| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:02.36 | David Marlatt | This meeting of the Sausalito Planning Commission, February 25th, 2026, is called to order. ACM Phipps, please sign us in. |
| 00:00:12.92 | ACM Phipps | Very well will do good evening to you Vice Chairman a lot Commissioners staff and members of the public this evening's meeting is being held at city of Sausalito's 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 let the record show. chair Nastasya Saad, is not present. commissioner juniors Yeah. |
| 00:00:37.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:00:38.25 | ACM Phipps | Commissioner Moore. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:00:41.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:00:41.39 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:00:41.58 | David Marlatt | Thank you, sir. |
| 00:00:41.66 | ACM Phipps | for the Vice Chair Merlot. All right, we have a quorum back to you, vice chair. |
| 00:00:46.32 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. First order of business will be approval of the agenda. |
| 00:00:52.43 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:00:52.45 | ACM Phipps | So moved. |
| 00:00:53.24 | David Marlatt | you |
| 00:00:53.26 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:00:53.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So. |
| 00:00:53.49 | ACM Phipps | I'm sorry. |
| 00:00:53.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. you |
| 00:00:54.66 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:00:54.71 | David Marlatt | ACM. |
| 00:00:56.24 | ACM Phipps | Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:00:58.79 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 00:01:00.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:01:00.63 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 00:01:01.02 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. Vice Chair Merlot. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:01:04.53 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Next on the agenda, public comments on items not on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? Thank you, and you'll have three minutes. |
| 00:01:20.22 | David Marlatt | Is that permissible to have a handout or? |
| 00:01:22.84 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:01:24.14 | David Marlatt | Okay. It's good with me. |
| 00:01:30.97 | Mary Wagner | And I will just note that any handouts that are provided to the Planning Commission do need to be made available to the public. and copies do need to be made. share. |
| 00:01:41.70 | ACM Phipps | Yeah, let the record show all be providing a copy at the front of the chamber for community relevance. We've had them provided a little more copy Thank you. |
| 00:01:55.29 | David Marlatt | And in the internet, |
| 00:02:15.12 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Whenever you're ready. If you could just introduce yourself for the record as well, please. |
| 00:02:21.70 | ACM Phipps | Mr. Giavarra, go ahead. Thank you. |
| 00:02:23.62 | Archie O'Vara | Thank you. |
| 00:02:23.64 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:02:23.97 | Archie O'Vara | Big... |
| 00:02:24.31 | ACM Phipps | Yeah. |
| 00:02:24.53 | Archie O'Vara | Okay. My name is Archie O'Vara, and I'm the owner of 599 Bridgeway. There are many commercial vacancies in Sausalito. On my block alone. There are five properties. You passed the opening up of formula retail for the downtown business district. But there isn't. anyone in downtown to support these businesses to make them successful. a lack of residence in the downtown area. District. where we reduce We're going to go. quantity. a number of businesses that want to come to town, You need more housing in the commercial district to make it walkable, to make it a walkable neighborhood. to be able to... Thank you. to make new businesses viable. I recommend that the planning Commission. I recommend to the Planning Commission to encourage housing be built in the CC district. which would provide year-round support for new businesses. I am recommending that you change the restrictive FAR of 1.3 in the CC district. having maximum building coverage of 100% and a height limit of 32 feet with a restrictive floor area ratio of 1.3 is beyond ridiculous. It impedes developing housing. I also... request or recommend that you maintain the average national or natural grade ordinance. changing the national... natural grade ordinance would down zone properties. I also, would ask that you repeal 10-22. You can't ask new businesses to spend money to come to Sausalito when there is not a good residential base to support them. Downtown is dying and commercial property owners need incentives to fix up and improve their properties. I provided a picture that I don't know if you've ever—well, you've probably seen it—of what it actually looked like, my buildings on there. Uh, And, You know, some of the things that I encourage development would be the that should be developed, should be the... What a fun. Okay. |
| 00:05:27.17 | ACM Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Giovara, for your time. Thank you for your comments. Thank you for being here. |
| 00:05:28.69 | Archie O'Vara | Okay. |
| 00:05:31.44 | ACM Phipps | Looking to the chamber for interested. Thank you. That's right. |
| 00:05:36.10 | ACM Phipps | Oh, yes. Looking for the chamber for additional interested speakers for public comments on items not on the- No question. |
| 00:05:41.48 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:05:42.83 | ACM Phipps | All right, not on the agenda. I'm looking to the Zoom application as well for raised hands. Signan. And I'll give it back to you, vice chair. |
| 00:05:53.61 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you very much. Item four on our agenda, approval of the Planning Commission minutes. Any comments, edits, or motions? Bye. |
| 00:06:02.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So moved. |
| 00:06:07.89 | ACM Phipps | Second. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice Chair Merlot. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:06:12.50 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 00:06:16.11 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 00:06:20.51 | David Marlatt | Thank you. I forgot it was me. Next item is communications. ACM Phipps, Communications. |
| 00:06:30.28 | ACM Phipps | You're doing an excellent job, Vice Chair, and thank you very much for the opportunity. The only communication I have for the Commission this evening and for the community is an update in connection with our Program 8 implementation and task force. As the Commission may be aware, as all residents in Sausalito have received, there was a mailer sent out to advertise for the first of two public forums to discuss the disposition of the MLK and corporation yard property to implement program eight as well as program for in our housing element for the development of affordable housing. on each property with a priority for senior housing. The first forum went swimmingly. We got a great amount of community commentary. I will tip the hat to our vice chair, David Merlot, for being an instrumental member of the task force, also being a present member at the public forum, who was the tip of the spear on one of the breakout sessions related to design elements. So thank you to the community. Thank you to our council members as well who all so attended Councilmember Cox, Councilmember Hoffman, and Vice Chair Blaustein. As a follow-on to this forum, we will hold a second public forum on March 8th of this year, which will be held at the Spinnaker, same time, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., and we are currently in the process of drafting and sending out a mailer, an additional mailer, to advocacy. for that second public forum. We look forward to seeing David Merlot there. I will be there. We look forward to the community members attending. That does it for my update. Thank you. |
| 00:08:15.30 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:08:15.31 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. |
| 00:08:15.97 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:08:16.85 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:08:16.87 | Fred Moore | Could I ask a couple of two follow-up questions? I was curious. So is that it would have been nice, I think, if there had been different days rather than Sundays, those people who are committed to Sundays automatically can't go to either one of those forms. So I wish that had been a little bit different. I fall in that category of can attending. But two questions, are the mailers paid by the city? And is the facilitator, Amy, is she also being paid by the city? |
| 00:08:44.98 | ACM Phipps | Yes. And just to respond to your point on Sunday, totally hear you, Commissioner, and to allow for folks who can't attend those meetings to provide comments. We have a web page that we've created with a feedback form that anybody can avail themselves of at any time. We also accept emails from community members. And all of those things that we've received, we are summarizing, and they will have an impact on how we review and cut draft the next version of this RFP that will be considered again at the second public forum. Thank you. |
| 00:09:18.12 | David Marlatt | That's great, I was just about to ask you the same question as a follow up on the website and the summaries of what went on. Item, any other communications? We're good. Next item, public hearing. I guess before we start the public hearing, any ex parte communications to report or? Thank you. |
| 00:09:38.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:09:38.32 | David Marlatt | Oh, yeah. |
| 00:09:38.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of the |
| 00:09:38.47 | David Marlatt | No. |
| 00:09:38.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 00:09:39.03 | David Marlatt | No, no expert. No. take everyone's word for it. you know, Okay, so item 6A, recommendation on ordinance amending Title 10, Table 10.22-1, land uses allowed in residential district, social and municipal code, Matthew Mandich, our principal planner, Stage is yours. |
| 00:09:59.97 | Matthew Mandich | All right. Good evening, commissioners. um so we're just going to get right into this this should be a relatively um quick presentation for you um this is not a huge ordinance amendment |
| 00:10:14.30 | David Marlatt | I'm sorry, Matthew, there's a technical problem with the screen. |
| 00:10:38.04 | Kurt Heitmeyer | report. Thank you. |
| 00:10:39.22 | Matthew Mandich | Good to go. All right, apologies to anyone online watching, but we've got our technical difficulties sorted out here. So yes, should be relatively quick presentation. It's a minor amendment to one of our zoning tables, however, a needed amendment for compliance with state law in particular for ADU law. So next slide please. So the request tonight is to conduct a public hearing on proposed ordinance amending Title 10, Table 10-22-1, which is our land uses in residential districts and adopt a resolution with a recommendation to the city council. Next slide, please. So a little bit of background on why this is before you today. So August 30th, 2022, the city adopted ordinance number 1290, which updated our ADU ordinance to be in line with the state ADU law at that time. The ordinance was sent to HCD for review. And on April 6th, 2023, the city received a letter from HCD identifying... several inconsistencies between the ordinance at that time and state law at that time both of which have changed um since then but in the letter uh at the time hcd stated that um they had an issue with the ordinance in particular with the ordinance allowing jadus in multi-family zones um so you can see here this is an excerpt from the hcd uh letter uh in particular they said jd use may only be permitted in single-family residential zones and the city must remove the underlying portions referenced above and the underlying portions above are that basically saying JDU shall be only allowed within the walls of existing and proposed single family homes in single family residential districts and the underlying portion is two family residential and multifamily residential so HD in 2023 directed us to remove the two family and multifamily residential R2 and R3. Next slide, please. So following that direction, the city updated its ordinance and removed to JED uses and allowed use in the R two and R three zones. However, in 2025, a Sausalito property owner contacted HCD about the lack of provisions for JADUs within our multifamily zones. And on December 23rd, 2025, the city received yet another letter from HCD retracting its previous guidance and stating that HCD has updated its understanding of state ADU law, in particular regarding what is a single family residential zone. They go on to say in this letter, and these are excerpts that are quoted from the letter, HCD hereby retracts the finding title applicability, which was the one given on April 6, 2023, shown in the previous slide. And the city must approve JADU applications in the city's R3 zone and any other zone in which a single family dwelling is a permitted use. So basically saying that for the purposes of JADU and ADU law, any zoning district that allows for a single family home, which are R3 and R2 districts do allow for a single family home, must also allow for a JADU to be constructed. within the walls of an existing and proposed single family home in one of those districts. Next slide, please. So the amendment before you today is simply this. It is putting permitted on JDUs in the R2 and R3 zoning districts with the addition of a footnote right here, number three, stating that JDUs will be allowed in these multifamily zoning districts, however, only within the walls of an existing or proposed single-family home. So that is the amendment for you today. And this was brought forward based on the background I provided and the guidance from HCD, retracting their previous guidance and giving us new guidance to update our code in line with that. So next slide, please. So recommendation is adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of these proposed amendments. City staff has updated the table to align with the most recent HD guidance, which does allow J to use in multifamily zoning districts, if located within a single family home. That concludes the presentation and happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. |
| 00:14:32.22 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions? Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:14:37.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for the presentation, Matthew. A couple technical, very technical questions. So if I understand this HCD clarification, a single family home in any Sausalito zoning district that allows single family homes, which include R2 and R3 can have a JADU. However, the JDADU must be in a single family home. If I understand. So basically this does not increase the square footage of the single family home because it has to go inside of it. It just allows space in the home to go to a separate unit. Is that correct? |
| 00:15:16.12 | Matthew Mandich | That's correct. |
| 00:15:16.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so in effect in an R3 zone, where that unit would have been allowed anyways, because it's an R3 zone and it's multifamily and you can have one more than one unit. the the benefit or the effect of it would be slightly different parking requirements and slightly different dimensional side yard requirements i mean because somebody could have put a just don't call it a jadu they just call it a unit in an r3 zone if it's a single-family house is so this allows some dimensional improvements or something |
| 00:15:50.51 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, there's a little bit more flexibility. So for example, the JDU is part of the 66323 government code, which allows for a JDU, a conversion ADU and a detached ADU to all be built on a lot with a single family home. So it would actually, depending on the lot size, depending on existing development of the size of the single family home can get you potentially more units because you'll be able to do a conversion, a JADU and the detached. So you can get up to three additional units on a, on a single lot using those combinations. So, I mean, a property owner could certainly go another route and just add another unit depending on the size of their lot. I mean, the zoning for the R3 is allowed one dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of parcel size. So again, it's just, it's another development option and opportunity available to someone, particularly with a single family home in one of these multifamily zoning districts. |
| 00:16:49.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. Okay. All right. Well, I just wanted to clarify that. My other one, I guess, is for City Attorney Rudin. In attachment four, which is the draft resolution, usually we have a statement that says, whereas on today, February 26th, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the attached ordinance. Shouldn't we be adding that into the where asses for the similar to the city council? |
| 00:17:21.35 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, there's no issue with adding that, certainly. I mean, we'll have plenty of records indicating that the city... Planning Commission had that required hearing, regardless of whether it's in the resolution. But yeah, I think as our abundance of caution, certainly we can add that to this |
| 00:17:40.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's usually, this is the first time I've not seen it in there. That's why I was wondering. |
| 00:17:46.62 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, that might've been an oversight on my end for the resolution. I was the one who put that together. So happy to add that in. |
| 00:17:51.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, Okay, those are all the questions I have, Vice Chair. Thank you very much. |
| 00:17:58.02 | David Marlatt | questions? |
| 00:17:59.44 | David Marlatt | Thank you, Chair. Just to follow up on Commissioner Luxenberg's So our, this is a much higher level question, but just to be clear, are ADU is not permitted in multifamily buildings. I kind of thought they were. They are, but not a JADU. You got me there. |
| 00:18:19.22 | Matthew Mandich | So just to remind in a multifamily, you can convert existing space and existing multifamily building as long as it's not habitable space. So you could do like a garage, a basement and attic, something like that. |
| 00:18:24.95 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:18:24.97 | David Marlatt | All right. |
| 00:18:25.21 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:18:30.05 | Matthew Mandich | or you can do a detached ADU as well. But a JADU, which would be a conversion of existing space or proposed space in certain cases, would not be allowed in multifamily. |
| 00:18:39.96 | David Marlatt | And again, to follow up on, yeah, and Commissioner Luxabury had a good question, but I think one of the benefits of the ADU laws are if you go the dwelling unit route, you got to, you got to get variances because you're never going to be able to have usually, you know, a second or third unit. in there with that complying with every piece of the code. So you'll be, you'll be going up with a variance. So I think the ADU stuff still is good because you don't need variances, right? You just get, you just get it. So that's correct. Yeah. Much simpler process. Thank you. |
| 00:19:06.94 | Andrew Junius | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:19:07.14 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Moore? No questions. I had one small question, Matthew. In the letter from HCD, which I will not read, but they said, you know, for purposes of state ADU law, single family dwelling, et cetera, can be applied for such as a detached single family dwelling or a townhouse. But in our footnote three on the table, which is stop at single family dwelling, was there a, Thank you. |
| 00:19:34.65 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:19:34.67 | David Marlatt | it's, it's, a problem, I guess, and possibly, and just using the same language as the, um, uh, the state, the HCD letter, and just input note three, just adding, or a townhouse to |
| 00:19:47.17 | Mary Wagner | So the footnote three is directly citing the actual state JADU law. So it's a restatement of state law. Um, I would caution the Planning Commission of adding additional language that's not in the state law verbatim because of the fact that HCD may yet again change their interpretation We are making these changes to our zoning table because HCD has taken a diametrically different interpretation of what state law requires with regards to JADU and what counts as a single family zoning district. even though the underlying law and the definitions in the state law have never changed. So the law regarding where JADUs are allowed The text of that statute has not changed since 2022. |
| 00:20:39.08 | David Marlatt | I see. So the letter may not be consistent with the strict reading of the text of the statute. |
| 00:20:45.15 | Mary Wagner | It may not be, and furthermore, it may not be consistent with subsequent court decisions. Out of abundance of caution, you know, I think ordinances should reflect exactly what the state law says, particularly in this context and if we get further guidance from HCD or you know, for their court decisions, we can make further amendments at that time. |
| 00:21:07.93 | David Marlatt | Okay. So then my small follow-up question is for staff, If someone has a Townhouses, you know townhouses share a property line wall, but otherwise they can be completely independent owned independently would staff Consider that to be multifamily or single family. There's some ambiguity about when Single family becomes multifamily like zero lot line housing is single family, but if you're a multi-family |
| 00:21:32.29 | Matthew Mandich | Sure. Most of our townhouses are located in R2 zones. So if you had two, I mean, if you have essentially a duplex on an R2 site, I don't think you're able to do a JADU in there. And we would have to take it on a case by case basis, but that would be my initial. |
| 00:21:48.33 | David Marlatt | So townhouses would be interpreted as multifamily. |
| 00:21:50.98 | Matthew Mandich | I would think you have two units on a site zone for an R2 would be a two unit site, not a single family home. |
| 00:21:58.81 | David Marlatt | Okay, okay, thank you very much. That was helpful to clarify that. |
| 00:22:03.17 | Matthew Mandich | I mean, we would take that, I think, on a case-by-case basis. If someone were bringing it out, we'd talk to the attorney about it in more detail. But I think you just heard his stance on that. |
| 00:22:11.21 | David Marlatt | Yeah, understood. Yeah, appreciate that. Glad I asked. |
| 00:22:11.77 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:22:15.52 | David Marlatt | Thank you. No other comments? So now we'll call for public comment. Is there any public comment in the chamber or on Zoom? |
| 00:22:24.60 | ACM Phipps | Mr. Giavaro. Please step forward, you'll have three minutes. And no need to state your name for the record. Thank you. |
| 00:22:33.20 | Archie O'Vara | Uh, |
| 00:22:33.62 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:22:33.64 | Archie O'Vara | Thank you. |
| 00:22:33.66 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. you |
| 00:22:34.97 | Archie O'Vara | The building that I have is 4,500 square feet. So I'm entitled to build three units. Now, Because of that, I would be able to build three ADU. So that would give me six units. But yet my understanding is, that that doesn't qualify as I need five units in order to qualify for something. But I'm wondering why the ADU does not qualify as a unit. |
| 00:23:16.91 | David Marlatt | Thank you, but we're just allowed to take comments right now. Pardon me? Maybe I'd suggest directing those questions to staff. |
| 00:23:23.32 | Archie O'Vara | I have to direct my question to staff. Because we are. |
| 00:23:27.52 | David Marlatt | We can't debate the committee. |
| 00:23:28.45 | Archie O'Vara | The ADUs do not count. |
| 00:23:32.54 | ACM Phipps | Mr. Giavara, staff are happy to meet with you and discuss this in depth offline. |
| 00:23:37.65 | Archie O'Vara | I'm sorry, I can't hear you. That's okay. I'll, |
| 00:23:40.42 | ACM Phipps | I'll come chat with you. |
| 00:23:40.43 | Archie O'Vara | All the time. Yeah. uh, There was something else I was going to ask. |
| 00:23:49.95 | Archie O'Vara | The ADU, also, I did have a question about ADUs in that Uh, |
| 00:23:59.48 | Archie O'Vara | You have the controlled units, low cost, medium, but What I don't understand about ADUs also is that uh, Some of them are not, a lot of the ADUs are not deed restricted. but yet the town is counting them as low-cost units. And I'm wondering why you're allowed to count a unit that is not deed-restricted, as a low-cost unit. |
| 00:24:36.17 | David Marlatt | So I appreciate your comments. The comments should be related to this change in the code section. And I'm sure staff would be happy to take this up with you directly. |
| 00:24:45.71 | Archie O'Vara | Thank you. |
| 00:24:45.72 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you very much. Any additional comments? Comfort. |
| 00:24:51.01 | ACM Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Merlot. Seeing no additional commenters in the chamber, I will look to the Zoom application for raised hands. and I see none. Back to you. |
| 00:25:00.98 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you very much. So we'll bring it back up to the dais. Anyone would like to kick it off? |
| 00:25:07.88 | David Marlatt | I'll just... I'll move to approve and just also comment on some of the public comment we heard from Mr. Giovarro. Thank you. You know, the density bonus that kicks in at five units, even I forgot, I don't know, I don't know if ADUs count toward that. That would be a good thing for housing density and development. I have to top my head. I don't know the answer to that question, but this is obviously a pro forma action we're taking tonight. So I hope we can just get this done. I think commissioner Luxembourg had an obvious ad to clean up the resolution. So move to approve with the minor amendment proposed by commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:25:47.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:25:47.52 | David Marlatt | seconds. |
| 00:25:50.18 | ACM Phipps | Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:25:51.48 | David Marlatt | Oh, Commissioner Moore, did you ever? |
| 00:25:53.58 | ACM Phipps | unless there's this one. |
| 00:25:54.98 | Fred Moore | So I appreciate the city attorney's comments about this new letter we've received. And I apologize. I'm going to read this because I'm going to step on my soapbox a little bit. Because in my opinion, HCD represents an agency with excessive amount of power without adequate oversight and without reasonable alternatives for cities to reasonably and rationally address the housing situation in California. The original direction provided by HTC was on its face, legally reasoned by two employees, one a lawyer in one sign by an inactive lawyer. The second technical assistant letter was signed by a non-lawyer and apparently written by a non-lawyer. This raises the question of whether the December 23rd, 2005 letter was supported by substantial legal grounds. The city's prior actions were clearly justified and reasonable in light of the specific language of the law, as well as the legally reasoned demands of HCD. Thank you. HCD's 2025 demand to the city is based on its, quote, updated understanding. written or approved by two non-lawyers. As the city attorney already mentioned, there was no change in the law from the prior advisory letter provided by HCD. So this reversal of HCD's demand appears to be without support due to new information, new legal developments, or new policies. I find the 2005 HCD directive lacks a rational legal basis. However, Unfortunately, the alternatives for the city are very limited. and uncertain and have significant risk of retribution from hcd so our state legislators in my opinion really need to seriously revamp hcd but for the time being i will reluctantly support the resolution that's been seconded to change the city ordinance because it appears we have no alternative thanks Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 00:28:05.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Excellent. |
| 00:28:05.56 | Fred Moore | in. |
| 00:28:05.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:28:05.64 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:28:05.69 | David Marlatt | We need to keep going on this. |
| 00:28:08.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would like to concur that it bothers me that HCD can't seemingly get their act together and provide proper legal guidance. However, I do concur that at this point we need to do this. But I would like to get on the record and state my concern about HCD and having made one decision and then another decision that may or may not be correct. And as the city attorney said, there might be another interpretation of the future. So, but at this point, I can support the motion. |
| 00:28:46.34 | David Marlatt | guys. I will step forward to give lukewarm support to HDD in terms of the complexity of what they're dealing with Um, It's very likely to Commissioner Moore's point that that I would be shocked if this was just a random change. What happened was they made an interpretation And then they started realizing it doesn't work or they got a bunch of different input from all over the state and they realized, oh my God, we screwed up. So they fixed it. you know, there I I'm having my own professional problems with HCD. So I know the frustration of dealing with this department, um, even on a pro housing side. So, uh, But I think they're doing the best they can. I do agree that they need some more direction. I think the laws need to get simpler because they shouldn't need this kind of interpretation you know, ping pong game that we're having. So, but anyway, I think they're doing the best they can. I'd like to call the question. |
| 00:29:49.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have one more comment, if I may. And the question I asked earlier is I wanted to make it clear to staff that this does not allow somehow a JADU to show up other than in the House. I mean, this is an important aspect of this. So I wanted that to get on the record as well. I think that comes in the definition of JADU. |
| 00:30:11.02 | David Marlatt | I think that so um |
| 00:30:14.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I know, but as I read the documentation, I think someone was trying to interpret it in a different way. So that's why I wanted to get that out of the record. |
| 00:30:24.27 | David Marlatt | So I'll just ask maybe to Attorney Rudin, because the point's been sort of raised about, whether we can actually rely on this letter? Have we done any kind of questioning or due diligence? We're confident? I mean, already in the letter, there was a very slight Dissonance with the actual underlying state law and now we've raised questions of this is one letter now is another letter. Will there will there be a third letter. |
| 00:30:49.28 | Mary Wagner | Well, we certainly don't know what letters HCD may issue in the future. The issue is that HCD is empowered by statute to... issue interpretations of state ADU and JADU law, and courts are supposed to give deference to those interpretations. So while we have guidance from HCD on something that is a potential ambiguity in the statute, And as individuals have already noted today on the dais, there is a risk of adverse action from HCD should we choose not to follow their most current interpretation at this time. |
| 00:31:26.32 | David Marlatt | I'm sure we will. I was just asking whether there was any kind of investigation into, you know, is this the correct guidance? And it's a very minor thing, in fact. So I'll leave it at that. OK, any other comments? I think we have a motion on the table, on the floor, ready to call roll. |
| 00:31:45.66 | ACM Phipps | Commissioner Junius? Yes. Commissioner Moore? |
| 00:31:48.98 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:31:49.03 | ACM Phipps | Reluctantly, yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice-Chair Merlant. Yes. |
| 00:31:52.00 | David Marlatt | Yeah. Yes. |
| 00:31:54.48 | ACM Phipps | Motion passes. |
| 00:31:55.65 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:31:59.26 | David Marlatt | Item six being a design review permit for 112 Spencer Avenue per design review permit with an encroachment agreement and Katie Nelson is the senior planner. Thank you. |
| 00:32:12.03 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. Good evening, Vice Chair, Commissioners, members of the public and fellow staff. The item before you tonight is a design review and encroachment agreement application 2025 109 for 112 Spencer Avenue. The project involves the replacement of an existing exterior entrance system partially located within the right of way and a request to formalize long standing encroachment associated with the residents next slide. The subject property is located at 112 Spencer Avenue, APN 06 515138. The parcel contains 6001 square feet and it's designated medium low density residential under the general plan and zoned R16. The lot is irregularly shaped and steeply sloped with an average grade of approximately 42%. The property abuts a pedestrian right-of-way along its western boundary and shares a common parking deck with neighbor 108 and 110 Spencer Avenue to the east. The site is currently developed with the three story single family residence that was constructed in 1909. Next slide. |
| 00:33:20.95 | Katie Nelson | The applicant requests approval of a design review permit and a recommendation of approval to city council for an encroachment agreement. Design review is triggered pursuant to SMC 10.54050B13 due to structures in the right-of-way requiring an encroachment agreement. The overall proposal includes the demolition and replacement of the exterior entrance stairway system and associated deck landings that provide the primary pedestrian access from Spencer Avenue to the residence. Additional elements include a new pedestrian gate trash enclosure, low retaining and planter walls and associated landscaping. Because the stair system and related improvements extend into the right of way, the encroachment agreement is required. Under this application, the applicant also seeks to allow approximately 23 square feet of the existing residence, along with the seven foot tall frontage fence to remain situated within the right of way. No alteration or expansion to these long standing encroachments is proposed. Next slide. |
| 00:34:25.45 | Katie Nelson | The property is developed with a 1400 ish square foot single family residence constructed around 1909 and steep as I mentioned with a slope of approximately 42%. Importantly, the home is situated roughly 11 feet below the street level. The existing stairway provides the primary pedestrian access from Spencer Avenue to the main entrance. The current stair index system extended to the right of way and were constructed largely without permits. The materials are deteriorated and present safety conditions, including noncompliant guardrail heights and inconsistent tread and riser dimensions. The proposed project replaces these improvements with engineered code compliant construction. Next slide. |
| 00:35:11.08 | Katie Nelson | The photographs illustrate the current condition of the stair and landing sequence, which has evolved incrementally over time and was constructed without the benefit of permits. As shown, the features appear irregular in alignment with visible material deterioration and inconsistent stair geometry. Collectively, these conditions underscore the need for a comprehensive replacement that brings the access system into compliance with current code standards. Next slide. The proposed design maintains the established access alignment from Spencer Avenue to the residence. The intent is largely alike for like in configuration while correcting safety and code compliance deficiencies at street level a modest pedestrian gate and trash and closure are proposed. From that landing, the stairs descend approximately 11 feet to the finished floor elevation of the residence. The design intentionally follows the natural topography to minimize grading and reduce perceived mass from the street. The proposal does not expand the residential building envelope along the Eastern property line. An existing non-conforming deck condition is corrected. and the reconstructed improvements will comply with a reduced setback of 3.95 feet. This is permitted under SMC 1040-080A. While no modifications are proposed to the residents, it's important to note that the Western property line abuts a pedestrian right of way. And under SMC 1040-080B, setbacks may be measured from the center line of that right of way, effectively allowing a zero foot setback at that boundary. Next slide. The proposed improvements incorporate WUI compliant materials and upgraded structural systems consistent with current building and fire code requirements. Landscaping enhancements include the installation of 19 one gallon Douglas iris plants and the preservation and relocation of two existing tree ferns. These plantings provide visual softening, a modest privacy buffer and slope stabilization. Grading is limited and construction impacts are expected to be minimal. Next slide. The elevation drawings show how the stair and landing sequence steps down with the existing topography, reinforcing that the improvements are integrated into the hillside. They also demonstrate the compliant guardrail hand rights hand guardrail heights. Consistent stair geometry and the modest scale of the gate structure due to the sites downward slope from the street to the residents, the majority of the system sits below street grade. The project does not create a prominent building silhouette nor project above a ridgeline next slide. The proposed entry gate measures six feet in height at street grade with a peak of nine feet six inches at the ridge cap. The design is minimalist and remains well below the 15 foot accessory structure height limit established in SMC 1044 to see for the gate allows for controlled access to the property. Its scale and detailing are consistent with the residential character of the R16 district next slide. Materials have been selected for durability, safety, and fire resistance. The focus here is on life safety upgrades and structural compliance rather than expansion or intensification of use on the property. Thank you. The design maintains a cohesive residential appearance and does not introduce incompatible architectural elements. The pink color for the planters will match the existing siding with a heatherstone gray color, while the thermory benchmark ash decking provides WUI compliant material for the stairs and landings. Thank you. Next slide. The project complies with applicable development standards under Title 10, including floor area ratio, building coverage, impervious surface coverage, building height and parking. There is no increase in floor area or residential density. The property will be fully compliant with objective zoning standards once the encroachment agreement is approved. Importantly, the proposal reduces an existing setback nonconformity along the Eastern property line And the deck will comply with the reduced side yard setback standard of 3.95 feet. Next slide. |
| 00:39:32.94 | Katie Nelson | Staff finds the project consistent with the design review criteria set forth in SMC 10.54050D. The improvements maintain the established neighborhood pattern of development, respect the site's steep topography and remain subordinate in scale to the residents. There are no significant impacts to light, air, privacy, or public views. Landscaping provides appropriate visual relief, and the project enhances safety through code-compliant construction. For these reasons, staff concludes that the required design review findings can be made. Next slide. Under SMC 10.56060, the proposed encroachment must be compatible with the surrounding area, not adversely affect adjoining parcels, be necessary and justifiable, and not create a hazard or preclude future public improvements by the city. The replacement stair system is fairly modest in scale and consistent with the established residential streetscape. It corrects deteriorated, historically unpermitted improvements, and enhances pedestrian safety. The encroachment is necessary due to the 11-foot elevation difference between the street and the residents, and the improvements are limited to pedestrian access elements. They don't introduce new or expanded and closed living areas. The agreement would also formalize the long-standing 23 square foot residential encroachment and an existing fence condition which have been in existence for several decades. No alteration is proposed to these features. Overall, the improvements will preserve sight lines, maintain public circulation, and will not preclude future city actions within the right-of-way. Last slide. In closing, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve application 2025 109 for 112 Spencer Avenue and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the requested design review permit and recommending approval of the encroachment agreement to the City Council. Staff finds the proposed project in conformance with the required design review findings and encroachment agreement findings. As always, approval is subject to conditions of approval listed in the attached draft resolution. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. |
| 00:41:48.08 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you very much, Katie. Questions? Christian Lamor, Christian Lamor. |
| 00:41:54.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just thank you for your presentation. No questions at this time. |
| 00:41:59.27 | David Marlatt | Commissioner Junior. |
| 00:42:00.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:42:00.21 | David Marlatt | So I'm curious, so the reference to the stairs being, you know, built without permit, I assume that just means they're so old that they probably predate our permitting system. Is that probably right? |
| 00:42:10.82 | Katie Nelson | Um, actually I think it's possible they were potentially constructed in the last 20 years. Um, and there was no building permit that we were able to locate. Um, and you can actually view when the gate appeared on street view. |
| 00:42:16.92 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:42:25.83 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 00:42:26.08 | Katie Nelson | So... |
| 00:42:26.15 | David Marlatt | Thank you. All right. I appreciate that. |
| 00:42:28.05 | Katie Nelson | But yeah. |
| 00:42:28.51 | David Marlatt | All right. And then somewhat related. So no, this is not a nonconformity permit issue here. There's no because it's an exterior improvement is not |
| 00:42:40.85 | Katie Nelson | Well, so the non-conforming issue is being corrected and it will meet the required setbacks now. |
| 00:42:48.10 | David Marlatt | Okay, great, thank you. |
| 00:42:49.50 | Katie Nelson | You're welcome. |
| 00:42:51.46 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Other questions? Yes. Again, thank you for your presentation. Just a couple of quick questions. Sure. Is there a joint use agreement that you have in that you've been provided for the adjacent parking structure? |
| 00:43:05.62 | Katie Nelson | Yeah, they have. They've gone through design review for that back in 1989, and they have a formally recorded encroachment agreement from 1990 that's on file at the county, and it runs with the land for both of the properties 112 Spencer and 108 and 110. |
| 00:43:24.15 | Fred Moore | So that gives the owner of 112 the ability to use that area as a construction staging site? |
| 00:43:30.95 | Katie Nelson | I think it would be best if they worked with their neighbor. And I don't want to provide legal comments on that, whether that's permissible. But as you saw in the plans, that is where they intended to stage materials. to. |
| 00:43:47.77 | Fred Moore | I appreciate that. The existing entry structure, the proposed one is now 9,600. Do you have a height of what the existing cap of that is? |
| 00:43:56.95 | Katie Nelson | I think it's a little bit less, like maybe two inches less. So there's a slight increase in the height. |
| 00:44:04.93 | Fred Moore | Thank you. But we're not sure what. Okay. You indicated before that it was a 1989 approval and that the improvements that are being replaced were built outside the encroachment. Do you have any details of what was not approved back in 1989? |
| 00:44:23.56 | Katie Nelson | So the approval for the encouragement agreement and the design review permit in 1989, it only permitted the parking deck and a very simple, straightforward staircase that just went straight down from the parking deck to the property. It didn't include any features out at the street level or any winding around or the stair and landing sequence that you see proposed today. |
| 00:44:49.33 | Fred Moore | or that they built back in 1889. |
| 00:44:51.51 | Katie Nelson | Yeah. |
| 00:44:52.42 | Fred Moore | because what they're proposing now is almost a replacement of that. It is. |
| 00:44:56.12 | Katie Nelson | It is. |
| 00:44:56.89 | Fred Moore | Just some updates with respect to TRED. But all of those existing and proposed are inconsistent with the prior approval. |
| 00:44:59.29 | Katie Nelson | Yeah. |
| 00:45:04.13 | Katie Nelson | Correct. |
| 00:45:06.58 | Fred Moore | I was looking for the seven foot wall that they want to remain in place. I know it's like on your staff report. Can you point out where that seven foot? |
| 00:45:13.95 | Katie Nelson | Yeah, there's a seven foot frontage fence that was indicated on the survey and the site plans. It's... It falls, I guess, right outside of the edge of pavement behind some mature shrubbery. So I don't know that it's totally visible from the right of way. |
| 00:45:33.31 | Fred Moore | I guess it was probably on the western side where that path is maybe. |
| 00:45:36.46 | Katie Nelson | It goes from where the path is almost across to the gates. Okay. |
| 00:45:42.56 | Fred Moore | just curious. We talked about there was a lot line adjustment on this property, and then we have some of the stuff in your staff report that basically says things can qualify as a legally created parcel, but this parcel is substandard. So I'm not sure if you or maybe the city attorney needs a way in. If you do a lot line adjustment that creates a subpar lot, how does it qualify as a, quote, legal lot? |
| 00:46:08.00 | Katie Nelson | So I think at the time that they did the LLA, it likely met the requirements of the city and the subdivision map act at that time. So it does meet the minimum parcel size of 6,000. It's 6,001. The width and the shape are irregular, I don't know that that would meet today's current standards for development. |
| 00:46:37.99 | Fred Moore | Thank you very much. |
| 00:46:40.47 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. And I have no questions, Katie. So thank you very much. Public comment, any public comment on Oh, I'm sorry, is the applicant here? I'm sorry. Oh, yeah, sorry. Yeah, come up. You're welcome to come up. |
| 00:46:54.76 | Katie Nelson | Kurt, you're welcome to come up. |
| 00:46:55.89 | David Marlatt | Yeah, please come on up and you'll have, so I didn't even realize back there. You'll have 15 minutes. If you don't use up your entire 15 minutes, you can reserve some for rebuttal. |
| 00:47:09.24 | Kurt Heitmeyer | Oh, I just have nothing really to add. I think it was. |
| 00:47:10.46 | David Marlatt | Thank you. If you could just state your name for the record. |
| 00:47:14.78 | Kurt Heitmeyer | My name is Kurt Heitmeyer with JKT Associates. We have coordinated and facilitated the application process for the client. Okay. who is the owner of the residence 112 Spencer. |
| 00:47:32.02 | David Marlatt | So you're just available for questions then? Yeah, I'm just here. OK, sorry. So are there any questions for you? |
| 00:47:35.16 | Kurt Heitmeyer | Yeah. |
| 00:47:36.04 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 00:47:38.50 | David Marlatt | applicant no okay well thank you very much and um you have 14 minutes 41 seconds |
| 00:47:45.91 | Kurt Heitmeyer | Build my time. |
| 00:47:47.40 | David Marlatt | In chief case, something really unexpected happens. Thank you. Thank you very much. So now we'll take public comment if there's any public comment in the chamber or on zoom ACM. |
| 00:47:59.60 | ACM Phipps | Seeing none in the chamber, seeing none in Zoom, Vice Chair. |
| 00:48:02.67 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. So we'll bring it back up to the dais for any other thoughts and comments and motions |
| 00:48:10.74 | David Marlatt | Well, I'll go ahead and start, move to approve as recommended on both items, the encroachment agreement and the design review permit. with just a comment of... You know, like this is the kind of thing that I don't necessarily think needs to come to the planning commission in the future. um, staff does a great job and the agreement needs to go to the city council anyway um so i don't know at some point i think some of these things might get streamlined by not having to be uh push through a public hearing, but I hope somebody will second my motion. |
| 00:48:45.09 | David Marlatt | Is there a second for the motion or other comments? |
| 00:48:53.77 | David Marlatt | Well, I will second the motion. Yeah. |
| 00:48:57.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, Yeah, Angela, you're doing this. |
| 00:49:00.04 | David Marlatt | And... |
| 00:49:03.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I got taken aback because the code allows for this. In this particular case, I can see that there wasn't a lot for us to discuss, but in another case, there might be. So I disagree with your comments that the code is there for a reason, and in this particular case, all is straightforward. There aren't any problems. There are a couple of inconsistencies in the past that we're rectifying. But there might be other similar situations, given the slopes, where fencing and other problems will cause an issue within a butter, or there's a joint agreement where there's an issue. So I do not concur with that. And I'm not sure whether that was part of the motion. |
| 00:49:56.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | before, if it didn't have that as far as |
| 00:50:00.03 | ACM Phipps | the motion, I would have seconded it. Well, I'll note, although not scoped this evening, we will be discussing ordinance edits via a study session and be able to look into, discuss further some of the good work that Vice Chair Merlot and Commissioner Junius are doing to provide some social-related municipal code updates and amendments in collaboration with staff, of course. So we look forward to discussing that more in depth at our next meeting on March 11. |
| 00:50:27.27 | David Marlatt | And I apologize for the confused emotion. It was just a... motion with a comment. So |
| 00:50:34.05 | David Marlatt | Okay, so we have emotion with no comment. which has been seconded. Further discussion, Commissioner Moore? |
| 00:50:41.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I want to add to the comments for the future meeting. I think it is important for the Planning Commission to have input of what goes on in the public way. So comments on encroachment permits I think is important. Whether this required design review or something else, that's a different question. But I think we have a duty to the city to really look at what happens in the city right of ways. And so therefore, I don't think the city council should be making encroaching permits without a recommendation from the commission. But anyways, I concur with a new revised motion that is nice and clean. Okay. |
| 00:51:26.00 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you very much, Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:51:29.41 | Fred Moore | stepping that soapbox again. I agree we should have input into the right-of-way back in the prior approval. I think Mr. and Katie's representation, it was a straight pathway. So one of the findings deals with the expediency of the pathway. Clearly, the existing pathway is entirely contrary to the prior approval, which would have met some of the findings that are required. Now, whether or not that should go back to that, I don't know. Aesthetically, architecturally, the multiple-step stairway with the landings is probably more attractive than a straight stairway down, but it would have been easier to make the finding if it was a straight stairway. I'm not supportive of the retroactive encroachment approval, so I probably will be voting against it because that's in there. to the extent the commission who wants to approve this issue with the encroachment agreement i think there are a number of issues that should be changed with the encroachment permit if you're going to go forward. And I can go through those if you like, or I'll just go through and you can reject them as you see fit. But the owner is actually Scott and A&D Megan LLC, and they're a California limited liability company. So throughout the documentation, it has an ampersand which needs to be corrected in order to be consistent with the true identity of the owner based on the filing with the Secretary of State. Um, with respect to some of the enclosure permits, I've mentioned this before. I think they potentially needs to be revamped. There's a couple of small typos in the attachment to our, to the resolution. Um, but, um, part of the encroachment permit talks about the owner shall maintain the encroachments with all faults etc i think the encroachment permit should have an added 1542 release it has an indemnification obligation but i think a 1542 release would be appropriate um in item two under the term of the agreement there is a duplication of says determinated by by the city, by the city and owner. So one of those needs to be deleted. And I think it talks about a term that upon the issuance of the building permits and the completion of construction i think after that there should be added in accordance with all applicable california building codes and to the satisfaction of the city It also talks about the term runs with the owner's land. Somehow the encroachment agreement needs to be revised so that it defines what the land is. I'm not sure if this owner owns 108 Spencer or other properties, but the owner's land is ambiguous at best. So, it could be revamped there to say the owner's land could be revised to something like run with 108 spencer avenue in sausalito rather than re referring to the owner's land um The removal of the item three talks about the removal and relocation. Um, talks about that the owner agrees and acknowledges that it shall remove. I think you should say completely remove or relocate the encroachments at its whole cost and expense. But the section of the agreement that says if the encroachments at the request of the city, if the city determines the encroachments interfere, that whole section there doesn't make sense. But I would recommend that removal or relocation paragraph be restated so that it just says the owner acknowledging agrees that it shall completely remove or relocate the encroachments at its sole cost expense at the request of the city comma or upon termination of the agreement by the city or the owner of 112 spencer um And then again, the sat last sentence of that talks about the city may cause the work to be done at the owners. And again, it should be sole cost and expense and potentially additionally, including an administrative fee of 15% of the total cost and expense. The city is going to spend a lot of effort if this has to be removed in the event they need that right away. And, and normally I see these types of agreements include an administrative fee to help reimburse the city for the time and effort rather than just the actual cost. Um, I got started here. You're upset with this now. So under the under sections of taxes, revenue and taxation code, um, |
| 00:56:02.32 | Katie Nelson | So under |
| 00:56:09.36 | Fred Moore | The last sentence is somewhat of a convoluted sentence, I think, and a potential solution is to say the owner shall be responsible to pay to the city, I mean pay to the county of Marin any and all taxes applicable to the encroachments or how we define this area. Under the indemnification, it has a provision of the second lines to defend with counsel reasonably acceptable to the city i would remove reasonable again this is a situation where if the city acts unreasonable we don't want to have to have litigation over whether or not they were reasonable or unreasonable um |
| 00:56:53.42 | Fred Moore | under the termination |
| 00:57:00.71 | Fred Moore | I think the provision that talks about the owner, in addition, the city owned right of way must be restored to substantially the same condition as existed prior to the construction of the encroachments. Unfortunately, that doesn't work here because the existing status of the property is with the encroachments. So if they terminated it, they could build back exactly what's there. I know that's not the intent of what this provision is for, but it needs to be changed because we're not starting from a blank slate and having new encroachments constructed. They're already there. |
| 00:57:43.12 | Fred Moore | Further down in that section, the question is whether or not we want to have the reimbursement included administrative fee for the city. down under the no grant of public properties. Fourth line, it says public use as a street and for the purposes of, and it goes through a long litany of things, but I think it should say purpose of including but not limited to laying, installing, maintaining, repairing, et cetera, et cetera. Then the last sentence that needs to be a space between be deemed. It's just together that comes up in a couple locations. Again, the owner is Scott and then A and D Megan LLC. |
| 00:58:24.83 | Katie Nelson | Hey. |
| 00:58:28.82 | Fred Moore | Under Section 11, dealing with the assignment and agreement to run with the land, a little confused about why we need to include this requirement for consent shall not apply to the disposition of all or portion of the property or any collateral assignment. If it runs with the land, that automatically occurs. So that, to me, adds confusion to what that paragraph is trying to say. Um, And the first sentence says this agreement is not assignable unless city consents in writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Again, this is a city right away. If we want to unreasonably withhold consent to an assignment, we should be able to do that. So the term shall not should be removed and say which consent may be unreasonably withheld. |
| 00:59:17.13 | ACM Phipps | and reasonably without. |
| 00:59:19.14 | Fred Moore | may be reasonably withheld. And then under the no personal liability, it lists a number of people who aren't gonna have personal liability. Unfortunately, my opinion, that list should be expanded to include all the entities that are listed under the indemnification paragraph above, which includes a lot of other groups and entities other than the few that are listed under section 20. Um, And the same thing with a signature block. Some of the issue that I have, which I think Commissioner Luxembourg has brought up in the past, is which project site plan is going to be subject to this encroachment permit? Right now we have... the project site plan received by the city on january 15 2026 but the actual plans that have been part of the staff report are dated i think january 12. so unless we have some stamped approval for the plans we should refer i think to the date of the plans versus when they were received by the city i'm getting close to the end here um then if we go down further when it has the attachment of the of the project site plan which i think is good for down the road with respect to what improvements are occur in this encroachment area this particular plan is taken from the overall plans that were submitted and it refers to um wood stairs and wood decks, the plans have a note on another page that specifically refers to the WI type of material that's fire resistant. So to avoid any confusion going forward, that's the requirement. These are not supposed to be wood steps or wood decks. They're supposed to be that. Tara Molling, I think Katie can correct terminology for the WI. It's summary, right? Right. It should be that material. So either we add the note from the plans to indicate that or correct that little attachment to the encroachment permit. And then lastly, I'm assuming that the legal description that was taken from the recorded grant deed for 12 Spencer, because it's a meets and bounds of the description. So I just want to make sure that that's accurate. |
| 01:01:08.23 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 01:01:30.91 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:01:30.93 | David Marlatt | Those are all my comments. Thank you. |
| 01:01:32.53 | Fred Moore | That's all. |
| 01:01:32.82 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. That was just amazing. So I'll actually do a question for staff. But first, I'd like to maybe ask the commissioners, all of these edits that are being suggested, all or most, virtually all of which seem very reasonable to me, how would we like to handle this? Is this something where, in terms of integrating in the motion, |
| 01:01:54.79 | Katie Nelson | in |
| 01:01:56.89 | David Marlatt | What's the most expeditious way? Have Commissioner Moore share his comments to staff and instruct staff to adopt them as required? Or how would we like to handle this? |
| 01:02:07.58 | David Marlatt | Well, can I just make a comment? I mean, great comments. I think this is probably the form that the city's been using at the direction of the city attorney for about a thousand years. Obviously needs an update. I'm not sure tonight's the night to do that, but I'm just going to say that. Again, I think great comments. Probably the agreement needs a lot of work to get it up to snuff for 2026. I don't know if it's necessary in this I mean, some of the corrections regarding like the identifying the applicant correctly and maybe that one of those last comments about the material, but A lot of the other stuff I would be surprised if the city attorney didn't want to have a go at it as well. So those are just my thoughts. |
| 01:02:53.75 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, well, I will just briefly respond to that. I'm happy to. If Commissioner Moore is willing to send me his notes, I'm happy to incorporate. many if not all of those revisions in the city's standard template, which is used for all of these encroachment agreements. Um, I will say that your options for moving forward this evening is you are recommending the City Council approve an encroachment agreement. you are not recommending a specific form necessarily. you are just recommending approval of an encroachment agreement. So, You can... pass the resolution that is before you this evening and add to it any recommended changes that you may have. Or alternatively, you can pass the resolution as is and I will gives you a scouts promise that I'm going to be reviewing the comments of Commissioner Moore and making updates to the templates as appropriate and we will incorporate changes as needed before this item goes to the City Council for final approval. |
| 01:03:57.22 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Bye-bye. I think we do, yeah. But one comment and then one question. First, thermory actually is wood. It's thermally modified wood. It's sort of baked, and that's what gives it its thermal resistance. So technically, it is wood. that was my comment but my other question maybe Katie or staff could clarify for me because you had mentioned Commissioner Moore not supporting the retroactive encroachment aspect of this and just if I understand supporting the retroactive encroachment aspect of this. And just to understand correctly, the retroactive portion is the house itself, kind of a nonconformity with encroachment law, not nonconformity with code. So, if we And this is not being said, we're not being asked to vote on two separate encroachment agreements, which is collecting this. So there's a new encroachment, which is all of the stair-related work, and then there's the existing one that we're just sort of catching up in the project because it's kind of comes along for the ride, so to speak. |
| 01:04:56.57 | Katie Nelson | That's correct. |
| 01:04:57.48 | David Marlatt | So, So if we don't support the retroactive encroachment agreement, Is the cure then a notice of violation and they have to modify their home to eliminate the encroachment? which seems severe. |
| 01:05:15.96 | Katie Nelson | Yeah, I struggle with that. This is how we've approached these in the past. We've approved homes in the right of way that have been constructed in the early 1900s, 1800s, where surveys maybe were not present at the time. So this is our method of rectifying it. And that's how our code allows us to move forward. |
| 01:05:42.66 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. So it's a kind of a non-conformity, it's not a non-conformity permit, I understand, but it's kind of the encroachment version of a non-conformity permit. |
| 01:05:50.87 | Katie Nelson | Yeah, I feel like that's a fair interpretation. |
| 01:05:53.27 | David Marlatt | out. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Luxenberg. |
| 01:05:56.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If I heard these comments from Commissioner Moore correctly, there's two sets of things. There's things related to the encroachment agreement. There's things related to the resolution and the conditions. So, for example, and I did miss this one, so I appreciate you finding it, there is no reference I can find to the drawings. There should be a reference to the drawing, we should, again, figure out, I encourage staff to solve this, either stamp all the drawings with received dates or not, and we'll use the date of the drawings, but we do need an item, I agree with you, in the resolution that says what drawings we are approving, so that to be added to the resolution i agree with that um it uh i see that the resolution just does refer to an encroachment agreement and so uh but i do think it's important for this commission to indicate to the city Council the changes we would want in the, I agree with Commissioner Moore, of changes we'd want in the encroachment agreement. And some of them appear to be boilerplate. I was going to ask the question of the City Attorney whether this was boilerplate. But some of them I agree with Commissioner Moore, even if you don't use a boilerplate agreement if you you need to specifically address some issue, like if we ask them to take this out, we don't want them to restore the unsafe condition that we currently have. So I agree with Commissioner Moore on that. And so I would highly recommend that if we are to approve this, that we send over what the list that Commissioner Moore says for the encroachment agreement and the City Council can take that or not and hopefully the City Attorney will include all those before it gets to the City Council. But again, we also have to make changes to the conditions to address the other comments that were not specifically in the encroachment agreement. So I guess I concur with all of what Commissioner Moore said. |
| 01:08:10.53 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. So, so we have a motion to an honest good person who made the motion originally, do we want to amend or modify the motion to include a recommendation to the city council to incorporate Commissioner Moore's comments or how to come back to my original question. How would we like to handle this? Because they're very valuable comments. Well, the better work product as a result for sure. |
| 01:08:33.30 | ACM Phipps | Yeah, I'm happy to take a stab and open to city attorney's feedback and commission feedback. So thank you, Commissioner Moore, for your high level and attention to detail in connection with your comments on the encouragement agreement. That is not the item that you know, in, in complete concrete form before the commission this evening. So what I'd recommend, and you heard from city attorney scouts on her. We're gonna take those comments and Commissioner, if you would share those comments with both city attorney myself, senior planner Nelson and principal planner Mandich. That would be great just so we can all work together on this. And we're a scout's honor for me too. We're happy to bring this item forward as an amended encroachment agreement. form structure. Now stepping aside, as far as the motion this evening, I would recommend that the Commission include only those elements that impact the substance of the encouragement as related to this specific project. And trust us on our scouts honor that we'll take the others forward based on what you provide us. |
| 01:09:33.74 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. I have no further comments or questions. Any? |
| 01:09:39.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I guess we have to go back and figure out which of because I'll know that attorney, city attorney is going to ask us to restate what's in the motion. So we're going to amend the motion. And so we need to. pull out of those, the ones that are specific to this project, I guess, and also ones that change the resolution. |
| 01:10:00.64 | David Marlatt | So I think everything in the agreement the exhibit that's the form is the scouts honor is the city attorney going to take care of that. There's the, so now we're just talking about the resolution, right? |
| 01:10:13.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think I don't want to recommend the—I want to make it clear to the city council we don't want them to rip out the—if they want to take it back for some reason, that we're going to restore an unsafe condition. I think that's a mistake. And that might be—that is our standard approach. And when we approve a parklet downtown or whatever, yes, we want them to put back what was there. But in this case, we don't want that. So I think there are a few of these that are not just the boilerplate, I would guess. But I don't have that list in front of me. I'm asking Commissioner Moore to look at his notes and see what he's got that he feels that are just very specific to this project. |
| 01:10:50.08 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:10:56.97 | David Marlatt | Yeah. Well, there may be a workaround with that related to our nonconformity section of the code, which we were discussing just earlier today. So it's good timing. Clearly what's there now is a is nonconforming. In addition to an encroachment problem, it's a nonconforming construction. And our code currently says that what nonconforming construction once removed cannot be replaced with a nonconforming construction. So Presumably that would not be an option if the to revert it to something that was simply non-conforming. They'd have to go figure out what's conforming, come up with another solution. But I don't think, and... Brandon can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it would be an avenue to replace something with a non-conforming construction after it's been removed. You could never get a permit for it. |
| 01:11:45.23 | Mary Wagner | No, and also as a practical matter, if they if they remove the existing agreement or improvements, if the encroachment agreement is void, or terminated or something happens with it. They can't just restore whatever improvements they previously had, which they built without permits, without being subject to code enforcement. So the city just simply would not allow that to move forward. |
| 01:12:10.65 | David Marlatt | Yeah, that's what I think is much more succinct than I was, but that's what I understand, that that's just not an avenue. |
| 01:12:19.93 | David Marlatt | So, again, I'm not sure there's anything in the exhibit that's the form of the city's encroachment agreement that needs to be changed right now. Or is that incorrect? Yeah. |
| 01:12:32.35 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:12:32.36 | David Marlatt | It's |
| 01:12:32.70 | Fred Moore | Well, if I understood the city attorney, The act of the commission would be dealing with the resolution. And part of the resolution deals with a, will deal with an exhibit for an accroachment agreement. But the accroachment agreement could be exactly what's attached or revised before it gets to city council. So the issue with the resolution would be what items to the resolution are necessary to make the resolution consistent. As Commissioner Luxenberg said, which I think would be changing the name. So it'd be Scott and Megan LLC, the California limited liability company. I think the other change to the resolution would be when it talks about the landscape plans for the residents. company. I think the other change to the resolution would be when it talks about the landscape plans for the residents received January 12th, and it would have to be in January 15th and dated January 12th, 2026, because I think that's on the plans that were provided in the staff report. And then the other change to the resolution only would again be item two when it talks about received January 15, 2026 and dated January 12, 2026 as attachment three. |
| 01:13:28.15 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 01:13:28.17 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 01:13:28.22 | Katie Nelson | Yeah. |
| 01:13:54.26 | Fred Moore | And then the question would be, on the attachment. you |
| 01:14:04.10 | David Marlatt | a |
| 01:14:04.35 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:14:04.69 | David Marlatt | I'm not. |
| 01:14:04.85 | Fred Moore | I don't know. |
| 01:14:04.91 | David Marlatt | attachment is the... |
| 01:14:06.37 | Fred Moore | of the picture. |
| 01:14:07.74 | David Marlatt | Oh, yeah. Yeah. The note on the drawing, the drawing. Yeah. |
| 01:14:10.22 | Fred Moore | Yeah, it would have to be... |
| 01:14:11.15 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 01:14:12.31 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 01:14:13.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:14:14.00 | Fred Moore | Yes. |
| 01:14:14.15 | David Marlatt | it. |
| 01:14:14.24 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:14:14.42 | David Marlatt | been consistent with |
| 01:14:15.54 | Fred Moore | That's, I think, how the resolution could be changed to be consistent with what the motion is right now. |
| 01:14:15.59 | David Marlatt | it. |
| 01:14:21.26 | David Marlatt | Yeah. And then if we're uncomfortable with not, you know, micromanaging the agreement right now, the form agreement, why don't we just not take it off? And the city attorney's already said, all we're approving is an agreement. And the city's got one and this will be improved with Commissioner Moore's comments. So let's just remove the exhibit and say we're recommending that this encroachment be granted with whatever form the city attorney comes up with, which is going to be scouts honor, including all the comments that Commissioner Moore made. |
| 01:14:51.46 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. And in line with that, that is actually how the resolution reads. The planning commission recommends an approach from an agreement. So... I was putting it. |
| 01:14:59.11 | David Marlatt | So it doesn't refer to the exhibit? |
| 01:15:01.51 | Mary Wagner | No, the encroachment agreement is not attached to the resolution. And historically, my understanding is that staff did not normally bring the form of encroachment agreement to the Planning Commission for review. I'm happy that they have. Well, that's obviously... |
| 01:15:12.88 | Fred Moore | about that. |
| 01:15:13.27 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 01:15:13.74 | Fred Moore | you That could have been because I asked for it on prior approvals way down the road months ago. So I appreciate the fact that they did attach that. |
| 01:15:21.77 | David Marlatt | All right, so I think I would be willing to amend my motion to make the changes to the resolution that were just stated by Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:15:28.51 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Thank you very much. I believe we're ready to move to a vote. Unless there's a discussion. |
| 01:15:39.00 | Fred Moore | again I still have issues with the retroactive approval for the residents primarily because if the house all burned down, God forbid that happened, I would think we would want them to build the house back consistent with existing city codes and setbacks. And with this agreement in place, I think they could rely on the fact that they have an agreement that allows that 23 feet of encroachment, which actually I think it might be a little bit more because I think the entire western side of the house is inches over the property line all the way down. I'm not sure, at least based on the drawings. So I still have a difficulty with that part of the resolution. |
| 01:16:15.28 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 01:16:15.33 | Mary Wagner | So I- |
| 01:16:19.74 | Mary Wagner | And if I may alleviate some of your concerns there, I do not believe that an encroachment agreement, which merely authorizes the use of the right of way property, substitutes for compliance with any and all other zoning standards, nor does it alleviate the need to obtain design review permits, which may be used to require conformity and should be used to require conformity with current zoning standards of the time of reconstruction. So, |
| 01:16:48.29 | David Marlatt | Because if I understand correctly, the only solution would be then to sort of bifurcate the motion. So I have one motion for the retroactive easement and one motion for all of the stair, easement, encroachment, I mean. So you're suggesting that we bifurcate? |
| 01:17:02.99 | Fred Moore | Not necessarily because it looks like there's going to be three of those no matter what. |
| 01:17:06.13 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:17:06.53 | Fred Moore | I'm not sure. |
| 01:17:06.72 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:17:06.75 | Fred Moore | See you. |
| 01:17:06.80 | David Marlatt | I know. |
| 01:17:07.41 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:17:07.56 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:17:07.60 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:17:07.65 | David Marlatt | They're not at the commission time. |
| 01:17:07.73 | Fred Moore | They might be paid the commission. |
| 01:17:09.22 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:17:11.66 | David Marlatt | I think we're ready to move to a vote. Is there more comments? Yeah, so thank you, ACM. Oops. |
| 01:17:17.18 | ACM Phipps | And any additional discussion? |
| 01:17:19.54 | David Marlatt | Well, this has actually been a fun discussion. I mean, I still, you know, these kind of things, come up all the time in Sausalito and they seem to me to be minor issues where you can't even tell where the right of way is. There's the black top, but the right of way is always much wider. People have built onto it. People have historically used it. It goes back forever. I mean, I totally respect some of your positions on the legalities of it, but the practicality of it for something this small, we've seen some ones that are pretty big, actually, big driveways or something. And, you know, sometimes I think they're larger, but some of these things seem like You know, just just not worth the bother. So that's I mean, that's where I see it as a very, very minor issue here that, you know. I'm very comfortable with. |
| 01:18:10.27 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Trinius. Yes, Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:18:15.18 | Fred Moore | No. |
| 01:18:15.36 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:18:27.16 | ACM Phipps | Should I move on? I'm not. |
| 01:18:28.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, |
| 01:18:28.38 | ACM Phipps | move on. go. Vice Chair, is that okay? Thank you. |
| 01:18:32.75 | David Marlatt | Yeah, of course. |
| 01:18:33.84 | ACM Phipps | Vice Chair Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Lassenberger. |
| 01:18:42.47 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:18:42.50 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 01:18:43.01 | ACM Phipps | Potion passes. |
| 01:18:43.66 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you very much. Next item is adjournment. So moved. Thank you very much. |
| 01:18:51.78 | ACM Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, community members. Thank you, staff. Great evening. |