal dispersal of units. If you have three different unit sizes, a studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom, but only two affordable units, how do you determine what the correct mix of those units is? There's not a clear uniform benchmark knowable by both the development proponent and the public official. So there's some issues with that language that appear. We also have some contradictions in the language requiring that they be the same in density bonus and inclusionary. However, when it's talking about residential commercial, which this project is specifically, it says affordable units may be permitted to be smaller in aggregate size and different interior finishes. And again, within reason, another very subjective piece of language there. So that's why these were not brought in. So in addition to that, if the city were to determine that the project is out of compliance with Thank you. piece of language there. So that's why these were not brought in. So in addition to that, if the city were to determine that the project is out of compliance with these code sections on inclusionary housing, once the application was deemed complete, we need to let the application, the applicant know in writing 30 days, within 30 days of that completion date, that there were these inconsistencies and issues. Staff did not do that because they did not find these the project to be inconsistent. However, if the city were to somehow determine which might not be in its best interest that these pieces of code do apply to this project, the applicant does reserve a number of waivers and additional concessions that they could apply if needed next slide please. So just going to walk you through the floor plans here. You can see the existing floor plan on the left with the parking lot covered parking spaces and the two office units here, which will be converted to two units of housing right here below. One of those will be the affordable unit, which is actually the larger of the two units on the ground floor spaces going down from 21 to 17 here. Next slide, please. Again, looking at existing proposals, we can see extremely similar, no change of the footprint at all. We're just moving a lot of interior walls around, changing out windows and doors to create units from what were originally office spaces. And we have our second affordable unit up here, which is a one bedroom there. on the second floor. Next slide, please. And third floor again, same thing. Mix of one and two bedroom units up here exactly mirrors the existing office compound. Next slide, please. So just an example of the elevations, just trying to highlight two of those here to see that we're really experiencing very little change of those elevations. There's a few more window openings being added. You can see some aesthetic and accessibility improvements here to the structure, but really no significant large changes to the elevations. Next slide, please. Here's some renderings as well of the project, which the applicant will probably show as well as you can see some of the materials being used here. Moving to, you know, a whole different aesthetic look, which I think we can all agree is probably a better appearance than what's presented today at the abandoned office building. Next slide, please. So before moving on to my recommendation, just wanted to gently remind commissioners again that this is a Housing Accountability Act project. It's a California state law that limits local government's ability to deny, reduce the density, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with our favorite word, objective local development standards, and contribute to meeting housing needs. uh commission cannot deny a project on any subjective criteria such as view impacts and can only deny finding we can only deny findings can be made specifically. objective and written health and safety standards, so that would be the only grounds for denial cannot impose conditions on the project. That would reduce the project density or render the project in feasible so just. gentle reminder to the Commission that this is what's required for this particular project next slide please. So ultimately staff recommends the planning commission approve this application for the office conversion for conditional use permit and zoning permits that finds that the proposed project is in conformance with the required findings and is consistent with objective local development standards and the general plan that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to take any questions, thank you. |
| 01:12:00.96 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Matthew, we appreciate it. Appreciate hearing it again. Thank you for answering a lot of questions ahead of time as well. Going to open it to the commissioners for questions. Just another gentle reminder that this is a conditional use permit and zoning permit because I know there's a lot going on here, but we are not here for design review. So let's just keep our questions in line. Commissioner Luxembourg, do you have questions for staff? No questions. Thank you. Commissioner Marlowe. |
| 01:12:30.96 | David Marlatt | Yeah, one question, just more of a clarification. I know you've said this and it's in the report, but I think it's so important that the record is clear. All of the discussion concerning the inclusionary housing and so forth, the sections 10.40.130H and 10.44.190, as you've, and I think as the city attorney has explained, all of that discussion is effectively, in this specific case, moot. |
| 01:13:04.16 | Matthew Mandich | That's correct. |
| 01:13:04.17 | David Marlatt | That's correct. Because, in fact, the city did not indicate in writing, as you said in the staff report. And I think it's very important that we establish for future applications, this is our first low-income housing application, I think, in years or decades or ever. I'm not sure. It's been a while. That for future applicants, the record is clear that no concessions with respect to those sections have been requested and none are being granted specifically. |
| 01:13:20.03 | Matthew Mandich | It's been a while. |
| 01:13:30.21 | Matthew Mandich | here. That is correct, yes. Thank you. |
| 01:13:34.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:13:34.14 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:13:34.18 | Nastassya Saad | I just want to make that crystal clear. I appreciate that. Thank you. Commissioner Moore, any questions for staff? |
| 01:13:42.55 | Fred Moore | I have no questions from Anthony. |
| 01:13:44.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Vice Chair. I do have no questions. Thank you, Matthew. |
| 01:13:50.29 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you, commissioners. |
| 01:13:51.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, we will now turn it over to the applicant. If I can kindly ask you to approach the microphone and state your name for the record. Same drill as last time. You will have 15 minutes for your presentation. If the commission stops you at any time, that won't count against your time, and you're more than welcome to leave some time for rebuttal after public comment. So welcome back. |
| 01:14:12.11 | Sean Bailey | Thank you. Thank you. For anyone who wasn't here a couple weeks ago, I'm Sean Bailey, I'm the project architect. We've got our own ownership and design team here again as well. We did work with Matthew to clean up the minor inconsistencies on the drawings and the density bonus report. And I think what we're gonna do tonight |
| 01:14:32.50 | Nastassya Saad | Terribly sorry. May I ask you just to speak into the microphone? Thank you. |
| 01:14:34.45 | Sean Bailey | into the microphone. Um, we don't think it's beneficial to present the whole thing again. I think Matthew did a good job, but we're here for any questions that may come up. So, uh, we're going to leave it at that. |
| 01:14:44.06 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. You've got 14 minutes and 28 seconds for rebuttal. If you could just hang on, I'm going to actually open it up to the Commission for questions. Commissioner Marlott, do you have any questions for the applicant? |
| 01:14:58.40 | David Marlatt | Well, one question. Is there a projected start date? Or when will we have the pleasure of having this project complete? |
| 01:15:08.49 | Sean Bailey | Yeah, I it's somewhat hard to answer that given uncertainties of getting through this step of the planning. If I had to project if we got through the building permit, we assume will be a four to six month process to get through that. I know the owner is anxious to get started as soon as possible. |
| 01:15:27.48 | David Marlatt | OK, thank you. That was a gist of my question, whether you intended to just move right through as quickly as possible, because |
| 01:15:33.95 | Sean Bailey | Yeah, that's definitely the intention. |
| 01:15:36.91 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Moore, do you have questions for the applicant? |
| 01:15:41.97 | Fred Moore | No, I do not. Thank you. |
| 01:15:43.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:15:46.43 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:15:46.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No questions. |
| 01:15:47.49 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. I too have no questions. Thank you very much. We will now open this up for public comment. Director Phipps, can you please give some instructions for public comment? |
| 01:16:00.50 | Director Phipps | Yes, public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to raise your hand from the Zoom application and you're joining from a phone, press star nine. I'm going to go back to the speaker card that I called earlier. John Flynn. Welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:16:21.86 | John Flynn | Hi, nice to meet you all. John Flynn. I live here in Sausalito with my wife and nine month old. Was troubled to read a couple of months ago, an article in SF Chronicle about how we as a community were taking active measures to block low income housing. And just wanted to share that we as a family are think that we as a community should be building low income housing in Sausalito. It would be a great benefit to the community. So I don't know a lot about this specific project, but I'm a big advocate for low income housing here in Sausalito. Thank you very much. |
| 01:16:59.58 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Flynn. That is it for speaker cards received in connection with this item. I'm going to look to the Zoom application for raised hands and interested speakers. And I am seeing none, Chair. Back to you. |
| 01:17:12.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Phipps. I am going to turn it back to the applicant. I think we had 14 minutes and 29 seconds. If you'd like to use any of your time for futile, just for the record, applicant is denying that right. So we will close that portion of the public hearing. Thank you to staff, thank you to the applicant, and bring it back up to the dais. As a point of privilege, I'm going to turn it to Vice Chair, who didn't get to speak last time, so I'll have him kick us off here. |
| 01:17:43.32 | Andrew Junius | Appreciate that, Chair. Thank you. And I do want to thank you to the applicant and the Commission for continuing to get this through with my absence last week. First off, I want to say thank you to the staff for the further clarification of the objective situation, the objective standard that the city is being held to with respect to our unit mix requirements and the three different sections that Matthew put up there. I thought that really drove the point home. Clearly, I watched the entire video from the last hearing. There was no question that there was a spirited debate about that specific issue. I understand there's likely still some disagreement, but I do certainly agree with the city staff that there's no way that those provisions meet the standard for objective requirements that are in the state laws. I also wanna just, before I make a motion here, I just wanna state This is not an affordable housing project. This is a housing project. I would call it a market rate housing project. It's a housing project. that is complying with state law and local law with respect to dedicating a few units on site. So again, I also applaud the applicant for bringing this forward. This has been a long time coming. I wish this would have happened a lot sooner, but it's a very good project. I hope it can move forward quickly, and I would like to move to approve as originally proposed by the applicant and the staff. |
| 01:19:20.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for getting us started. Commissioner Luxembourg. Thank you. |
| 01:19:25.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm gonna pass, if we could pass these down and take one. |
| 01:19:31.07 | Nastassya Saad | and also just ask that you speak into your microphone. |
| 01:19:33.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You can also pass one over to Matthew and Brandon. I have an electronic file if you want to show it on the screen that I can email you, but I didn't know how to do that. So I have it to email to whatever computer is there, but, or I can just talk to it. |
| 01:19:54.42 | Nastassya Saad | I don't mean to interrupt you, but because this is not on the record or part of the agenda, can I just look to Director Phipps or to Sergio? Is this an... Is this acceptable to have a Passed out paper. |
| 01:20:08.46 | Attorney Rudin | I mean, yes, we have to make sure it's available to the public and the applicant. And additionally, you're going to have to reopen the public hearing to provide the applicant an opportunity to respond to anything being presented by a commissioner to the commission. |
| 01:20:19.56 | Nastassya Saad | Is that something you wish to proceed with? Because I'd prefer if you just spoke your comments and we did not keep this. |
| 01:20:25.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can just describe what's on the piece of paper. Sergio, this is what you have this, because I sent this to you. This is what I sent you right after the last meeting. So I will just describe this in a |
| 01:20:38.58 | Nastassya Saad | I'm just for the sake of the record, I'm gonna ask for the papers back, and I think Commissioner Luxembourg can definitely describe his intent here, but I don't wanna have to go through the whole thing. |
| 01:20:50.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will just describe it in words rather than pictures, but pictures are a lot easier, but I will go from there. First of all, I'm in favor of housing. I'm in favor of this project. I raised a very specific issue last time. And I'm going to read from my comments because I'm going to quote state statutes, and I don't want to get any of the numbers incorrect. The applicant in the revised density bonus statement is selectively reciting just portions of state statutes in the Sausalito Municipal Code. Just because the applicant says the same thing repeatedly doesn't make it true. I will identify the issues to the statements made by the applicants in the application that are issued. First of all, 1040-130 is an objective design standard. The sheet I was passing out shows that Um, that the number of market rate units have eight two-bedroom units which is 80 percent there is one one-bedroom unit which is 10 percent uh there's one studio which is 10 percent the affordable units two bedrooms there is zero percent uh and required number of units to be equivalent would be 1.6 80 times two uh the one bedrooms there's one that's 50 percent the required is 0.2 and studio one is 50 percent and the requirement is 0.2 clearly they have zero two bedroom and clearly the objective standard says there's 80 clearly the number of bedrooms per the objective standard is not met. That's all that Simply Chart provides. Also, the chart provides the following information. It says that there are 10 market units and 2 affordable units for a total of 12 units, and the market is 83% of the total. affordable is 17 percent of the total the square foot of the market units is 9 868 square feet and that's 88 percent of the total the affordable is only 1403 square feet which is 10 which is 12 percent of the total so significantly less for the affordable units which will get to one of the items they mentioned in their standards. I do not understand the logic of that removal. So basically, there's no affordable housing that meets the bedroom mix in this project. I do not understand the logic that removal of affordable housing could be a concession or a waiver. The affordable housing is the basis for granting the density bonus. If you eliminate the affordable housing via waiver or concession, then there's no basis for the density bonus. Although, as quoted in the density bonus document the applicant submitted, SMC 1044190C3 allows for a smaller aggregate size of residential and commercial zone. And as indicated, they've already done that. It does not say that the bedroom unit mix can be reduced. The applicant is already providing the smaller of the one bedroom units to be the affordable unit. The affordable units represent 20% of the unit count, but they only represent 12% of the total square foot as in that chart that I described verbally. So the applicant is already taking advantage of the substantially reduced aggregate size in the commercial zone. But this does not alleviate them from providing the proper bedroom mix, which is, again, an objective standard. Next, the city's general plan housing element includes the following policies. Policy H4.1, Fair Access to Housing. Ensure that individuals and families at all income levels pursue housing in Sausalito have access to safe and decent housing and do experience do not experience discrimination on the basis of any arbitrary factors including those identified in the fair housing act policy h 44, female headed households with children in large family housing support families and single heads of household with children by encouraging the development of large rental and ownership housing units for families with children. The state requires fair housing. Segregating both affordable units in this project to the back corner of the project, behind the elevator, is neither fair nor appropriate. Further, it is not meeting the requisite bedroom mix, and it discriminates against families. And so I want to give you an example of why I believe this to be an issue. To provide an example of this, of how this violates state statutes, let's say you have four four-person families who apply to rent units in this complex once it's completed. Two of the families can afford the market rate units and are accepted. Two of the families are both low-income. However, these families are not accepted to live in the studio in the one-bedroom apartment due to crowding pursuant to California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, that's DFEH formula, known as two plus one, which permits two people to occupy each bedroom and one additional person in the living space. So based on that standard, let's say the applicant rejects the applications of the two four-person families of four since the applicant thinks that they would overcrowd the affordable units, and they are turned away from this complex. But the applicant accepts the other families for the market rate units. This is discrimination against these families and a clear violation of the fair housing laws. If the applicant, worried about a discrimination complaint, instead places those families into those units. |
| 01:26:51.23 | Nastassya Saad | um, |
| 01:27:08.85 | Nastassya Saad | You may feel a little. I hate to interrupt you, but I don't want to get into any form of hypothetical. So I think your point is- |
| 01:27:15.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I'll continue on. Anyways, if you put those into those units, they will have safety and health issues. The plan submitted to the Planning Commission at our May 14, 2025 meeting as part of the completed application that we keep talking about. And I want to ask staff in the future, if there's a 30-day window, we need to see it within the 30- window uh if if that's going to be an issue because if there's an error then that's a problem so i just identify that |
| 01:27:48.09 | Nastassya Saad | And Commissioner Luxembourg, I hate to interrupt you again, but |
| 01:27:48.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:27:51.49 | Nastassya Saad | Attorney Rudin has popped on. Can I just look to him to see if he wished to make a comment |
| 01:27:53.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:27:57.87 | Attorney Rudin | Now, Chair Sot, I think you addressed my concern about going into hypotheticals on the record. |
| 01:28:03.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So as part of the application, they had identified the two-bedroom unit 3.4 as affordable. When I asked at the last meeting, and I'm asking now that the applicant provide units 2.3 and 3.4 as the affordable units, as they did on sheet A0.5 in the set of plans that are part of the application that was determined complete rather than allow them to remove the designation of unit 3.4 as affordable as they are suggesting in the revised plan submitted for this evening's hearing long after the completed application. I also note that unit 3.4 was shown as affordable two years ago when we saw this previously. So in summary, I think we should have the applicant maintain 3.4 as an affordable unit, which was what was shown in sheet A0.5 when the application was deemed complete. This should be financially feasible such it was included in the complete application. I think this is a reasonable approach. If that is not possible, given the inequity and discrimination to low-income families based on state statute 65589.5D2, given the health and safety concerns for families occupying the affordable units, we have the option to deny this application. Provision of units 3.4 and 2.3 as affordable units is required by our code. It is consistent with our housing element. It is consistent with state law. Was provided in the applicant's complete application., provides reasonable provision for low-income families, and there is no evidence that it is not economically feasible. It is also morally appropriate, and I would hope that AFNBLMN, LLC, do the right thing and do not segregate the affordable units stuck in back behind the elevator and discriminate against low-income families. Low-income residents in Sausalito deserve the same respect and consideration as everyone else. Therefore, I would like to make an amendment to the motion that we indicate that Unit 3.4 be an affordable unit. Thank you. |
| 01:30:33.55 | Andrew Junius | I'm not going to support that amendment. |
| 01:30:35.65 | Nastassya Saad | we will get into those in a moment. Thank you. |
| 01:30:40.35 | Attorney Rudin | And Commissioner Saad, if I may interject, for the record, the applicant in their revised density bonus report on page six states the following to the extent the city takes the position that any provision of the city municipal code including but not limited to the sections quoted above which were the sections just discussed are objective and require the applicant to provide a different size location or bedroom cap for the affordable units, the applicant will utilize an incentive concession to allow the unit types identified on the plan set. Um, Specifically, Unit 1-1, the larger of the two studios on the first floor, ground floor, and Unit 2-3, a one-bedroom unit on the second floor, as authorized by both the City's Municipal Code and Density Bonus Law. This concession would provide identifiable and actual cost reductions to the applicant to provide for affordable housing costs. As a matter of law, I do not think that the City can deny that request without making the findings required by Density Bonus Law. which I do not think would be easy for the Planning Commission to make. |
| 01:31:39.00 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Attorney Rudin. um, Commissioner Marlott, and I'm going to ask just respectfully for the committee to keep comments to what's in front of us, which is our conditional use permit, the zoning permit, and I want to avoid any form of hypothetical conversation or projection of what is affordable or not affordable to our applicants. Thank you. |
| 01:32:05.23 | David Marlatt | Of course. |
| 01:32:05.61 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:32:05.65 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Well, while I think on this specific project, because the city, the staff, did not indicate that the project was out of compliance within that 30-day window, I think in this specific project and also due to the factors that the city attorney has brought to us, you know, the train has left the station a little bit for this particular one. But I do think that the discussion is incredibly important because we have projects coming down the pike. We hope we do it better. And establishing some standards for the benefit of low-income families is important to have a go on public record. Eventually, for a future meeting on the agenda agenda to try to tighten up some of these regulations. There are inconsistencies that have been identified so that for future applications they understand that when we have low-income housing introduced into our projects, we have certain expectations to treat those families with the respect that they deserve. So I think it's very important. I think that this goes into the minutes is important, the debate is important. I think we're kind of powerless personally to alter this specific project, but I think it brings to light particularly Commissioner Luxembourg's comment, which I wholeheartedly agree with, that there needs to be some means by which staff brings this to the commission within that 30-day window to identify deficiencies because basically our hands are tied before we ever see the project So I hope we can take sort of a lesson from this and improve the municipal code, improve our processes. We may not have the legal footing to deny this specific project. But I think it's important. I think it's morally important, too, for the applicants. Thank you. |
| 01:34:02.63 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Marlott. Commissioner Moore. Thank you. |
| 01:34:08.45 | Fred Moore | Can you hear me okay this way? |
| 01:34:08.63 | Nastassya Saad | Can you hear me? Thank you. |
| 01:34:10.00 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:34:10.02 | Nastassya Saad | We can, yes. |
| 01:34:12.35 | Fred Moore | Well, my understanding is Commissioner Junius has a motion on the floor so I like to second that motion to begin with. I appreciate Commissioner Luxenberg's very thorough analysis. However, I have a I'm more inclined to support staff in their analysis. I believe the applicant was very clear that the reference to the other unit was a mistake, and they corrected that with the new plans. And having the affordable units as 2.3 and 1.1, I don't come to the same conclusion that the location of the affordable unit 1.1 is any type of discrimination against low income housing. I work with multiple affordable housing developers and the location of market rate units and affordable units is subjective to the planning, the cost associated with it. And it's not related to any type of illegal discrimination. I don't believe this location falls in that category. So I'm supportive of the project as submitted and the staff's recommendations. |
| 01:35:28.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Moore. I just want the record to show that we do have a motion from Commissioner Junius and a second from Commissioner Moore. We'll continue the discussion, but I just want to make sure we keep that in check. Vice Chair. |
| 01:35:44.30 | Andrew Junius | So again, this is a market rate project that complies with local codes, complies with state law, provides the required below market rate units. It's not a project that's going to solve Sausalito's housing project. |
| 01:36:03.91 | Andrew Junius | You know, I mean, I find the comments about discrimination at this hearing somewhat absurd. A housing project doesn't discriminate against anybody. This project is compliant with state law. The applicant is before us simply asking us to do what state law requires of us. And I just, I find it just bizarre that somebody, that we're, are we sitting in moral judgment on applicants these days, that's just obscene to be implying that if the applicant doesn't agree with certain commission points of view with respect to allocation of below market rate units, that there's a moral issue involved. I just, I'm stunned, and I'd like to just get this over with. |
| 01:36:56.74 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. I'm going to go ahead and support the motion on the floor, as is, with a second from Commissioner Moore. I do really appreciate the conversation and the spirit and the intent. I think I'd also really like to thank staff and Attorney Rudin because we did have some open questions that we struggled with last time and I was one of the reasons that we did continue this item after a discussion with Commissioner Luxembourg. And I think staff and legal has made it now explicitly clear on how to proceed. So thank you to the applicant for bearing with that process, making sure we had our due diligence and are comfortable up here. Completely agree it's not affordable housing project there's one coming in quarter madera that's a hundred percent affordable that's a that's a real affordable housing project this is still a very important project very important for sausalito as someone who is on the housing element uh group very important i think everyone up here can speak to the fact that we appreciate the units. This is a conditional use permit and a zoning permit, and I'm very happy to support that now after staff and legal's analysis. So with that, I am Director Pipps. |
| 01:37:43.87 | Andrew Junius | There's one. |
| 01:38:16.70 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Just want to call out, I believe there was a modified motion presented in response to Commissioner Junius' initial motion, and I think based on procedures, we would hear the modified motion first. |
| 01:38:28.37 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. there was no second |
| 01:38:30.43 | Director Phipps | I was going to say, and I don't believe we received a second. So just to clarify, I think based on lack of second, we can now. There's only one motion. You hear the first one. |
| 01:38:32.80 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:38:36.61 | Attorney Rudin | There's only one motion. |
| 01:38:38.94 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:38:38.95 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you. Thank you for checking, Director Phipps. So with that, I'd like to turn it to you, Director Phipps, actually. Can we take roll in the motion? |
| 01:38:39.12 | Director Phipps | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:38:47.68 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:38:55.76 | Director Phipps | No. Commissioner Merlin. Yes. |
| 01:39:01.26 | Fred Moore | Yes, I would. I'm voting yes on the motion and supporting the resolution. After the vote, I'd like to have one comment about the resolution modification suggestion. |
| 01:39:08.64 | Nastassya Saad | I'm just going to stop you from. Thank you. |
| 01:39:11.81 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:39:11.98 | Nastassya Saad | THANK YOU. |
| 01:39:12.05 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:39:12.06 | Director Phipps | place. Chair Genius. Yes. Chair Assad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 01:39:14.44 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you very much to the applicant and to staff. And I believe we are at adjournment. Point of privilege, Commissioner Moore, did you have, we can't discuss the item that we've just closed. at this point. |
| 01:39:37.76 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:39:37.78 | Nastassya Saad | So I- |
| 01:39:37.80 | Fred Moore | So I- Thank you. Thank you. Well, okay, well, maybe I can't say anything again. |
| 01:39:44.43 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, it's in relation if you want to send any kind of follow up correspondence to staff or myself, but I'm going to just urge you to not speak on the motion that has just occurred or the item that we've just closed. Okay. |
| 01:40:01.02 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 01:40:01.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:40:01.40 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 01:40:01.56 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. OK, with that, adjournment. |
| 01:40:01.61 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 01:40:06.69 | Nastassya Saad | Everybody? Somebody? Adjourned. Okay, I'm calling it. |
| 01:40:11.65 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, applicants. Thank you, members. |
Robert Kahn — Against: Representing his mother who lives next door. Stated that the applicant reneged on a promise for 24-hour on-site staff, and that staff removed a prior condition for at least phone availability. Asked the commission to reinstate the 24-hour staffing condition. ▶ 📄
Adrian Brinton — In Favor: Supported the project, arguing outdoor use until 10 p.m. is reasonable for a commercial area and that the developer has a good track record in Carmel. Warned that delays impose financial burdens and weaken the incoming business. ▶ 📄