| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:01.55 | Nastassya Saad | Excuse me. January 28th planning commission meeting to order time is 632 assistant city manager |
| 00:00:09.45 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | manager. |
| 00:00:09.77 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:00:09.89 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | to be able to get the |
| 00:00:09.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:00:10.02 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | . Thank you very much, Chair, and good evening to you, Vice Chair Merlot, Planning Commissioners, staff, and 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 move to call roll. Commissioner. Junius. Present. Commissioner Moore. Thank you. |
| 00:00:35.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | here. |
| 00:00:35.65 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Thank you. |
| 00:00:37.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | President. |
| 00:00:37.98 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Vice Chair Merlotte. Present. Share us on. |
| 00:00:41.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Here? |
| 00:00:42.64 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | We have full quorum and congratulations again to Vice Chair Merlot for the new role. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:00:49.66 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. And yes, congratulations, Vice Chair. Item number two is the approval of the agenda. |
| 00:00:56.71 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | So... |
| 00:00:57.32 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:00:58.72 | David Marlatt | Second. |
| 00:00:59.41 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. ACM. |
| 00:01:01.29 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice Chair Merlot. Yes. Chair Saad. |
| 00:01:04.46 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Yes. |
| 00:01:10.21 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:01:10.53 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Motion passes. |
| 00:01:12.09 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Item number three are for public comments on items that are not on this agenda. Assistant City Manager Phipps. |
| 00:01:18.85 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, Chair. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens on matters that are not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes the Commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the Commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct that the subject be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio 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 we have Matthew Mandich and Adam Blair in the house at the moment if you'd like to make a comment on the zoom application please raise your hand and it'll be called upon when it's your time to speak and of course if you're joining us from a phone and you'd like to raise your hand press star nine and you'll be notified when your time has elapsed back to you chair |
| 00:02:11.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Mayor, would you like to make a comment for items that are not on this agenda this evening? |
| 00:02:19.03 | Stephen Woodside | I would. Thank you very much. I'm Stephen Woodside and I am here for two purposes, kind of like a social call to thank you for what you're doing. |
| 00:02:19.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm Steve. |
| 00:02:27.75 | Stephen Woodside | And secondly, to plant a seed, there's an interest on the part of some council members to have at some convenient date a joint meeting to talk about some of the procedural issues that we've all encountered over the last year, respecting appeals and looking at some possible issues. Modified procedures. Without getting into detail now, it's worth the discussion. My... Personally, just to let you know is that there's a whole lot of duplication. We find ourselves hearing de novo appeals from decisions you've made on, let's say, a 5-0 basis and We often have a tendency to approve not the appeal, but to deny it on a 5-0 basis. And that creates a real burden on many people, including the staff and including applicants and so on, so it's worth a discussion, in my view and others on the Council and we look forward to perhaps having a real discussion about that with you to see if we can. make matters a little more Efficient for all concerned. That's it. Thank you. |
| 00:03:40.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much for your comments this evening. With that, without seeing any further public comment for items not on this agenda, ACM Phipps, could you just check the Zoom for me, please? |
| 00:03:53.19 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yes. Looking at the, the customers. |
| 00:03:53.21 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Yes. |
| 00:03:58.44 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | And |
| 00:03:58.69 | David Marlatt | I'm just thinking, I'm sure |
| 00:03:59.50 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 00:04:03.23 | David Marlatt | Thank you. the second |
| 00:04:10.96 | Nastassya Saad | Shall I test that? |
| 00:04:19.35 | Nastassya Saad | Item number four this evening are the approval of planning commission minutes. However, there are no planning commission minutes. I just want to look to you, ACM, that that is not an error. |
| 00:04:29.85 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | No, not an error. We just received the minutes. This is prior as following the agenda posting from our previous meeting. So we'll make sure to include both of the minutes at our next meeting. |
| 00:04:40.81 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. With that, I do believe I still need to open it up for public comment, do I not? |
| 00:04:48.76 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | I'd say, just to be safe, let's do that. |
| 00:04:50.45 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 00:04:53.32 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Seeing none, chair. |
| 00:04:53.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much, ACM. Item number five are for communications. Just in light of the... public comment that we heard that is not on the agenda um acm phipps can i just ask staff to help coordinate um something to maybe we can discuss in our next agenda setting meeting with vice chair but we can potentially get something agendized to work with the mayor and city council to have some sort of joint session that would be that would be really helpful on on many levels i think this commission would really like to work closely more closely with city council |
| 00:05:30.11 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Absolutely, Chair. I'm happy to do that, and I will do you one better. I'll also collaborate with the agenda setting committee on that potential future joint item. Thank you. |
| 00:05:39.47 | Nastassya Saad | Excellent. Thank you very much. And actually, I'll turn it back to you. Do you have any updates from city staff for communications this evening? |
| 00:05:47.89 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:05:47.91 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:05:48.03 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I do have one communication item from staff this evening, but I will defer first to our vice chair, Burlott, to see if he would like to say anything as related to program eight and the associated city council working group, this is appointed count, excuse me. and the associated Council Working Group Appointed Task Force. |
| 00:06:14.35 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you. Thank you, ACM Phipps. I, as you know, am a member of the task force with an exceptionally long name, representing the Planning Commission. The task force is now met two times. We're scheduled to meet every Friday. At the last Friday's meeting, we reviewed a first draft of the RFP. This is for what would be the combined sites of the MLK site and the corporate yard. So that's a total of 81 units. And that draft RFP, if you're interested, is posted on the city's website. I don't know exactly where, but ACM can maybe communicate that to us later, a link or something. And there are two public workshops planned now on the calendar for February 22nd and March 8th, I think details to follow. Um, One thing that surprised me, God say, is that The council as of now has not planned to have any kind of, um, study session or presentation before the Planning Commission for this item. It's a surprise in my very careful wording. And so I think once again, the Planning Commission should have an opportunity to be a part and have a voice in this very important city planning initiative. So what I would like with the chair's indulgence, we can't have a motion or a minute or anything like that, but I would like to be requesting the Planning Commission's guidance, if I can, whether to direct staff to recommend the council schedules a presentation of the final RFP to the Planning Commission prior to its council hearing so that the Planning Commission has the opportunity to offer input in its capacity as the city commission. and I don't think we can have a motion because this is a communications issue, but maybe just, uh, a nodding of the heads or something that we can, collectively ask staff to make this request. And that's all I have for communications. |
| 00:08:18.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Yes, I know we can't have a full discussion, but I do think just a quick note, you definitely have my full support with that concept and I wholeheartedly agree. And it's lovely to have the mayor here so we can place the pressure and stare at him as we make this recommendation, but I do think it's a great idea and it would be beneficial. |
| 00:08:39.05 | Fred Moore | to the next episode. |
| 00:08:39.21 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 00:08:39.53 | Fred Moore | Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:08:40.02 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:08:40.03 | Fred Moore | Or did you want to know I got those same same concerns and appreciation for the input of having us involved. And so I thank you for bringing that up and hopefully that can get passed on and can be implemented. |
| 00:08:54.33 | Nastassya Saad | I think there's some general consensus here. Assistant city manager, would we give you that direction to help us facilitate something like that? Thank you. getting the nod. |
| 00:09:05.87 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yes, happy to, sure. |
| 00:09:07.27 | Nastassya Saad | Appreciate that. Are there any other communications this evening from... |
| 00:09:12.03 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | If I may, just wanted to compliment and follow on to Vice Chair Merlot's comments on the Program 8 Task Force. We do have two public forums that have been scheduled, which will be targeted towards receiving community feedback on the development of the MLK and Corpyard site. Those two forums are scheduled for February 22nd, that is Sunday, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., as well as Sunday, March 8th. |
| 00:09:12.75 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:09:42.25 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Certainly. All members of the community are invited, including the planning commissioners. |
| 00:09:53.58 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. With that, we'll open up communications for public comment. Assistant City Manager, could you help facilitate that? |
| 00:10:03.40 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | If I could take a half step back, Vice Mayor, could we go back to communications briefly? I'd like to share the webpage publicly, if that's okay with you. Absolutely. You'll indulge me. Excellent. If we could just share that webpage, we have been working to ensure that this webpage is updated with the latest and greatest on the progress that the task force has been making. If you will, if we could just scroll down the page a little bit, you'll see that we have some of the primary property information here, as well as a high level on the city's endeavors on implementation of this program. And we're sharing some of the relevant documents that we have designed this webpage, well, that are targeted in this approach. And we've designed this webpage around receiving feedback from members of the community on the draft RFP, which is linked on this web page. The feedback form is also linked, as you see here. Can we just click on that feedback link? Thank you, Mr. Blair. So the feedback can be generalized. We invite any community member to provide it, and we look forward to receiving them. With that, thank you for indulging me, Chair, and I'll give the mic back to you. |
| 00:11:13.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. That is very helpful. And perhaps it is something that we can also ask for the currents. I think that would be a great opportunity to send out in the currents as well for the community. With that, we'll open it up for public comment on communications. Assistant City Manager. Do we see any? Seeing none, Chair. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll close item five, communications. Item six is our public hearing for the evening. We have 6A. This is the recommendation on the ordinance amending Title 10, Chapter 10.44.240, and Chapter 10.24040 of the Sausalito Municipal Code, Formula Retail, and Special Requirements. We have our principal planner, Matthew Mandich, here this evening. Thank you. Welcome. |
| 00:11:37.41 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Seek non-chair. Thank you. |
| 00:12:04.85 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Good evening, commissioners, and good to see you all for the first time in 2026. I think all of you will be familiar with the project in front of you today. We'll go through the history of it and all of that here, but it was first introduced to the Planning Commission in the end of 2024, September. So as you can see, the project ID dates to that period, and it's gone through a number of iterations and hearings, which we'll cover in the presentation, but happy to be bringing it back in front of you all this evening. So with that, we'll go ahead and jump in. Next slide, please. So the request is to conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendments for Title 10, Chapter 1044-240. which concerns formula retail, as well as the table in 10. 24-1, which is our land uses in commercial districts. and chapter 10 24 040, which is special requirements for our commercial district. So we're looking at kind of three different sections of the code here tonight that are all communicating with each other. And then a secondary request of that is for the commission to adopt a resolution with a recommendation to the city council this evening. Next slide, please. So, again, talk a little bit about the current ordinance, some of the issues with that, the history of how we've tried to address those, as well as our proposed ordinance amendments that will be in front of the commission this evening. So, the current ordinance was adopted in 2003 and amended in 2007. It requires a conditional use permit to establish formula retail use. Aside from the required conditional use permit finding incident code, this section also requires additional specific findings for formula retail use above and beyond those of a standard conditional use permit. Requires a CUP as well for any expansion of existing formula retail if it's over 500 square feet. And the current ordinance also allows for formula retail uses only to locate in the central commercial shopping center and neighborhood commercial zoning districts with the issuance of a CUP. The current formula retail ordinance also does not really clearly define what a formula retail is, how many locations, or clearly define what the standardized elements that constitute a formula retail business are. So one of the projects at hand here is to redefine formula retail in a much clearer way. Next slide, please. So some of the problems. that exist with this ordinance, which has also been identified in the past, are the requirement for conditional use permit. In general, CUP must run with the land and cannot be establishment specific. So it needs to transfer over to subsequent purchases of the property. So something like a restaurant use would be a great thing to have a CUP for. However, something like a McDonald's, which is more of a user rather than a use, that's an establishment specific use and the CUP is really not the best type of permit for that. It also has specific subjective findings over and above beyond those for a CUP and the use of a CUP to control formula retail is also, been challenged in Malibu with their measure R, which lost in court. So just something to consider as well. Um, again, another issue with the ordinances already kind of touched on is that it's not clearly defined in the current code, the way that the current ordinance is written can really apply to any business in the city with a logo sign or trademark. And any business is really more than, than one. If you have two, it could be considered formula retail considering how it's written now. So very stringent. Um, the current ordinance also, um, based on feedback from our city attorney, increases risk to the city as it violates that recent court ruling just discussed and is really too vague to properly enforce in its current form. It also could be understood to discriminate against interstate commerce. So these are some of the issues we've been trying to clean up. or an ordinance. Next slide, please. So a little bit of background. First, we'll talk about what happened in front of the Planning Commission. So it was heard twice by the commission. First was in September 2024, as already mentioned. The key amendments included in that hearing were, first of all, to redefine formula retail, what that is. And we chose at that time anything with six or more definitions, or excuse me, six or more locations worldwide would be considered formula retail. So anything over that threshold of six in this first amendment. uh, iteration of these amendments. We also advocated for the removal of the CUP requirement, which we're continuing to do. Um, and we tried to bring forward the issuance of a formula retail zoning clearance, which would allow a certain number of formula retail establishments, um, in each commercial zoning district. So a certain number of businesses that had six or more, uh, locations worldwide. Um, So that hearing was continued by the PC at that time. So not approved, but requested additional information specifically on how these formula retails or zoning clearances would be issued, tracked and recorded, which was good feedback from the commission. And then additionally on who on staff would issue those and how. So the project was then brought back again to the planning commission on January 15th, 2025. Staff did provide clarifications on the mechanics of the formula retail zoning |
| 00:17:08.14 | Carlito Berg | Yeah. |
| 00:17:19.46 | Matthew Mandich | ordinance requested by the planning commission how those would be issued tracked and recorded And this ordinance amendment was ultimately approved in January 2025 by the planning commission on a 5-0 vote. Next slide, please. |
| 00:17:36.37 | Matthew Mandich | All right. As such, it went to the city council. Next, to be heard, the first reading by the city council occurred on April 1st, 2025. Upon introduction, this ordinance was approved by the council on a 4-1 vote with several modifications. One of them was to modify the language around the standardized elements, which you can see there in the code. Like what are the different standardized elements that also define formula retail, such as logo and branding, array of merchandise, uniforms, things like that. Require a planning commission to issue the formula retail clearances instead of staff. So they wanted us, even though we were going to issue clearances by zoning district, wasn't going to be a discretionary process. Rather than staff issuing those those they wanted the planning commission to be issuing those and tracking those um and then modify the zoning clearance table as follows so in its first iteration we had this again zoning uh clearance that would be you'd be allotted a certain amount of formula retail zoning clearances per zoning district and those were the numbers that the council wanted they were slightly modified from the numbers that we originally brought forward so that's what was approved by the council um and then pushed forward to second reading so next slide please so typically the second reading would be a consent item um following a first reading however um when the second reading was heard by the council on may 20th 2025 it was actually heard as a as a business item. Due to the request of the council, there was some concerns from both the council and the community about what kind of impacts the ordinance would have on commercial zoning districts in the city. And a lot of public comment on that. And, you know, we heard that. And so the item, instead of being a consent item, was brought back as a business item for a fuller discussion. And staff at that time was also directed to bring some potential alternatives, considering the concern of both council and the community on this. So at this hearing, staff presented several different alternatives, including a potential redefinition of formula retail with a higher threshold for what would define formula retail. Council also directed staff to revise the ordinance um to refine that so we uh excuse me we settled on a number at that hearing we were directed by council to that it would be 50 or more locations in california would now define formula retail so before what we brought forward was any more than six worldwide you're considered formula retail now we're upping that threshold to more than 50 in California. Now you're qualified as formula retail. So anything below that threshold would not count as formula retail. So that's a really significant change that we were directed to bring forward and something that was one of the alternatives that staff brought forward among several others. And that was what the council liked the most and directed staff to revise. We also removed the whole concept of the zoning clearances, which we just discussed. So that's out the window, makes things a little bit simpler. Don't have to track, record, issue all that. So a bit cleaner there. And then we're also directed to work with a city council working group to pick one zoning district in the city where formula retail would be permitted use by right. So selecting one zone where a business with 50 or more locations in California could locate without a CEP. The district that was chosen after working with council members Hoffman and Sobieski was the shopping center district where Molly Stone is currently located. And this is the zoning district that we're bringing forward for a buy right permitting of formula retail use. Next slide, please. So that's kind of the background, the history. I'm sure a lot of you remember this coming through to the commission, going forward to the council, and then kind of getting stopped in its tracks on second reading, reassessment, and then now remanded back to the planning commission, which is what we're considering today. So let's wipe the slate clean a little bit on what we did before. And here are the amendments we're pushing forward today, which I think is a bit simpler and more streamlined way to kind of understand and deal with the issue at hand here. So we want to really clearly define formula retail as a business with 50 or more locations in California. So anything with 50 or more locations qualifies as formula retail. Anything below that does not. And this is also coupled with having two or more of the standardized elements as are defined in the ordinance that was brought forward in the staff report and as an attachment to the standardized elements as are defined in the ordinance that was brought forward in the staff report and as an attachment to uh to the staff report as well um Certain uses are also exempt. These will never qualify as formula retail, regardless of how many locations. These are grocery stores, pharmacy, banks, medical, real estate, service stations, movie theaters, and couriers. We, again, removed that CUP requirement in line with the advice of our city attorney. And we decided to permit, and again, taking forward the recommendations of the council and the work with the council working group of Hoffman and Sobieski, to permit formula retail in one zoning district by right, which is the shopping center district, which is actually a one parcel district. We'll also be amending the commercial uses table accordingly in 1024 one and we added as well in 1024 the special requirements prohibition of any fast food drive through as well. So that's all part of these proposed amendments in front of you today. Next slide please. Um, Just to just kind of graphically show the one zoning district here that will allow formula retail use 50 more locations in California. This is the SC zoning district right here again where Molly stones is located next to the post office. It's a large one parcel zoning district. I've highlighted the other commercial zoning districts here with red circles. Formula retail will not be allowed in these districts. However, businesses that don't qualify will be next slide please. So here's some examples of potential new businesses that could locate in Sausalito that would not qualify as formula retail because they have less than 50 locations in California. So you can see, for example, some clothing companies, Marine Layer, Faraday, Aloe, some restaurants like Boy Chick Bagel, Tacalicious, Gats, Blue Bottle Coffee, as well as some other brands of home goods, Hudson Grace, Serena Lily, and other clothing, retail, anthropology, Louis Vuitton, shockingly only has 16 locations in California. So there's a lot of scope for new and diverse businesses to move into some of the bacon storefronts in town. So this is just a kind of random example. Equinox as well only has 37 locations in California. So, you know, there's a there's quite a number of things that can locate. Yes, do you have a question, Chair? Thank you. |
| 00:24:08.80 | Nastassya Saad | Um... Sure. So for example, blue bottle coffee, right? We have equator here now, which I believe is called Sausalito equator to have to have met the previous code. |
| 00:24:20.97 | Matthew Mandich | That's correct. |
| 00:24:21.29 | Nastassya Saad | that is going to like, we're not going to have like a sauce Lido Louis Vuitton. Right. It's like, no. |
| 00:24:26.23 | Matthew Mandich | No, we won't have to do that. So, I mean, part of the thing with Equator was they were able to kind of skirt the existing formula retail requirements by renaming themselves So they were kind of a one-off |
| 00:24:37.52 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 00:24:37.91 | Matthew Mandich | restaurant in a sense of we're Sausalito Equator. We're not part of the equator chain. We're we're we're a separate one off business. So that was. you know, a little bit of a different thing there. Yeah. None of these businesses were required to label themselves in such a way. |
| 00:24:52.40 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you for clarifying. |
| 00:24:53.70 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. Absolutely. So next slide, please. So again, though, these businesses, you know, they're not formerly retail businesses because they don't qualify as they don't break that threshold. However, they'll just be treated like any other business trying to locate in any commercial district. So where retail uses are permitted, they'll be allowed to just the CC, CR, CN. However, you know, retail uses are not permitted in the CW or the water district, which are commercial zoning districts. That'll stay the same. There's not any special changes that'll occur just like a restaurant. So for example, let's just take. Chick Bagel, they would be able to locate in the CC as a permitted use. However, they'd still require a CUP to locate in the CR zoning district because restaurants in general require a CUP to locate in the CR. So they'll just follow the zoning table around. So any discretionary permits that are required for specific land uses, CUPs or MUPs to locate in specific zones, those will still be required for all these businesses. They just won't be treated as a formula retail business because they won't crack that threshold. So hope that all makes sense. Happy to flush that out a little bit afterwards in the question period. So next slide, please. So that brings us to recommendation here. Staff recommends the planning commission adopt the resolution recommending approval of the proposed ordinance amendments to the city council. The new ordinance is simple, streamlined and objective. It allows more diverse businesses to hopefully locate in the city, which should help fill some difficult vacant retail spaces. And it also complies with applicable case law and reduces risk to the city. So that concludes my presentation and happy to take any questions you all may have. Thank you. |
| 00:26:30.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Matthew, very thorough. And I know it's a lot of detail and we've seen it many times. So thanks for working hard on it. I just wanted to note one thing before I turn it over to my... Fellow commissioners, I counted one, two, three, four. Five, five public comments. I think there's some maybe potential email. I'm not sure. Anything else that. you received everything was posted to the agenda in time, |
| 00:26:52.13 | Matthew Mandich | Correct. |
| 00:26:52.42 | Nastassya Saad | Wonderful. Okay, so we all had those public comments. Okay, we'll open up for questions. Commissioner Luxembourg, do you want to start us off with something? |
| 00:26:59.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. Thank you for the presentation. Is this mic working okay? I just want to make sure. Okay. Thank you for the presentation and, again, the history, because that's very helpful. I just have a couple technical questions. One goes to that chart you mentioned. So in the revised proposed ordinance, you've changed item D under 10, 24, 0, 40, called large frontage retail from D, and now you're really relabeling it to C. And in that, if for example, we had a pharmacy, a chain pharmacy, which is no longer formula retail because they're exempt. However, if they have more than 50 feet of frontage, they would still require a CUP, is that correct? |
| 00:27:47.70 | Matthew Mandich | So is that in 10, 24, 040 special requirements? |
| 00:27:51.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's in, let's see what it's... |
| 00:27:52.80 | Matthew Mandich | Yes. So that section we just left apart from the addition of the fast food and a deletion of some language about the CR, which doesn't comply with ordinance 1022. So everything else in there stayed the same. That'll require, if there's a CUP requirement there, it's not due to a formula retail use, it's just due to the size of the |
| 00:28:15.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. I just wanted to confirm, because it says under large frontage retail for anything over 50 feet, a conditional use permit shall also be required for any retail trade business located, basically it's for anything over 50 feet, requires a CUP. So a pharmacy, a chain pharmacy that's no longer formula retail still requires a CUP. |
| 00:28:39.71 | Matthew Mandich | By the reading of that code, it sounds like that would be correct. Yes. |
| 00:28:43.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We... I'm not sure. |
| 00:28:44.77 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yeah, Commissioner, I would say that the nature of the review would not be related to the formula retail establishment in and of itself, right? The review is related to development considerations and sensitivity to ensuring that new development isn't having a negative impact on a particular zoning district. So I would say that, you know, in spirit, this has nothing to do with the business type. It has everything to do with the frontage size of any business that is proposing to locate in the city. So I think it's qualitatively, well, |
| 00:28:44.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:28:52.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:29:14.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I just wanted to confirm that that was still true, given the exemptions. I just want to verify that. Secondly, what is, you may not know, but I understand the history and I watched that meeting, what is the basis for the number 50? So science to those number 50 or |
| 00:29:33.59 | Matthew Mandich | So... Um, well, there's a little bit, I think I can add a little color for that. I mean, one of the alternatives that, you know, we were staff was, you know, requested to provide some alternatives and one of the alternatives will let's up the threshold. Some of the numbers that were provided for that were like, you know, 20, 30, 50, a hundred and council liked 50 the best. And that's what they chose. There were also some, a little, a little bit more specific parameters around that in that some of the council member noticed that quite a number of, you know, regional chains, blue bottle for one were under 50. Many of them like in the thirties and forties of some of the, you know, more regional branding that, that they perhaps wanted to see. So that's one of the reasons that 50 was chosen because they didn't want to exclude any of those businesses that were in that 30, 40 range. So that's about as much as I can provide for you. That was the number that, you know, was selected by council and ultimately the one they liked the most. And that's what we were directed to bring forward. |
| 00:30:31.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So assuming the 50 number is a good number, why California as opposed to the whole country? That's right. |
| 00:30:38.11 | Matthew Mandich | So yeah, again, some of these brands that I mentioned on that slide, if you scope out to the entire country, they'll be well over 50. So then you're again starting to limit, especially if you went worldwide, like the initial the definition was six or more worldwide becomes, you know, really tight. There's not a lot of businesses that really fit inside that envelope. So having 50 in California gives a little bit more flexibility to a business like, for example, Louis Vuitton that has certainly more than 50 worldwide, but in California actually only has 16. So, I mean, there's a number of ways to kind of slice it, but I think ultimately I, I like the direction that council went with that. And I think that's a good, a good number. And I think the California adding that as well, instead of it being worldwide or nationally, again, allows for a wider range of businesses to potentially locate here. I'm sorry. |
| 00:31:30.92 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | And if I may, I think there's a sense of newness associated with this idea that, yes, you may have a business locating internationally in high numbers, but that have very limited amounts of that business in California. For all of us, for all of us Sausalito community members, that business seems quite new, quite novel, quite unique. so that's I think part of the intent here is that we want to make sure that the number of businesses that can qualify are large but that quite novel, quite unique. So that's, I think, part of the intent here is that we want to make sure that the number of businesses that can qualify are large, but that the context of Sausalito is also respected in that we're only adding things that are going to be seen as new business type additions as opposed to things that we see all over the place. |
| 00:32:13.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. Well, I mean, that would also be true if you used Northern California as opposed to all of California. |
| 00:32:19.09 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | It would, but you'd reduce, well... Yeah. |
| 00:32:23.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We can entertain that if you like, Chair. I would allow some Los Angeles firms that are larger than 50 to come, but I understand. |
| 00:32:23.73 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | We can entertain that if you like, Chair. |
| 00:32:31.98 | Matthew Mandich | A specific example to follow on from that actually just right in the vein of what City Manager Phipps was saying is like, we did have an applicant about a year or two ago that was a tea company that had about 100 different locations worldwide, but only one or two in California. But because of how many locations they had, and because the way our code was, we were saying, well, you got to get a CUP and they immediately were like, no, we don't want to do that so. Um, so, you know, uh, that's just an example, I think in the same vein of, of what we were just talking about. |
| 00:33:00.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I yield to the chair. |
| 00:33:02.45 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I was going to call you vice chair. Commissioner Junius. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner Moore, any questions for staff? |
| 00:33:08.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's true. |
| 00:33:14.88 | Fred Moore | Just a couple of I may have some technical issues when we get to the resolution itself, but for the shopping center district it's only Molly stones in the parking lot or is it spill over to the post office and the FedEx building. |
| 00:33:27.62 | Matthew Mandich | No, just the Molly stones and the parking lot. It's one large rectangular parcel. |
| 00:33:32.63 | Fred Moore | Did the subcommittee give you any indication why they didn't want to expand the permitted formula retail to other commercial districts? |
| 00:33:41.84 | Matthew Mandich | Well, I think they wanted to limit it as much as legally possible. And, uh, as far as, and I, you know, the city attorney can opine on this if you would like, but, um, this was the district that they ultimately settled on, um, I think we were discussing CN2 as a potential possibility. Um, cause that's a district also that doesn't allow residential, uh, one of the only, like one of the few commercial districts that doesn't allow residential uses. So that could have been an option as well. Um, but ultimately they went with, uh, the shopping center and, you know, we're bringing that forward. |
| 00:34:16.45 | Fred Moore | Another question, I know it didn't get modified, but with the exemptions, the real estate offices are exempt from falling within the formula retail, so Colwell Bank or Sotheby's, whatever. Was there a reason to keep them exempt? . |
| 00:34:31.44 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, that was a recommendation from city attorney's office. And yeah, here he comes right now. So I'll just let him maybe explain probably better than me. |
| 00:34:41.95 | Sergio | It is mostly because I think that there are these kinds of offices in just about every jurisdiction. And so you will, and most realtors practice you know, via some sort of conglomeration or group which shares branding. So you will unintentionally ban realtors in Sausalito. if you do not have an exemption. |
| 00:35:04.39 | Fred Moore | And the other question was, when you have the formula retail definition, you talk about any type of retail businesses, then you say including food services. So I'm assuming the reason that was added was to avoid any confusion that a food service is a service industry versus a retail business. Was that the reason that was kept in there? |
| 00:35:28.04 | Matthew Mandich | Which part of the, which section you're referring to? I'm sorry. |
| 00:35:30.87 | Fred Moore | It's a definition under definitions. Formula retail says it means any type of retail businesses... |
| 00:35:35.46 | Matthew Mandich | Uh-huh. Including foods. Yeah. So including restaurants, essentially, is what that means. |
| 00:35:35.49 | Fred Moore | Uh-huh. Right. So we didn't list a whole bunch of other things, including other types of businesses. So I'm assuming that was because sometimes people in the planning world will designate a food service business as a service industry, not a retail business. I just wondered if that was the rationale because we didn't we could list it, including food services. clothing stores, blah, blah, blah, blah. |
| 00:36:00.91 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, sure. Agreed. Yeah. No, good point. I mean, I think it's just to make it clear that restaurants are included in the definition there. |
| 00:36:07.84 | Sergio | Yes, and it's not a limitation. And again, I think you have actually hit the rationale on the head is that I I suspect this language exists and it has been lifted from other jurisdictions for the reason of you do not want... restaurant or service industry uses to say, well, we are not a retail and therefore we are not subject to this requirement. So yeah, I think this is a, this is language added in there out of an abundance of caution. |
| 00:36:39.67 | Nastassya Saad | more questions. Sorry. Thank you. Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:36:42.71 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. A question about the drive-through definition. Is that, I've never kind of seen it worded quite that way. Is that something that came from someplace else, a model code, or is that? Um, Yeah, I believe that came over. |
| 00:36:58.03 | Matthew Mandich | From Santa Monica, I think. If I'm... Remembering correctly. Thank you. |
| 00:37:03.16 | Sergio | I'm sorry. |
| 00:37:03.21 | Matthew Mandich | I think it came from a |
| 00:37:04.97 | Sergio | Carl's bad, but I will double check. |
| 00:37:08.56 | Andrew Junius | I'm just curious. It is a little convoluted, so I'll be having some more comments about that as well. But yeah, thank you. |
| 00:37:15.14 | Matthew Mandich | I mean, yeah, if we have recommendations as far as like a condition of approval or something to move it forward to tweak some of that language, I'm happy to take that on board. |
| 00:37:23.63 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Vice Chair, any questions? |
| 00:37:27.31 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Actually, my questions are going to be also around the stipulation of the 50 locations in California. I think you've addressed that. And in the kind of law of unintended consequence category, I did a little Googling last night and just want to see if this is also part of the intention. The Gap stores, for example, have 392 locations in the country, 58 in California. So they would be. excluded. Uh, But White Castle Hamburgers has 345 locations and none in California. So presumably a White Castle is not formula and could come in. |
| 00:38:07.72 | Matthew Mandich | By the definition, the code, yes. I think, you know, as a practical matter, |
| 00:38:09.29 | David Marlatt | coach. |
| 00:38:13.53 | Matthew Mandich | They're pretty much an East Coast brand. |
| 00:38:16.13 | David Marlatt | Sure. international brands and other brands coming in. But that's the intention. It sounds like that's the intention. Mm-hmm. Okay. Then my other question is just more about the mechanics of things. If a restaurant or a restaurant, a retail store of any sort has 45 locations, comes in, gets a permit, grows to 55 or 60 locations, presumably they're just an existing noncompliance. In other words, there are no triggers or no corrective action. You're not going to stop them from remodeling or something like that. |
| 00:38:46.66 | Matthew Mandich | It'll be assessed at the time of the application coming in. So if a business were to locate here under 50 and within 10 years grew to be over 50, we wouldn't be kicking them out. Like a grant. |
| 00:38:55.23 | David Marlatt | Like a grand spot, like a existing noncompliance, essentially. |
| 00:38:59.53 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, maybe non-conforming. |
| 00:39:00.93 | David Marlatt | or something. Something to that effect. Okay. Thank you. I don't think I had any other questions. |
| 00:39:01.54 | Matthew Mandich | Right. Okay. |
| 00:39:05.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I don't have any other questions either. So at this time, we will open it up for public comment. Correct? |
| 00:39:15.12 | Matthew Mandich | All right. Thank you. |
| 00:39:15.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Matthew. Yes, we have one speaker. |
| 00:39:21.84 | Nastassya Saad | you can. if you can state your name. |
| 00:39:24.20 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Mr. Berg, please state your name and address for the record. Oh, Mr. Berg is my phone. |
| 00:39:27.53 | Carlito Berg | Mr. Huggers, you might have to call it. |
| 00:39:29.62 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you for being here. |
| 00:39:31.95 | Carlito Berg | Hey, everybody. My name is Carlito Berg, a local real estate guy and with the GAC, with the Chamber of Commerce. Just wanted to talk to you guys tonight very briefly. Often you guys have sort of a thankless job. You're going over, you know, a tree that may be chopped that's larger than four inches in diameter or something. And that's not always the most fun thing to do, of course. But today is a cool opportunity for something that actually really does move the needle for a local business and and for our town and so just a really quick story to illustrate this I was looking at the Wells Fargo building when that had come up and I had a previous relationship with this great French Japanese company named Officine Bully, 1803, long name. But anyway, long story short, they had 12 or so locations in different places all around the world, London, Tokyo, Shanghai, none in America. They wanted to come to America. They wanted that store. They wanted Sausalito to be the place they opened their first US store. They're smart folks. They talked to a retail broker. The retail broker said, run far away from Sausalito. Don't do it. So... If you don't have a tenant, you're not going to put an offer on the building. You're not going to close. It's just the way that that's one of many, many stories that I'm sure you guys have heard over the years of how this past ordinance, while it might have been well-intentioned, wasn't designed very well. And so now we have an opportunity to change that. And so I would just strongly support, you know, reforming this ordinance in such a way that that businesses can survive and thrive in the city and we can get really cool stuff and a nice mix of retail in the town. Cause that's critical to any well-functioning town and all the tax revenue that comes with that, filling the vacant storefronts, all of that good stuff. So I just appreciate all your guys' time and thank you very much. |
| 00:41:30.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much for being here in the public comment. We also want to note that we received your written public comment, and that's on the agenda. Assistant City Manager. |
| 00:41:40.32 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. We have two hands raised in the Zoom application. First hand that I've seen raised is that of Alexander Wooy. Alexander, welcome to Elchman Minutes to Speak. |
| 00:41:51.23 | Alex Boy | Yeah. |
| 00:41:52.85 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:41:52.87 | Alex Boy | Thank you. Yeah, my name is Alex Boy. I'm on the Economic Development Committee. And I also wanted to echo Carlito's sense that This feels like a long time coming that this has been a reason for, I think, businesses that would really love to put down roots in our community to say no in the past and I think we've all sort of had a little loss from some of those business activities, part of the community. And part of that vibrancy that I think we could benefit from. And as, you know, head of this meeting, I was looking at do other cities and Marin have a similar formula retail restriction and they don't. And so I just think this is such a great thing for our community, for the business community, for us as residents. And hopefully levels the playing field as we try to attract dynamic businesses that want to put down roots here in our community and be a meaningful part of our town. So thank you. I support it. And I'm really excited to see this come to fruition and hopefully get additional businesses to come into our town. Thank you. |
| 00:43:01.13 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much, Alexander. Going on to the next speaker, that is Adrian. Adrian, welcome. You have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:43:14.73 | Adrian Brinton | Hi, thank you so much for taking my comment. This is Adrian Brinton, a Saucyuta resident. And thanks to the committee and the city staff, I didn't know how much work had gone into there. a science-to-hearing, um, I'm Mr. Manager to recap, and this has obviously been going around for a long time, and I'm glad that we're spending the time to make it. the best it can be. The 50 is a great number. I'm on the board of the business improvement district. We had written a letter in support, which I think that you all got. And there's a lot of support for this among the business community. The empty storefronts are really seen as a big problem even for existing businesses. And so it's great to see that we're going back and reviewing these ordinances that have unintended consequences in the present. and updating them. The 50 number is really good. We've done a lot of research in things. Sure, there's a little bit of risk that a white council might come in. You know, I would argue to say, If White Castle chose to open their very first West Coast expansion in South Puerto, we'd probably get on the news for it, and there'd probably be a lot of great stuff that came from that. I think it's very unlikely, but there are a lot of great local and regional that fit. Equator is a great example of that and knowing that businesses like that can come in without going through a permit process, which they tend to avoid, is wonderful. So thank you very much and hopefully we can move this forward and have this change implemented soon. Thank you. |
| 00:44:44.78 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, Adrian, for your comments. Chair, seeing no additional raised hands in the Zoom application, I'll give it back to you. |
| 00:44:50.53 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We're going to close the public comment portion of that and move it back up here. |
| 00:44:57.72 | Sergio | Chair, if I may, before you deliberate, I did look further into Commissioner Junis' question about this drive-through permit language. I was mistaken. It does not come from Carlsbad. It also does not come from Santa Monica, and it appears that it It is unclear where it came from. But having considered it further and looked at it, I do think I will be recommending tonight changes to that language. Because I am concerned about it reading about you know, businesses that prepare for intended for consumption vehicles. I think it's best to have laws written that don't rely on to inquiry into mental states. And so for that reason, I would recommend this language be changed Um, uh, businesses that have a drive-through lane to serve customers and motor vehicles or that provide for food while customers are seated in vehicles are prohibited in all commercial districts. I think that language simplifies the proposed ordinance. |
| 00:46:02.65 | Andrew Junius | And I'll follow up on that. I think that's still even more complicated than I think it needs to be. So let me, I'll, I'll comment on that as well. Appreciate that, Sergio. Thank you. |
| 00:46:12.58 | Sergio | All right. |
| 00:46:12.73 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:46:12.78 | Sergio | Thank you. |
| 00:46:14.28 | Andrew Junius | Before I get to that though, I just wanted to You know, I certainly support this. It's been a long time coming. I think it's going to make Sausalito a lot more competitive. The story we heard from Carlo is just a tragic one, and I'm sure there are many of those that, you know, people just don't want to deal with the paperwork. So I hope we get this across the finish line. Before we talked a little bit more about the nuts and bullets of the drive-through definition, I'm just kind of curious. I think Commissioner Moore raised the question about other districts for the true formula retailers, those that are over 50. It is kind of odd to have a single large lot that's already developed with a shopping, you know, with a, with a grocery store on it to be the only location that a formula retail establishment could go. I hope that works. The city attorney appears to believe that that complies with current law. I don't really want to, I just want to stay for the record. I, you know, I'm not sure how a formula retailer would go there. There may be a pad built in the parking lot. I suppose Molly stones could rent some space inside their building to a formula reach out. I just, I just wondering how realistic there actually is an opportunity for a true formula retailer to be, uh, in that SC zone. And with that, let's get to that fabulous form and drive through definition. Um, I think we all know what a drive-through is. And so. I also don't think we need the word drive in. I think that's a bit confusing. drive-through facilities. So I would remove the word drive-in. I would basically, the definition should read, drive-through facilities for fast food restaurants prohibited period. And then it should, and we don't really need to add much here. I think we're just taking some of the language out of business says that. provide for the ordering of food while the customers are seated in the vehicles are prohibited. That's all we need. this idea that You're trying to regulate People eating in their cars, I think is silly. I think that's where Sergio was going a little bit. So I think it's really a simple, matter of striking the central part there. So it literally just reads businesses that. provide for the ordering of food while the customers are seated in the vehicles. That's essentially what a drive-through is. So I would make that amendment. Otherwise, I'll be moving to approve. Thank you. |
| 00:48:27.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much and appreciate that catch. It's nice to have that legal eye. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:48:34.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. I think this is a long time in coming. When the formula retail ordinance was adopted, the city was a major attraction in order to maintain the city's unique village character and diversity and economic vitality of the community of the commercial district. The formula retail ordinance, I think, was essential. Since that time, a number of things have occurred, and I just want to get these on the record. First, the onset of Amazon and other online retails significantly changed the retail industry. The 2020 pandemic, which greatly affected retail businesses, many of which closed, along with the expansion during the pandemic of Amazon and online retailers, has occurred, further hurting the retail industry of bricks and mortar. Retail has come back in Sausalito, but not to the pre-pandemic levels. Inflation, supply chain issues, and tariffs have made it difficult for mom-and-pop shops to compete. As a result, Sausalito has, I might count roughly, I don't know if it's an exact number, but over two dozen vacant retail storefronts. There are a number of small, unique Bay Area businesses that fit the character of Sausalito and have been successful, but they now have, if they're successful, they have two, four, 15 locations. And under our current code, those would not be allowed. So this allows that to occur. And some of them are, I agree with Assistant Manager Phipps, nationwide, if a business isn't here and they have 100 locations in the East and they want to come do their first one in Sausalito it would be new to us so I agree with that. Thus the given economic environment plus the 2017 court case mentioned in the staff report it's important that we do we amend this. Therefore I would strongly recommend the city council adopt the ordinance amendment but to maintain the city's unique village character and diversity and economic vitality i would go further i do think an ordinance i do not think an ordinance change alone will solve sausalito's economic development problems i would recommend to the city council that they prioritize the need for economic development in sausalito and have cdd staff whose responsibilities include economic development to reach out to Bay Area businesses that are not currently in the city and are consistent with Sausalito's character and encourage them to locate in Sausalito once this amendment is approved. The staff should let them know about the ordinance change, provide a list of current or vacant spaces, and the city help them through the permitting process. The waterfront, the hills, and natural features will always be a draw for Sausalito, but the continued retail vacancies affect not only the quality of life in Sausalito, but the tax revenues that the city receives. I know the CDD staff has many responsibilities these days, but if the city does not prioritize the retail sector, the diversity of the city will fail, and Sausalito will become only a residential community. So those are my thoughts. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:51:50.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Luxembourg. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:51:57.42 | Fred Moore | I wholeheartedly agree that we definitely need to do something to vitalize downtown and to bring commercial businesses there. And I support 100% Commissioner Luxenberg's comments that we need to do more. And I think in connection with reaching out, letting other people know about the potential change, the potential opportunities in Sausalito, at some point in time, I think we need to revisit 1022 and to either repeal or significantly modify that so we open up more portions of the city to businesses that will help residents alike as well as tourism. I have a number of maybe technical issues with the proposed ordinance, which I don't know if there's appropriate to go through now with the |
| 00:52:40.79 | Nastassya Saad | Why don't we go ahead and go through those? |
| 00:52:40.80 | Fred Moore | Thank you. for them one at a time. Again, I'm assuming that we are going to pass this and not expand the zones where formal retail is permitted. I agree with Commissioner Junius. That seems like a very limitation that maybe a different zone should be considered, but maybe not at this level, maybe more the city council level, we can recommend they consider that. But some technical issues with the draft ordinance under the purpose section, I would I would eliminate in the last sentence, the two words for all so that the last sentence would read the city desires to encourage elements that provide variety and charm while still leaving business opportunities open. I don't think the for all is necessary. With respect to the formatting of the ordinance, based on other existing ordinances, where we start with, for example, definitions, then we go subcategory A for color schemes, I believe rather than the A, B, C, it should be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. That's how the rest of our ordinances are set up. So I would suggest doing that. With respect to the item H under 1044240 standardized array of merchandise, the word bear, where the last name says single distributor bear uniform markings, I think it needs to be bearing uniform markings. |
| 00:54:10.09 | Nastassya Saad | Can you repeat where you are on that one, please? |
| 00:54:13.41 | Fred Moore | So if going to 1044.240 under definitions B, H, which hopefully will be a number later, which says standardized array of merchandise. I think the word bear in the last sentence needs to be bearing. Thank you. Or it could be with as well, but the bear is incorrect. And I'll refer to this, this city attorney, but trademark. The legal definition of trademark normally talks about symbols and designs used in commerce. So I don't know if we need to change that to, say, symbols or designs used in commerce and then to identify and distinguish blah, blah, blah, the rest of it. So I would recommend those changes occur. |
| 00:55:02.64 | Fred Moore | Then again, under exemptions, rather than the ABC, it would be one, two, three, four. Under the exemptions, we have movie theaters. And I would suggest expanding that so that movie theater is as broad as we can make it. So it talks about pictures, slides, and then it says or closed circuit television pictures. I would delete or I would add a comma after pictures and include interactive media, comma, and or live broadcast. |
| 00:55:41.28 | Fred Moore | Another question I have for the city attorney, the way we've identified the modification to table 1024-1, Obviously that table is very, very long with a lot of stuff in there. I just wanna make sure we're not going to be open for some challenges that were changing that entire section to only have the retail trade. So I don't know if we need to expand that to make sure that this is the only section of that table that's changing. Everything else is remaining the same. It could just be the way I'm reading it. And then. |
| 00:56:21.31 | Fred Moore | Lastly, I would kind of agree with Mr. Juniors' revised definition of the drive-ins. So those are all my kind of technical changes. I apologize if that was confusing, but I would consider that if the changes. |
| 00:56:37.17 | Sergio | If I may respond. Yeah. |
| 00:56:39.65 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 00:56:39.97 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, please. |
| 00:56:40.29 | Fred Moore | Please. |
| 00:56:41.29 | Sergio | comments. I will agree with all of those. Certainly the definition of standardized array of merchandise has that typographical error with respect to the word bear. with respect to the word trademark. I do believe that it does make sense to make the definition align with the federal law of trademarks in the Lanham Act. I agree changing that definition to mean, you know, Trademark means any word, name, symbol, design, or any combination thereof used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from those of another and indicate the source of goods. Um, including the definition as set forth in the Lanham Act 15 USC 1127. So. |
| 00:57:30.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Sergio. Do you have any comment on the, which I might actually might ask you, Commissioner Moore, to re-comment on the table, 10.24-1. Can you re-articulate what you were saying about the change to the? Zoning table. |
| 00:57:51.98 | David Marlatt | Thank you. next show. |
| 00:57:53.80 | Fred Moore | just to make sure that there's not confusion, that we're not eliminating the rest of the table, we're just changing that one section. And, Maybe we don't need to clarify it. I just don't know anyone challenging it later that we inadvertently eliminated the rest of the table. |
| 00:58:09.78 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yeah, we don't want to suggest that we've eliminated all other land uses. |
| 00:58:14.05 | Sergio | Yeah. So section three should say the formula retail designation in Sausalito Municipal Code Table 10.24-1. It should have that addition to it. |
| 00:58:24.51 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. I think that Makes sense. Thank you, Sergio, as well. I believe I caught everything else. Let me stop and just see if anyone wants to pick on any one thing Commissioner Moore said. I did have one question, Commissioner Moore. When you are changing for the movie theaters and you wanted to expand that definition, what is your intention with adding the live broadcast? I'm just not sure what that would potentially entail. Thank you. |
| 00:58:54.64 | Fred Moore | I was trying to include different types of uses that may occur in a movie theater space. And the closed circuit... television pictures seem to be a limitation. And if there was a way that a movie theater was able to broadcast something live, To me, I'm not sure that qualifies as a closed circuit television pitchers. So I thought broadcasting live, if it had a big event and it wanted to have a Super Bowl game and it had a big TV and it wanted to broadcast that in the theater itself in charge, that would also qualify. |
| 00:59:28.94 | Nastassya Saad | I see. Thank you very much. Attorney Rudin, do you foresee any issue with any of the changes specifically for expanding the movie theater definition? |
| 00:59:40.50 | Sergio | No, I do. I do believe that Commissioner Moore is correct, that there are movie theaters increasingly going into the business of broadcasting live events. |
| 00:59:49.80 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. OK, great. Thank you very much. Commissioner Luxembourg, any comments on anything Commissioner Moore just raised? |
| 00:59:58.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I'm good with all those changes. |
| 01:00:00.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. excellent and Commissioner Junius and Vice Chair. |
| 01:00:05.97 | David Marlatt | And I'm really getting deep in the weeds on the movie theaters here. Because when I first read it, honestly, but excluding adult theater regulated adult entertainment, which displays motion pictures. And of course, that comment is essential. And I missed it the first time. Because then by adding the live entertainment, I thought you were actually narrowing movie theaters rather than broadening the movie theaters. So I get it now, that's the common, very important. But then it should be movie theaters which display, because that's what threw me, because the adult theater is singular and it says which displays. So it should be movie theaters which display. So that ties that in. |
| 01:00:45.35 | Fred Moore | I apologize, I just looked at that as you were talking about, it had a little cross off the SOI that should be displayed. Yeah, okay. |
| 01:00:51.97 | Sergio | It may be clearer just to reorder those clauses. Movie, so movie theaters with retail use which displays motion pictures, slides, closed circuit television pictures, and or live events, but excluding adult theater regulated as adult entertainment. |
| 01:01:02.63 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not. |
| 01:01:02.75 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:01:09.41 | David Marlatt | I think that's even better. I think that's even better. Then my other question is more for Commissioner Luxembourg. I support the direction of asking staff to do some community outreach. Are you thinking then when we get there, these are two separate motions? There'd be a motion for the resolution and a motion for the staff outreach. |
| 01:01:30.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I was thinking we would adopt the draft resolution with these amendments, and then we would also send a resolution strongly encouraging the city council to prioritize his staff to do this. Yeah. |
| 01:01:45.97 | David Marlatt | I would definitely support that. I would support both potential. |
| 01:01:45.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that was, |
| 01:01:49.54 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you very much. To keep picking on the movie theater conversation, so the live broadcast makes sense. I think the interactive media is a little bit of a question mark, only in the sense that certain types of businesses can have interactive media as part of their scope when they've got potentially nothing to do with anything movie theater-related- like those Topgolf type, right? In businesses, I know there's a lot of those in the city, for example. So I'm not sure I feel like interactive media actually might be a little too broad a definition. I don't know if there are any comments around that, but just interactive media in this day and age is pretty far, it's got far reach, and it might be an overstep of what we're trying to achieve on the movie theater conversation. |
| 01:02:44.93 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yeah, I would just, I think that that's a good comment. Thank you for saying that chair. Another example of this is, you know, many establishments restaurant establishments are beginning to use digital interactive media ordering as their primary form of submitting orders. So just another example that might have an unintended consequence. |
| 01:03:08.57 | Fred Moore | Those are good points. And I guess I didn't consider that this isn't a, this isn't the area of exemptions from formula retail. So if that was broader like that, it still doesn't fall within the formula retail. So are we, What would we run now if it was broader than the parallel? |
| 01:03:25.61 | Adrian Brinton | None. |
| 01:03:27.03 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 01:03:27.30 | Adrian Brinton | you. |
| 01:03:31.72 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yeah, I think so long as we agree that interactive media. and those considerations occur under the umbrella of the movie theater. I think that, yeah. |
| 01:03:37.93 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:03:37.97 | Carlito Berg | Thank you. |
| 01:03:43.79 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | No, it probably not impactful to industries outside of movie theater. |
| 01:03:49.29 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think that's my intention. That's better stated, Assistant City Manager. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I am supportive of all of those changes and all those additions and, um, especially on the drive-through. Thank you, Commissioner Junius. I just wanted to make one comment. Commissioner Luxenberg, you brought up a great point. I was going to make the same similar comment about... the changing landscape. I think the last note is just that the demographics of Sausalito are significantly different now too. You know, growing up, like I have mentioned so many times, there was just, there was a very specific set of folk that were here and it's expanded significantly in the last 20 years, even in the last 10 years. So I think it does bode pretty well for the city to adapt and change and also make Sausalito more shoppable for locals, right? I don't know how many of you shop often in Sausalito, but we can really, this could really be useful for locals and of course visitors alike. So I think that's a really nice welcome change. So I would also support this. I think at this point we have some consensus here. So maybe I'm gonna look for a motion for this piece first. Then we have some other ideas as well. Go ahead. |
| 01:05:08.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would like to move the draft resolution that's in the packet with the changes that we talked about this evening |
| 01:05:16.82 | Nastassya Saad | Is there a second? A second. Thank you very much. Assistant City Manager, could you please take roll? |
| 01:05:25.38 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Absolutely. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:05:31.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:05:31.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:05:31.92 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. Vice Chair Merlot. Yes. Chair Saan. |
| 01:05:34.69 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:05:35.20 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Motion passes. |
| 01:05:36.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. And I think there was some conversation around a potential resolution of direction for city council. But is that something that we could do if it's unprepared at this moment? |
| 01:05:49.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can do that. I think I can suggest a draft resolution based on this issue tonight about the formula retail ordinance. I would move that the be resolved that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that they prioritize the need for economic development in Sausalito and have the CDD staff, whose responsibilities include economic development, reach out to Bay Area businesses that are not currently in the city and are consistent with the Sausalito's character and encourage them to locate in Sausalito. The staff should let them know about this ordinance change, provide a list of current vacant spaces in the city, and help them through the permitting process. |
| 01:06:38.49 | Nastassya Saad | Attorney Rudin, do you care to comment on procedure or anything? |
| 01:06:43.86 | Sergio | Yeah, I would suggest that this be added as a paragraph two to the resolution that you just passed making recommendations to the city council on the ordinance. |
| 01:06:55.91 | Nastassya Saad | So versus a separate resolution, do we need to then reopen that back up as an amendment? Or do we just, can we take a vote on that paragraph knowingly that we'll go ahead and take? |
| 01:07:06.91 | Sergio | I think you can take a vote to add that to the resolution you just passed. |
| 01:07:11.97 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 01:07:12.99 | Sergio | So moved. |
| 01:07:15.25 | Nastassya Saad | Second. Thank you. Assistant City Manager. |
| 01:07:18.47 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Genius. Yes. Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:07:21.70 | Fred Moore | That was very impressive, by the way, to get there off the top of your head. So, yes, I approve. |
| 01:07:26.72 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice Chair Merlot. Yes. Chair Assad. |
| 01:07:30.89 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:07:30.93 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yes. Motion passes. |
| 01:07:32.28 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. With that, we have adjournment. All in favor. Excellent. Okay. Thank you very much, guys. Have a good night. |
| 01:07:42.76 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, community members. Have a great evening. |
| 01:07:52.83 | Adrian Brinton | . you |
Alex Boy — In Favor: Economic Development Committee member; noted other Marin cities lack such restrictions, advocated for attracting dynamic businesses to enhance community vibrancy. ▶ 📄
Adrian Brinton — In Favor: Sausalito resident and Business Improvement District board member; supported the 50-location threshold as a balanced approach to reduce empty storefronts and help existing businesses. ▶ 📄