| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:08.06 | Nastassya Saad | I'd like to welcome everybody to the planning commission meeting for Wednesday, December 10th. The time is 6.32. Thank you to everyone who's here and in person and on Zoom. Assistant City Manager Phipps, can you please call us to order? |
| 00:00:25.09 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Absolutely, Chair, and good evening to you, Vice Chair, Planning Commissioner, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. And with that, I will call roll. Commissioner Moore. you |
| 00:00:45.16 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:00:45.17 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:00:45.19 | David Marlatt | I don't. |
| 00:00:45.85 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. |
| 00:00:47.33 | David Marlatt | present. |
| 00:00:48.04 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Present. Vice Chair Junius. Present. Chair Assange. |
| 00:00:53.07 | David Marlatt | you |
| 00:00:53.09 | Nastassya Saad | Here? |
| 00:00:53.90 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Okay, all are here. We have quorum. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:00:56.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Item number two is the approval of the agenda. |
| 00:01:01.30 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | So moved. |
| 00:01:02.10 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Is there a second? |
| 00:01:03.97 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Second. |
| 00:01:04.48 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:01:04.90 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:01:07.48 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:01:08.90 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Merlin. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:01:14.28 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Item number three this evening are for public comments on items that are not on the agenda. Assistant City Manager Phipps. Can you look to the audience for me? |
| 00:01:27.11 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Absolutely. This is the time for the commission to hear from citizens regarding matters not on the agenda. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker unless modified by the chair, of course. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right. I think this evening I'll just call folks directly from the chamber and call them directly from the Zoom application. As a reminder... Please raise your hand in the Zoom application if you'd like to be called upon. And to raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. We'll make sure to notify you when your time has elapsed. We'll also be tracking it. Thank you very much. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:02:08.79 | Unknown | Um, |
| 00:02:09.72 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Well, excuse me, I'll look to the chamber for any raised hands and interested speakers. The matter's not on the agenda. I am seeing none. I'm gonna look to the Zoom application next. Looking for any raised hands and I'll give the public an opportunity Seeing none, Chair. Back to you. |
| 00:02:29.22 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Item number four are the approval of the Planning Commission minutes. We have one set of minutes for A from November 12th. Are there any comments or notes? |
| 00:02:41.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:02:41.84 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:02:41.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | . |
| 00:02:41.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:02:42.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Luxembourg? Yes. On page four, line 24, it refers to me as Chair Luxembourg, and it should be Commissioner Luxembourg if we can make that amendment. |
| 00:02:54.10 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much with your eagle eyes. Anything else? Is there a motion? With the amendment? |
| 00:03:04.32 | David Marlatt | I can do it. |
| 00:03:04.95 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Assistant City Manager. |
| 00:03:08.00 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Merlant. |
| 00:03:11.33 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:03:11.41 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:03:12.03 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner. |
| 00:03:12.46 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Luxembourg. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Assad. |
| 00:03:16.56 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:03:17.01 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | you Motion passes. |
| 00:03:18.45 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Item number five are communications. Assistant City Manager, any communications from staff? |
| 00:03:24.54 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yes, we have one communication item from staff this evening. Thank you very much, Chair, for the opportunity. As you may have observed, the City Council recently introduced by title and waived the first reading of Ordinance 14-2025 regarding the adoption of a new Title 10A. That's related to our objective development and design standards. The Council's decision approved Title 10A with Chapter 3 included, which at current will maintain the view sync requirements developed under the odds. The second reading will be scheduled for early 2026, following some software related management and update negotiations with Sophia Collier. So that's it for my updates this evening, and we'll continue to keep you in the loop on those developments. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:04:16.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Let me look to the commission if there are any communications I just have one for the evening. On the 2nd of December, City Council had a session and item 5B was a discussion for an RFP, a request for proposal for the specific plan for housing and preservation of maritime uses, essentially the We're in ship. And I thought that was an interesting discussion. along with some public comment that was noting the involvement of Planning Commission, I holdheartedly agree. So I would love to make a working group for the maritime-specific plan, and I'd like to ask if Commissioner Luxembourg would be interested in joining me on that, actually. |
| 00:05:05.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure, I'd be happy to. |
| 00:05:06.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. So with that, I'd look to staff to just keep a surprise. And we'll look forward to working with you and council as they move forward on the concept of the Maritime Specific Plan in any capacity. I don't have any other communications. So with that, I'll open up communications to public comment, Assistant City Manager Phipps. |
| 00:05:33.80 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Looking to the chamber for raised hands. looking to the Zoom application for raised hands, Seeing none, back to your chair. |
| 00:05:42.59 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We are now gonna move into a study session. This is for a draft proposed universal design and visitability ordinance for the city of Sausalito. Just a note, this is again just a study session, so we're not gonna take any action, but we'll just look forward to feedback and comments from the commission this evening. |
| 00:06:03.05 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thanks very much, Chair. I'm going to just briefly introduce the item, and then I will pass the mic over to Sybil Boutillier, who has really spearheaded the drafting of this proposed ordinance before you this evening. Sybil Boutillier is a leader on age-friendly Sausalito and has been a wonderful member of the community to work with throughout this process. As related to this draft ordinance before you this evening, there is legislative authority for this. California passed Assembly Bill 2787 in 2002, which authorized cities and counties to adopt visitability or universal design ordinances. It does also require HCD to create model ordinances, which we have used as a reference point in drafting what you see before you this evening. this action. is also a reflection of some of the commitments that we've made in our housing element. Specifically, Program 26 directs Age-Friendly Sausalito to report on potential universal design requirements. So this is an implementation of a portion of one of our housing element programs. And again, thank you, Sybil, for spearheading some of those activities. So we do fulfill that directive with this ordinance, and it does align with our goals of becoming more age-friendly. I think Sybil's gonna talk about some of the demographic need and dive into some of the specifics on applicability that she's considered and included in this draft ordinance. So with that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Boutillier. Ms. Petelier, welcome and thank you for joining us. |
| 00:07:47.08 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you, Director. Also, good evening, Chair Saad and members of the Planning Commission. For more than a decade, the city's been working, well, next slide. For more than a decade, the city has been working Um, along with many members of the community, both age friendly and Sousalito Village and other members of the community to help make Sousalito more livable for people of all ages. And Age Families House Salido has focused particularly on including and accommodating elders in the community. And as part of this effort, A number of provisions were included in the city's general plan over the last many years, including LU 1.20, which states the city will provide policies to support the senior community for mobility and sensory limitations in the built environment and universal with universal design and such policies are referenced throughout the general document as appropriate. And in the most recent iteration of the housing element, consideration of a universal design and visibility program was included. as, um, as Director Phipps mentioned. Next slide, please. Mm-hmm. So what is visitability? It's a design approach to ensure that new housing units are accessible to residents and visitors alike who may have mobility and sensory limitations, or may grow into having those limitations and it integrates elements of universal design in the American Disabilities Act accessibility. features into the construction phase. of housing. And a key feature is the no-step entry, wider doorways and hallways, accessible bathroom on the first floor or any accessible floor, and other universally accessible features. Next slide. So why is it necessary? Sassalita's older population includes Over 3,140, 3,000. 140 registered voters between the ages of 55 and 104. And that's 45% of our population. And those over the age of 60 comprise more than 38% of the population. So reliable CDC reports state that 44% of people over age 65 develop disabilities as they age. And of course, there are people that have disabilities at younger ages as well. And the US Census, the American Community Survey reports that 831 Sausalito residents reported disabilities in the last in the last report. So we have a severe shortage of accessible housing for seniors. Less than half of the senior housing in South Salido are visitable for people. And the inaccessible housing leads to isolation, increased risk of falls, and worsening health outcomes for older adults. the Southern Marin Fire District lists falls in the home as the top reason that older residents of South Salido are transported to the hospital by the EMTs. So finally, it's cost effective to construct housing that's successful from the beginning instead of having to retrofit. So next slide, please. So in 2002, California passed AB 2787 to allow a city or a county to pass visitability or universal design ordinances. The bill required HCD to create a model ordinance. Thank you. which we use as the base of the document for the draft, which is before you tonight. The model ordinance specifies that municipalities can customize the model ordinance to suit their local policies. We consulted with HCD's accessibility expert, Veronica Turbine, to clarify some of the most recent changes to the state housing code that just occurred, as it affects Chapter 11A and Chapter 11B, which deals with accessibility and universal design. other Bay Area Jewish states as it affects Chapter 11A and Chapter 11B, which deals with accessibility and universal design. Other Bay Area jurisdictions are a little ahead of us. They've already created and passed ordinances or otherwise integrated their policies and programs into their housing elements and plans, notably Petaluma, Dublin, Hayward, Livermore, Davis, Alameda. Fremont, Vacaville, and then further afield, San Diego and others have already worked on this issue. A universal design and visitability ordinance incorporates design features into residential dwelling units that enhance residents' ability to remain in their homes. During periods of temporary, or developing or permanent disabilities and to continue to age in place in the community they love It ensures that people with mobility issues are able to visit their relatives and friends. that have that may not have this mobility issues themselves, but live in an accessible or visitable home or apartment. So it also promotes the safety and health of seniors and is cost effective, as we mentioned before. So thank you for your attention and for your consideration of this important ordinance. We're hoping that we can... move it forward so that the the next senior housing in Sausalito and also possibly the next multifamily workforce housing also is designed with these accessible features right from the beginning. Thank you very much. |
| 00:14:37.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much for the presentation. Assistant City Manager, are we going to have any further presentation from staff? |
| 00:14:45.95 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Not at this time. |
| 00:14:47.07 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:14:47.52 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 00:14:47.61 | Unknown | Great. You know what, now that you give me |
| 00:14:51.30 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | However, though, Chair, I would like to highlight a recent addition that was made to the agenda for this item. And that item, it takes the form of a memo that's been provided by our new building official. His name is Laro Vasquez. I believe we've, we've discussed this with some of you folks, but he's already promptly responded to this request from staff to provide some, some more of the technical dissection of how this ordinance would impact new development. So I would urge you to review and take a look at that. I know that we all had an opportunity to briefly connect prior to this meeting as well. So appreciate your, your discussion and quick response on that. The summary, if I could just... point to page two of the memo, states that the proposed visitability ordinance does not expand new requirements for new construction, as much of new construction is already subject to the chapters 11A, 11B, and the California Building Code. So based on building officials' feedback to us, The only substantive effect that this proposed language has is to require basic visitability features during substantial rehabilitation of older, affordable, or deed-restricted senior multifamily buildings that don't currently, or that otherwise wouldn't fall under the building code 11a or 11b so there is a narrow application that this new language would have and it is supported by ab2787 as we've mentioned i think the question for the commission is you know based on this potential narrow application would we like to you know repeat echo some of the requirements that are already in the building code in this ordinance? Or are there other avenues, approaches that the commission would like us to consider? So I'll premise that discussion and compliment Sybil's presentation and leave it there and give it back to you. |
| 00:16:57.09 | Nastassya Saad | That was very helpful. Thank you. With that, Assistant City Manager, do we open this up for public comment on the presentation piece prior to our discussion? Or just, no, as the- |
| 00:17:09.22 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | I think you can engage in discussion. Yeah, you can open it up for public comment after. Thank you. |
| 00:17:12.93 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:17:13.00 | Nastassya Saad | after the discussion. |
| 00:17:13.71 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. Unless a city attorney feels otherwise. |
| 00:17:19.33 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I would take public comment before you guys reach a decision. Thank you. |
| 00:17:21.98 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, sir. |
| 00:17:22.48 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:17:22.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. With that, I'll have you help facilitate the public comment for The presentation from Sybil Boutier. |
| 00:17:32.26 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Absolutely. Looking to the chamber. And I see one raised hand. Please step forward. Thank you for being here. And if you could, please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Thank you. |
| 00:17:44.18 | Sarah Robinson | Yes. Good evening. My name is Sarah Robinson. And thank you so much for your time, Chairman Saeed and members of this planning commission. As leader of the Marin Aging and Disability Friendly Network, of which Sausalito is a member, along with 11 other towns and cities and communities in Marin that have adopted this international framework for community planning, for the needs of our much older populations. This ordinance is really important to the rest of us as we watch Sausalito. Not only did you take the first step in becoming age-friendly, now all the others have followed suit, all other communities, but we're watching as you consider this ordinance. We see it as a proactive and essential step to ensure that community equity and to maintain Sausalito's commitment to being an age-friendly city. Age and disability is included in this ordinance. And just to reiterate some of the key points that my fellow age-friendly leader, Sybil, brought up. This ordinance ensures community well-being by ensuring equal access to housing. As the town manager has mentioned, you are looking at the possibility of changing code for the rehabilitation of buildings, that it's not necessary for new buildings, which already are required to have some of these key components. But all throughout Moran, we have older housing that we would love to be able to allow our older adults and residents to age in their homes. That's their primary wish. And to do so, we need to seriously consider a policy or ordinance like this. Having this policy also fosters an inclusion and prevents isolation by allowing people to visit each other, allowing their visitors to visit them, regardless of ability or age. and supports aging in place. It's a demographic reality that our populations are aging in Marin, There's a shortage of accessible housing, and they're increasing disability rates as people age and add to the people with disabilities we already have. Certainly there's a cost-effectiveness to addressing this in new construction and in our existing construction because it will reduce health care and emergency calls and certainly improve the economic participation and quality of life of our residents. So we thank you so much for your time and consideration of this draft ordinance. And as I said, the rest of us will be watching you. |
| 00:20:48.61 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments. I'll look to the chamber for additional raised hands and interested speakers. Seeing none, Chair, I'll look to the Zoom application. Sign up. Back to you. |
| 00:20:58.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for the public comment. So we'll close the public comment session. bring it back up for discussion again this is just a study session but there's some good material in front of us thank you for the presentation and Commissioner Luxembourg |
| 00:21:15.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, before we get to discussion, can we ask questions? Oh, sure. I was going to include that. We usually have that part first. |
| 00:21:19.63 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, sure. I was going to include that as pen review. |
| 00:21:24.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. |
| 00:21:24.69 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Discussion and questions. |
| 00:21:27.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I have just a few questions, and some of them I think will be of Attorney Rudin. The first of the guesses of staff, the HCD was required to complete these guidelines in 2003, two, something like that, or that was the ordinance. When did HCD complete their task? Do you know Assistant City Manager? Yes. |
| 00:21:57.34 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Excuse me, I'm trying to address another issue in the chamber. Would you mind repeating the question? |
| 00:22:01.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The question was, HCD, this is a 2002 or 2003 law, and HCD had a requirement to do these guidelines. When did HCD do their job? Do you know? When was that draft ordinance that was required by law finished? |
| 00:22:20.73 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | I believe that it was finished a few years after the assembly bill was passed. So I wanna say 2005. |
| 00:22:28.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 2005. Okay. I don't think it was required. |
| 00:22:32.48 | Mary Wagner | And per their website, HCD had an updated checklist in 2007. So I think that they may have updated this since their initial effort. |
| 00:22:44.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So HCD, it took them five years to meet this law requirement? What you're saying. |
| 00:22:55.48 | Mary Wagner | Yes. Well, I don't know. I have not candidly reviewed AB 2787 to see what the deadline was for HCD to complete their work. |
| 00:23:06.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. They require us to do things in like 30 days or 60 days. It takes them five years. I think that's very interesting that they can't use the same process for others. While you're on, Tony Rudin, these are probably questions for you. Yes. We possibly have multifamily. First of all, let me go back. What's the difference between multifamily and multifamily workforce residential? that seems to be identifying a nuance that I don't, I'm not familiar with. Are those the same thing? Are those two different types of multifamily? |
| 00:23:49.07 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I'm not sure that there's a meaningful distinction, at least with respect to the requirements of the California Building Code, because there are two chapters that deal with accessibility. And I would assume that To the extent that there's a difference, it may be in determining whether chapter 11a or 11b applies. I would need to look for... at the California Building Code to to see if there's a meaningful distinction between those two. |
| 00:24:19.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see, I mean, I think this issue is important and I don't think we should separate out multifamily workforce housing from other multifamily. Also to the effort, Attorney Rudin, about the multifamily housing, which we may have in North South Salido on housing opportunity sites. Is this part of the, are these requirements part of the building code or are they part of the zoning code? And the reason I ask the question is, are these things that a developer can waive or not? If it's in the building code, I don't believe they can waive building code requirements. But if it's a zoning, I believe they have the opportunity to get waivers. So where would this fall in that continuum? |
| 00:25:07.96 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I would anticipate that this proposed regulatory language would go in your zoning code. |
| 00:25:08.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would anticipate |
| 00:25:13.28 | Mary Wagner | Um, I agree that because the building code is typically state law that you cannot apply, uh, density boner, uh, uh, bonus waivers, uh, and concessions to get out of mandatory requirements of the California Building Code, because those can only be used to waive local requirements and the building code requirements are state requirements. Um, |
| 00:25:38.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chapter 11A and Chapter 11B state requirements. |
| 00:25:42.29 | Mary Wagner | Yes, they're in California building code. |
| 00:25:44.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if those items are already in, they would not be able to be waived by a developer. |
| 00:25:49.48 | Mary Wagner | Correct. |
| 00:25:50.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Those are the questions I have at this time. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:25:54.10 | Nastassya Saad | Those are some good questions. Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Moore, any questions for staff? Commissioner. |
| 00:26:03.97 | Nastassya Saad | Do you have any questions? |
| 00:26:05.27 | David Marlatt | Sure, I can dive in. Thank you. And thank you for the presentation as well. I do have a couple of high-level questions. Visitability was not a term that I was familiar with, honestly, before this agenda item. So I did Google it like anybody would do. And I note that it was started in Atlanta in 1987. But what was interesting is visitability, as defined, is exclusively focused on single-family homes, which comprise 70% of Asian housing stock that are not typically covered under federal laws, which we have some reference to. Specific goals focused on single family homes and accessible for single family homes. |
| 00:26:40.30 | Unknown | Thank you. I don't know. |
| 00:26:44.15 | David Marlatt | Mate. The question is, What we have before us here seems to be treating the word visitability as synonymous with accessibility. And I'm just wondering, what is the definition? What is visitability if it's not accessibility? And that kind of gets to the larger question, of the What does this ordinance do? that The building codes 11A, 11B, the California Fair Housing Act, the American for Disability, American Disabilities Act. Don't don't already do and I'm not sure there's anything other than as the memo points out from the chief pulling officer that it expands somewhat the application. So I guess my question for staff or for the presenters is what is visit what is visitability in this context. |
| 00:27:34.07 | Nastassya Saad | could, Would you mind to... Absolutely. Do you mind approaching... |
| 00:27:36.85 | David Marlatt | it. |
| 00:27:37.04 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you. |
| 00:27:39.69 | Nastassya Saad | So |
| 00:27:39.97 | Sybil Boutillier | So This is a universal design and visitability ordinance. Visitability requires no step entry through accessibility throughout at least the first floor, if it's a multi-floor building and at least you know a bathroom that's completely accessible on the accessible floor so that's what visibility requires in its most stripped down version universal service requirements you, or design go a little bit further. And throughout the general plan and housing element, it's been stated that South Salida wanted to go a little bit beyond just normal universe are designed to be more inclusive of people who have disabilities or grow into disabilities. And so that this is a um, response to that issue. And, um, You know, one of the things that I just wanted to say, one of the things we cleared up by speaking to Veronica up at DHS, was, you know, I'm sorry. state health, state housing department. I can never say ACD for some reason. I don't know. Okay, I said it. Was the difference between 11A and 11B, what applies? And she said 11B applies when it's public housing or a development that has some public financing. So that's 11B as opposed to 11A. |
| 00:29:45.15 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Can you maybe provide us an example or two of what this ordinance, requires of developers or architects that are that is not already required in 11a or 11b with a fair housing act. Is there anything in here that's unique, that's different, Um, |
| 00:30:08.73 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | I'm not sure. |
| 00:30:08.78 | David Marlatt | I'm not sure. |
| 00:30:08.96 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:30:08.98 | David Marlatt | So we can. |
| 00:30:09.00 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | I can answer that initially. Yeah, and I think that some of those things are elucidated in the conclusion on page two and the summary table of the building official's memo. But I'll say the proposed visitability ordinance doesn't expand requirements for new construction that are already subject to chapters 11A and chapters 11B. What the substantive effect of this proposed ordinance would have is it would be triggered during substantial rehabilitation of older, affordable, or deed restricted senior multifamily buildings that otherwise would not fall under 11A or 11B. So I'd call this a relatively narrow application. |
| 00:30:59.23 | David Marlatt | Okay, well, I can find a couple examples. So, for example, this ordinance, as it's written, and I think it's not intended, says that no, that the apartments or dwelling units need to be accessible by a ramp, not by ramp, but by a walkway, an accessible route with a slope no greater than one in 20. which in the building code is not a ramp. So that means that you cannot use ramps in this ordinance. You can use ramps in the building. code. Or it says that handrails installed in a manner appropriate on both sides of an accessible route that's within a unit. Well, the building code, you don't have to install a handrail along your hallway. |
| 00:31:29.91 | Sarah Robinson | Okay. |
| 00:31:39.50 | David Marlatt | and your accessible route may cross a living room. So there are things in here which I'm afraid just to kind of jump to the and tail end of my speech, are going to cause potential confusion and complications I'm not saying it's intentional at all, but there are just things in here that are partially redundant or somewhat contradictory with other relevant sections of the building code. And so I'm just looking for what are the holes in the building code that are missing that need to be filled? Thank you. |
| 00:32:12.91 | Nastassya Saad | Is this something that a city attorney Rudin can possibly weigh in on? |
| 00:32:20.32 | Mary Wagner | I'll just comment on, you know, Generally chapters 11a and 11b apply to 11a applies for multifamily housing 11b applies for public housing, including workforce housing that receives any sort of public subsidy. Um, The model ordinance set forth by HCD potentially applies these very similar kinds of requirements to single family homes. and duplexes, which the proposed materials in your packet prepared by staff do not. So in terms of expanding visitability requirements, one option is to expand them to single family residences. |
| 00:33:07.82 | David Marlatt | And I understand that was the original intention back in the 80s when this concept came to because the current codes exempt single family housing, There are now since then aging in place requirements in the residential code that I won't dive into, so that's somewhat mitigated by the recent codes, but that's true, single family, duplex housing, which has, I don't know if it's the majority, but probably the majority of seniors live in such things. But this ordinance does not address that large part of the population. So I'm just wondering what it's doing. Thank you. That requires an ordinance. |
| 00:33:44.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a follow-on question? Are you saying that the way this is written, if somebody... has a multifamily building and they build a ramp with railings to code that that would violate this draft. |
| 00:33:58.35 | David Marlatt | As the draft is written, yes. Now this is a study session to talk about language, but as the draft is written. |
| 00:34:02.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | As a draft. Okay. We would want to be able to, given Sausalito has huge hills, there are places where we can't get to 1 to 20, so 1 to 12 might work. |
| 00:34:05.86 | David Marlatt | three. |
| 00:34:14.39 | David Marlatt | Well, I just think- One to 12 might work. It creates a lot of head scratching by the blind checkers and building officials. Like, what am I, which one am I, you know, checking code for? Thank you. |
| 00:34:22.97 | Andrew Junius | Can I ask a follow-up as well? It's awesome to have an expert on the panel here to bounce questions off of, because you really know this stuff. I know better than all of us combined. I know that. You know, other hypotheticals, let's assume you've got... a, you know, a two year, I think three unit here, like this is a four unit little apartment building here in Sausalito, right? That, that is deed restricted or somehow falls into this bucket. If somebody wanted to, I mean, I read the definition of substantial modification is saying if somebody wants to remodel their bathroom, all of a sudden, you're, you're just fall into this hole and you, you might have to remodel your whole house and expand the door and, and just, you know, endless unintended consequences when you're a young family that has no intention of needing this as an elderly home for decades to come. That's what I would worry about. |
| 00:35:19.60 | David Marlatt | Well, I think there's that, and there's also some ambiguity, and again, I'm sure it's not intentional, is if you're in a four-unit building and it's a substantial remodel, does the ordinance kick in just for that unit or for the entire building we've which would actually imply evicting low-income people. But I'm sure that could be cleaned up in the language. But as it's written, I'm not clear on that. |
| 00:35:33.32 | Sarah Robinson | Exactly. |
| 00:35:42.58 | Nastassya Saad | You raised very interesting, this is a good topic for a study session and not something to rush through. I don't know if those could be answered at the moment, but let's leave those out there. We appreciate, we definitely appreciate having you. Commissioner Moore, I believe you had a question as well? |
| 00:35:59.98 | Fred Moore | Well, I think both both Commissioner Marlott and Junius brought us some excellent points, especially the one about the bathroom that could turn your house upside down. May I went through I'm assuming the intent is to ensure that very specific design criteria are included in the new homes are substantially remodeled home. Unfortunately, I'm with Commissioner Marlow trying to understand how this, what gap this is filling. That's not already in the law. For example, since 2003, four or five health and safety code, 179 59.6 required developers to give a universal design checklist for what items the home buyer wanted to have. Do they want guardrails? Do they want grab bars? Do they want extra walls? Do they want different cabinets, lower cabinets, lower heights? So that's, That's been in existence for 20 years. I give out those addendums to all my builders every day. So here it lists very specific things, but some of the things I'm not really sure, like I have a bunch of questions I'm not sure it's really appropriate to try to ask them or whether it needs to be sort of rewritten with people's comment. For example, in the ordinance here, we define condominium as in the building code. I'm not sure why we're using the building code rather than the civil code, which defines condominiums for every other purpose with a developer, condominium plan, etc. So that seems to be an omission without an explanation about why it's necessary. Some things about non-skid surfaces as far as a specific requirement. My grandkids love to slide on their socks on my wood floors. So does that mean if you have a wood floor in your unit, that's not considered a non-skid surface, so now you have to rip up all your floors, which goes back to Commissioner June, just the potential for unintended consequences, I think is confusing. So I |
| 00:36:59.11 | Sarah Robinson | B |
| 00:37:52.27 | Sarah Robinson | Thank you. |
| 00:37:55.68 | Fred Moore | Like, I'm not sure, for example, this seems to want to apply to whether you want to own a unit or rent a unit. Yet we, in the definitions, we include that reference multiple times, whereas multiple places in the definition, we just eliminate that portion of the sentence and just refer, let me say, for example, um, like some of the purpose and intent That's not really where it was. |
| 00:38:23.32 | Unknown | I remember. |
| 00:38:26.08 | Fred Moore | Um, in the back here. We refer to whether it's owned or rented or wanted to be owned or rented. Well, we don't need that section. We can just, like, for example, the unit coverage. I'm not sure why we included residential dwelling units, which are intended to be owner-occupied or rental or owner-occupied and rental. Okay. That kind of, there's no other scenario other than either one of those, so you can just get rid of that altogether, and it would just apply to residential dwelling units for which an application for a new construction permit has been issued. So that happens in A, A1. I'm not sure the workforce was brought up again. I'm not sure there's a distinction in that. Non-workforce housing would still fit within that broader category. So I think there's a tremendous amount of work done in this, but there's a lot of questions, I guess, the drafting style about how it was done. I'm not sure I understand. And another question would be, for example, 11 a and 11 B. we can pick and choose which of those criteria we like because we're adding specific criteria in here. So rather than keep referring to whether it's public financing or private financing, we could say there's 12 categories under public financing, there's 13 under private. We like five here and six there. And those could be the items we're specifically referencing in here. But my biggest concern is what was brought up earlier. Like if my house, if I wanted to renovate my bathroom, I physically cannot comply with this. I measured my hallways, my distances in the countertop. It's impossible unless I just tear the whole house down and start over again. So one respect, this is, this is, seems to be preventing people from wanting to do improvements to their house because they don't want to fall into this category. And I'm not sure if we draft this ordinance, we need all these findings. you to support why we're putting together this to meet age restricted housing, because I'm not sure I can comply and confirm all those findings are correct. So those seem to be overly inclusive. So those weren't very many questions, were they? They were mostly me spouting off here, which I apologize. But I think overall, this is a very, very important aspect, because I fall kind of dead in the middle of that category who needs this but I don't think this in this current state is something that we want to pass on to the City Council I think we'd be somewhat in we wouldn't do it doing them any favors to adopt this |
| 00:41:01.06 | Nastassya Saad | I'm you're in Luxembourg. |
| 00:41:02.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, To add on to that, I'm also following the category that you fall into as well. And so this is a very important issue, I think. And I did go and measure all the stuff in my house of what it complies and what doesn't comply. I I'll posit this idea. I mean, the city is embarking on senior housing at MLK after the vote. Some of these items are over and beyond what's in 11A and 11B, non-skid services, I think, and things like that. For the city, which is going to put an RFP together and define exactly what the city wants in senior housing, in that case the city is like the developer. I think this is important and this should be passed on to the city council in developing what the senior housing needs to be that we can put all those requirements in. I'm not sure doing it by code like this, and we're not sure whether it's in the building code or the zoning code. It sounds like it might be in the zoning code. But as far as what we're developing, which I think we can define that, we meaning the city as a whole, and I think that is important that the city council, when they figure out how they're going to proceed on the senior housing uh at mlk that they have standards like this because one it is all senior how it's going to be senior housing as i understand it and we can and also since the city is the one doing it and then it'll be a land lease of some tort we can define what's in. So I think these items are very important and do need to get to the city council. I'm not sure, I think I agree with you, Commissioner Moore, that the ordinance itself may not be the way to do this, given that a lot of this is already in 11A and 11B. So that's just my thoughts. |
| 00:42:51.58 | Sarah Robinson | Thank you. |
| 00:42:51.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:51.65 | Sarah Robinson | Thank you. |
| 00:43:01.82 | David Marlatt | Yes. Thank you. Sort of carrying along that thought about whether an ordinance is the appropriate vehicle, because another one of my questions more for, this is a question for Attorney Reuven, is it also states that developer or builder shall construct, install requested features, et unless it would result in an unreasonable delay in construction or significant reimbursable cost to the developer or builder. So the ordinance itself contains a mechanism um for the applicant, for the developer, to be exempted from the requirements of the ordinance. and that's kind of vague and that's i think a little bit problematic in its vagueness in and of itself but my other question is if you're excused from the ordinance requirements for an accessible route or something like that, does that also excuse somebody from provisions of chapter 11 A or 11B, which is state law. |
| 00:44:00.97 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, it shouldn't. Let's just be direct there. It shouldn't. |
| 00:44:03.57 | David Marlatt | But you still have to do it under the code. So what's the point? |
| 00:44:08.55 | Mary Wagner | No, I agree. And practically, I don't think multifamily housing gets an exception. I think a lot of these standards are borrowed from the HCD model ordinance, which does in fact apply to single family residences where the provisions 11A or 11B aren't mandatory. Yeah. |
| 00:44:27.50 | David Marlatt | Thank you. So a question for staff maybe, was there a reason why it was decided to not draft an ordinance for single family and duplex occupancies as a model code? |
| 00:44:40.46 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yeah, I'll put on the economic development hat for a moment. My biggest concern as related to folding in single family housing to have to integrate these standards into any new construction or maybe even substantial rehabilitation is what you've referred to in the past as a chill on development or a disincentive to development or substantial renovation in the city. in a world of housing element and substantial RINAs, I am cautious in connection with any proposal that results in a chill to development that helps the city achieve its RINAs. So that was part of at have some preference to build in some flexibility to the construction process so that Property owners, as Commissioner Junius mentioned, can build their homes as a reflection of the lifestyle that they're living in that moment. So that was another consideration, but I appreciate that these visitability features have value. So, you know, appreciate and enjoy the discussions. |
| 00:45:56.58 | Unknown | you |
| 00:45:57.86 | David Marlatt | That's one final thought. Absolutely. Take your time. Kind of following up on whether an ordinance is a proper vehicle, and I just want to suggest to throw out for discussion that the current municipal code, Title VIII, which is the part of the municipal code that adopts the building code, is Sausalito's building code. I can't recite them by heart, but it has dozens of amendments. Such and such, Section 703 shall be amended as follows and so forth. So if it's if we feel as a group of the city council feels that we need to broaden the applicability to, rehabilitate certain remodels of homes or we need to tighten up some part of the code where we feel there is a hole in the code that we should address. I think the better, I'd suggest the better vehicle is through an amendment to our Title 8 codes and just say, you know, Title eight says a staircase has to be 36 inches wide. Well, we think it has to be 39. And we can do that through a simple amendment to the building code. And that would be applied universally and not have this layer of, you know, complexity with the ordinance as a mechanism. |
| 00:46:58.59 | Nastassya Saad | not have a |
| 00:46:58.98 | Sarah Robinson | Thank you. |
| 00:47:00.28 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 00:47:03.76 | Nastassya Saad | But would that imply that it would be for single family as well? Thank you. |
| 00:47:08.50 | David Marlatt | the code and attorney Muden can this one is it it could |
| 00:47:11.34 | Andrew Junius | is. |
| 00:47:11.61 | Nastassya Saad | I'm not sure. |
| 00:47:13.26 | David Marlatt | Okay. You could expand. There's an application. There's part of the code. Part of the code says scope and it lists new constructed. It has five points. You could have a six point that says |
| 00:47:16.97 | Sarah Robinson | Right. |
| 00:47:17.04 | Nastassya Saad | That's part of the... |
| 00:47:17.85 | Sarah Robinson | you |
| 00:47:17.90 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:47:18.03 | Sarah Robinson | Thank you. |
| 00:47:21.41 | Sarah Robinson | here. |
| 00:47:25.88 | David Marlatt | remodels above 50% of the surface area or however you want to define a remodel. It's just available to us as a vehicle to simply amend the building code, if that's what we think needs to happen. |
| 00:47:40.34 | Fred Moore | you |
| 00:47:40.36 | Nastassya Saad | Let me show you more. |
| 00:47:41.00 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Actually, I do have a question. So to follow up with Commissioner Marlott, so the standards that were added in here for the primary entrance, for the common space, primary floor powder room, et cetera, And I'll use a primary entrance as an example. It has six items that are the standards that would apply if you fall under this. So is my understanding correct that these six items are not anywhere in 11A or 11B or elsewhere in the building code? And these are new standards that we've come up with? you |
| 00:48:17.00 | Andrew Junius | others are all the buildings. If this is the model ordinance, I think. |
| 00:48:19.54 | Fred Moore | Right. So if they're already, that's what goes back, they're already covered somewhere. |
| 00:48:19.85 | Andrew Junius | that's it. |
| 00:48:22.97 | David Marlatt | They're already covered somewhere. Why are we... Have them in here. Right. They're already covered for multifamily homes. Right. |
| 00:48:32.89 | Andrew Junius | But they're covered because they're covered through a model ordinance the state has prepared that some cities have adopted at various levels for various types of housing. Part of my concern is that it's yet another complicated set of rules, however it applies, between what you've already got 11A and or 11B, and now you've got this. I mean, it just gets more and more complicated, more difficult to figure out what applies, what you're supposed to do. But I think this is all taken from the model ordinance. |
| 00:49:06.44 | David Marlatt | But the Model and Ordinance was intended to apply to single-family homes, which are categorically exempt. |
| 00:49:11.00 | Sarah Robinson | Thanks. |
| 00:49:12.06 | David Marlatt | We're saying this only applies to that classification of buildings which are not categorically exempt, so it's redundant. |
| 00:49:21.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And Except for ones that are before 1991, if I'm understanding. |
| 00:49:30.15 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | That's my understanding, that what is proposed, yes, was built off of the model ordinance. And that model ordinance did contain triggers for these standards to apply to new single-family development. The version of the ordinance before you today maintains those standards, however, does not apply them to single-family development. |
| 00:49:30.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:49:53.96 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | we apply it to multifamily. And as we've discussed, the applications, the majority, the vast majority of those applications are already folded into the building code 11A and 11B. The substantial difference that we've included in this ordinance is upon substantial rehabilitation of older or deed restricted senior multifamily buildings that would not usually fall under 11A or 11B. So Commissioner Luxenberg described correctly, I believe that that threshold is around 1991. So projects prior to 1991, if they were to apply for a substantial rehabilitation in the city of Sausalito, and we were to adopt this ordinance, they would be subject to those additional standards. |
| 00:50:44.84 | Fred Moore | Well, if I understand you correctly, you're talking about substantial rehabilitation to a deed restricted or senior housing. Based on the findings, we have about 12, maybe 20 senior housing items in the entire city. Are you saying this applies to only the substantially rehabilitation of those 20 units? Thank you. |
| 00:51:10.42 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:51:10.62 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:51:10.88 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 00:51:11.18 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | I'm suggesting there's a narrow application as proposed. |
| 00:51:11.30 | Fred Moore | uh, |
| 00:51:11.33 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:51:17.86 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. I think that short answer is yes. Sybil had noted that there are 28 just for everyone on Zoom. That's an interesting discussion. So I'm hearing a few things here that there's potential redundancy with 11A and 11B. Overall, some decent concept, but with this narrow scope as is, there's still the also potential to expand scope and creep into single family, even though it's not as written. There's a potential there. Yeah. Is there... any way for, since it's a study session, when staff comes back, to pull one of the examples from one of the other towns that have recently adopted this from their code. Was there anybody listed in Marin? it. |
| 00:52:16.60 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Well, not to interrupt, but you listed Irvine. Irvine is, if you can regulate and overregulate, Irvine's the place to go. So if you want to look at a potential sample of over-the-top regulations, Irvine might be the example you might want to look at. |
| 00:52:35.88 | Nastassya Saad | It might be useful just as a concept. I mean, I don't want to speak for everyone, for myself to see someone else in practice because this being somewhat of a template, we are trying to squash it down and we could lean on someone else who's done the work to get an idea. I might ask for that. Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:52:55.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I think if you can contact Irvine, it sounds like a good place to contact to find out, has it restricted housing and reduced the amount of housing coming in? Has it increased the amount of housing coming in? And how has it worked? I mean, that's a simple talk to the staff there and see how this has worked in practice and what they would suggest. I mean, that might be a good idea and not take an extensive amount of time just to talk to somebody there. I think that's a good idea. |
| 00:53:31.09 | Andrew Junius | Well, but I mean, yeah, we certainly should gather as much information as possible. But what we're never going to know is how many, you know, substantial remodels of homes in Irvine didn't happen or happened illegally because nobody wanted to follow this rule. Couldn't afford it. Wasn't necessary. And so that's we're not going to know that. And those are the things I worry about. So. |
| 00:53:51.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not suggesting that we're going to get actual data and think it's be more anecdotal that they've talked to developers and it's causing a problem or no. Here we've built three of these and this is how it's worked. Or we built them and some of the restrictions were a problem and we needed to change some of the requirements. The skid flooring was a good thing or a bad thing. I mean, they might have some information, I think. But yes, I agree with you. We're not going to get exact data on, you know, how many didn't get built because that's not data you can get. |
| 00:54:25.31 | David Marlatt | The other question I would have is also these other communities, whether they've enacted this for single family homes like the model code or they're doing it for multifamily. Are we kind of out there on a limb trying to apply this for multifamily? I don't know. |
| 00:54:39.47 | Nastassya Saad | This is a study session. If you'd like to comment on Ms. Boutier. |
| 00:54:43.75 | Sybil Boutillier | I want to add a suggestion. |
| 00:54:45.14 | Nastassya Saad | May I just ask you to speak into the microphone for everyone on Zoom, please? Could you just speak into the microphone? |
| 00:54:54.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:54:54.28 | Sybil Boutillier | though. Thank you. I might suggest that one place to check is if you're familiar with the Vivilon Senior Complex in San Rafael, They've used all of these design features in the Eden housing. They have two floors of Eden housing there. and they've used all of these design elements in that building Joe O'Hare, if you happen to know him, who was the director of Vivillon, oversaw that building project over the last few years. And you can also go and visit it in person if you want to see what it's like. But you can get all the information from them. This was recently done right here in San Rafael and in Marin. And it's a very good example of these design elements being put to use for older adults and people with disabilities. you |
| 00:55:57.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah, I think I'm hearing general, I mean, agreement. Please go ahead. |
| 00:55:57.85 | Sybil Boutillier | Thank you. |
| 00:56:04.11 | Andrew Junius | I've just got some general comments. You know, the first thing I want to keep in mind is, you know, I appreciate the comment that that's a brand new project. wonderful project. I'm sure it complies with a bunch of rules and I'm sure it's fabulous and I've gotten much less concerned about new construction, right? New construction is complicated. Thank you. I've had my own. clients in San Francisco have enormous problems trying to figure out whether you're subject to 11 a or 11 B. This is complicated enough, but new construction is a totally different deal. The idea that we would be requiring that we would be creating kind of a gray area where people with existing, you know, multifamily buildings, you know, two, three, four units, and there's definitely, you know, those in Sausalito. where they wouldn't know if they go to get a permit, whether they're going to, you know, fall into this very, very complex, expensive new new requirements. So that worries me right off the bat. The other thing I think we I'm just kind of stunned. I've never this is the first I'm hearing of this to the visitability issues and the fact that the state has created a model ordinance for single family home retrofits is just to me mind-blowing. The idea that a single family homeowner. needs this to be allowed to retrofit their house. That can't be true. If you own your house and you want to put all the bells and whistles in to take care of yourself as a senior citizen, go for it. It's just your money, your contractor, your time, you're ripping your house to pieces for your benefit on your timeline with your budget. The fact that a family that doesn't need that might try to fix their home and all of a sudden be required to turn it into something that some future you know senior person would need i think is a huge mistake i think we that i could never support that i think that's a that's something that i i if i'm reading this wrong i'm going You know, please tell me, but I think that's just not, you know, that's, that's, that's not a good idea. I mean, you know, the bottom line is this is an extremely important issue. You know, the, the. Sausalito and Marin County in California is aging quickly. We need more senior housing, but we need more senior housing. We don't need these kind of super technical, you know, nibbling around the edges of our existing housing stock. is certainly well intended. but it isn't gonna solve the problem. We need lots more housing in Sausalito, in Marin County, in California. We need senior housing, we need new housing. not these kind of technical ordinances that I just don't think are going to. going to make a difference. Thank you. |
| 00:58:46.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Very well stated. Commissioner Marlott. |
| 00:58:49.78 | David Marlatt | Thank you. And then as we're making our list for staff for the next study session, maybe also some consideration with Attorney Rudin about Should the city decide to broaden the brought in the regulation around accessibility and so forth, whether the ordinance route is the most appropriate or efficient route versus simply amending the building code. Seems to me, and that's just a discussion. I'm not taking a specific position, but if we decide that all bathrooms above a certain level of, you know, of remodeling need to have a door converted from 30 inches, which is typical to 32 inches. |
| 00:59:10.43 | Sarah Robinson | man. |
| 00:59:32.62 | David Marlatt | Okay, maybe it's a little painful, not a deal breaker. Um, Do we need an ordinance for that? Or it could be something that's very simply an amendment to building codes just |
| 00:59:41.28 | Andrew Junius | But that would take an ordinance too. I think any action the city council takes to fix any code is an ordinance, right? I'm pretty sure that's it. |
| 00:59:46.29 | David Marlatt | Yeah, then I should restate that. And the amendments to the building code under ordinance is whether that's a more efficient and direct method if we want to expand the accessibility of our housing stock. |
| 00:59:58.84 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I'll address that briefly. And some of the discussions about single family, the HCD model ordinance accepts custom homes. So I think the application of HCD's universal design ordinance was intended to address developers building tracked single family homes to ensure that people who are buying a tracked home had the option of having an accessible tracked home. Um, with the regards to the amendments being made in the zoning versus building codes, I did skim through AB 2787. And it does actually contemplate that these would be amendments made to building code standards. I do think that there's a separate concern because AB 130 does implement effectively a freeze of new building regulations and new requirements that affect residential development. for the next six years unless certain requirements are met. So we would have to scrutinize that and make sure that we can still legally do that. So, Those would certainly be concerns moving forward. |
| 01:01:10.06 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:01:10.07 | Nastassya Saad | Restaurants move. |
| 01:01:10.63 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Very critical. Thank you. I think, yeah, Commissioner, that direction is well taken. We will look into it. |
| 01:01:10.80 | Nastassya Saad | Very critical, thank you. |
| 01:01:11.83 | Mary Wagner | that they're going to be. |
| 01:01:17.57 | David Marlatt | for six years. |
| 01:01:18.86 | Nastassya Saad | Six years. Yeah. Thank you, Attorney Rudin. Thank you for taking us down that line of questioning. Commissioner Alex Murray, do you have something else? |
| 01:01:27.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just follow on to something Commissioner Junius said. For single family homes and being in the appropriate age bracket that we're talking about, some things are, you know, as people get older, like they have back problems. They have issues like that. And so I found, and I know others of my age that have found, that things that are lower, like front-loading washers that are close to the ground, which are good for people in wheelchairs, are not good for people with back problems. So if you have a single-family home, you might want things below the counter to be different than you would if you were in a wheelchair. And I think that's really, to Commissioner Junius's point, up to the people that have the single-family homes to design the home for their needs, which might not be the same for all the elderly. So I think we have to be careful, and one-size-fits-all is my only point. |
| 01:02:25.18 | Nastassya Saad | And I think you might have mentioned, Commissioner Luxembourg, just the nature of Sausalito alone, right? Even if this were to be a thing, we have restrictions. There are mobility restrictions regardless, right, for access to certain homes. Certain homes have 30, 40 stairs to go up and into them. And God forbid if something happens, whether you're elderly or otherwise, and you can't access your own home. I mean, that's a whole different concept, just the nature of our grades. It's, I think I'm with Commissioner, or excuse me, Vice Chair. I think you articulated a lot of my views. I appreciate Attorney Rudin making some of those clarifications as well. I imagine we might have some more input, but I just first want to check in with staff because there's a lot coming your way in terms of concepts. Are you comfortable with some of the questions? I think another one might have been worked out from attorney Rudin's standpoint, but we might want to just further define multifamily workforce versus multifamily or at least come up with a 100% answer that those may be one and the same. |
| 01:03:37.24 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Marla, did you have another comment? Did I miss you? |
| 01:03:41.95 | David Marlatt | No, just one thought just occurred to me what, uh, attorney Rudin was mentioning about the six year freeze on building code regulations. and you can't answer this tonight, I'm sure, but if we do pass such an ordinance, Is that subject to challenge that Sausalito has altered the building code in every way except directly? Would that be challengeable by a developer, do you think? Because it's kind of changing the building code. |
| 01:04:05.81 | Mary Wagner | Um, That would potentially be a concern, yes. So that is something that, you know, obviously, in terms of risk management, the council would need to consider. Um, I would say the other issue is as I was looking or listening to some of the comments this evening, I was looking to see if there were other jurisdictions that have universal design or visitability ordinances in the Bay Area. I wasn't able to locate any in Marin. As far as I can tell, Skimming San Rafael's Mutantos, they do not have one. So the project that was referenced this evening, that was just, designed to be in compliance with standard building code requirements that apply to multifamily and um, affordable housing projects generally under state building codes. |
| 01:04:57.14 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Sorry, Attorney Rudin, just want to clarify, and I'll look to Sybil to correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Sausalito would be the first city in Marin County to adopt such an ordinance. |
| 01:05:07.69 | Mary Wagner | I was about to comment. I've been unable to find any Marin County jurisdiction that has one. There are several cities in the Bay Area that do. Those include Alameda and Fremont. Again, most of those seem to typically predate the modern building code requirements you know, Certainly the building code standards, you know, applicable to the multifamily housing have, Peter Donnery- iterated and been changed on every three year cycle. So some of these jurisdictions that may have adopted universal design ordinances back in the early 2000s may have been very forward moving. And I think now the state has caught up through you know, changes in the building code. |
| 01:05:47.11 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:05:47.58 | Sybil Boutillier | Uh, |
| 01:05:47.80 | Andrew Junius | I'll serve you. with them. |
| 01:05:49.96 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:05:50.01 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:05:51.26 | Nastassya Saad | OK, thank you. Commissioner Moore, anything further? |
| 01:05:55.48 | Fred Moore | Yeah, to reiterate again, the reason for 17959.6 was specifically to address the track home single family to give an owner an opportunity to make their home age appropriate for them or their subsequent family where they have a family unit or whatever. So that's been around for over 20 years and developers have been using it. agree that the new housing we have, this new senior housing, In order to sell new Cesar housing or rent new senior housing, they're going to want to implement all these items. That's why that new project, you probably see all those great additions because they want to make sure the seniors are happy. And you're not happy if you can't get to the light switch or you can't get under the sink. So I don't have a big issue with the new housing. I think they're going to comply. I think this particular ordinance, when it goes about workforce versus non-workforce, I think if you're multifamily affordable or deed restricted senior housing, If you have workforce people there, don't workforce people still applies. In fact, I think workforce is maybe a little more confusing because if you have workforce, you probably don't have the 85 year old person working. So I'm assuming the workforce is more the people in their 30s and 40s who you would want to encourage that development, but maybe this additional costs you would not want to impose out on a workforce housing. So if anything, I would be considering whether that should be deleted. Again, I think I made too many comments already. That's it. |
| 01:07:28.46 | Nastassya Saad | Not at all. Those were very useful. Thank you. Final thoughts, Commissioner Alex. |
| 01:07:31.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | One final thought is this project in San Rafael, going back to what I said earlier, encourage staff to find out what that is as they develop the specifications for the senior housing that we're going to have control over. That would be an excellent place to implement things and find out what worked well there and maybe put that into part of our RFP or whatever we're calling the solicitation to developers to build a senior housing. |
| 01:08:03.86 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:08:03.88 | Nastassya Saad | Final thoughts, Vice Chair? No, thank you. All right, I think we're somewhat done with this topic. I just wanted to say thank you to Ms. Sybil Boutier. We appreciate you being here, and we appreciate the discussion. So as this was a study session, we're not going to take any action, and that being said, when there is either another study session or this comes back, you'll have another opportunity. And you heard our comments tonight, so maybe for the future presentation, we can implement some of those concepts in to help eventually if this goes for city council. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. With that, We're going to move on to item seven, our business items. This is the adoption of the Sausalito Planning Commission meeting schedule for 2026. I hope everyone has had a chance to look at it as it personally impacts us most. It should be that. We have multiple meetings. There will only be one meeting in November and one meeting in December. And we would have our typical August recess. And did I just completely never look up from all my papers? Would you like to come back up? I'm so sorry, I have so many papers. Okay, nevermind. |
| 01:09:28.29 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | You're doing an excellent job introducing the item chair. |
| 01:09:29.56 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I appreciate you. Mr. Blair. So with that, let me look to the commission. Are there any, yes, Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 01:09:38.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I said it's our standard schedule. I would move the resolution. Thank you very much. Second. |
| 01:09:45.34 | Nastassya Saad | okay any points of discussion no thank you very much uh assistant city manager can you please take roll commissioner moore |
| 01:09:52.94 | Fred Moore | Yes, I approve the schedule just like you know. I know for sure I will not be on September 9th. I cannot make the meeting. I'll be out of the country. |
| 01:10:00.22 | Nastassya Saad | We will miss you. Thank you very much. |
| 01:10:02.75 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Merlant? Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Vice Chair Junius? Yes. Chair Sott? |
| 01:10:09.35 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:10:09.60 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Motion passes. Very efficient. |
| 01:10:11.51 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, and my apologies, Adam. With that, I'm going to assume we're at adjournment. All those in favor? Thank you. |
| 01:10:19.68 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:10:19.88 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:10:19.96 | Nastassya Saad | Aye. |
| 01:10:20.10 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | I don't know. |
| 01:10:20.77 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Happy holidays ahead to everybody. Thank you very much. Final meeting of the year. |
| 01:10:26.41 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Happy holidays, everybody. Thank you for an excellent year. |