| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Nastassya Saad | and orient the public. |
| 00:00:03.02 | Attorney Otto | There's several things that just we wanted to remind the commission of, One, which Karen Grove, Most of these are probably familiar with and you'll recall the housing crisis act you'll recall that we have to only have objective design standards we can't use subjective design standards to to the extent that we make modifications to these, it may mean that. We can't just surgically touch some of these. We would have to make sweeping modifications to bring everything into conformance with the objective design standards. Because our ordinances were in place prior to this state law change, we have not had to change them yet. But if we start to change them, we'll need to comply with state law. We also cannot make any changes that are going to reduce the intensity of the land. So we couldn't, for example, increase setbacks COB, Elaine McLaughlin, In which would then reduce the ability to have the housing. So we have to be careful and mindful of the housing. and making sure we don't reduce the intensity of the land. he gave some conversation about non-conforming uses. As the commission is aware, non-conforming codes are there to bring nonconforming uses and homes or lots that are non-conforming to the current code to bring them into closer conformance. And so he, The point of those are under state law is to try and get everybody ultimately to be able to use their land in their present condition, but when they go to make changes, getting it into conforming with the current code. And Mention of some trees that we need to basically make sure we comply with state law and then he gave some background on the underground utility district, but I don't know what you want to talk about that, so I think that's probably. A more detailed discussion that we want to have this evening on the underground utility laws out there. But the main ones that we would be focusing on that you would in the areas that I'm seeing on the screen, It's really the objective standards, as well as making sure that we don't reduce the intensity of the land. |
| 00:02:30.57 | Nastassya Saad | OK, thank you very much, Attorney Otto. With that, I mean, I'll just ask your opinion to the working group. Would you mind? Thank you. Thank you. sort of doing a jumping off point from some of these sections of the code that have been selected to give some maybe feedback or thoughts or conversations that you've had |
| 00:02:52.56 | David Marlatt | Yeah, some thoughts, and then Commissioner Junius can, I'm sure, have his own as well. But I think that the overall arch of this effort is to clarify and simplify and reduce bureaucracy where we can. entertain or even had discussions about changing the height limit or changing the setback per se, but clarifying the rules about how it's determined. So hopefully we don't ultimately cross any red lines where in clarifying something, it is de facto correct. deemed to be imposing additional, I don't know, development constraints. But that's certainly our intention is to clarify and simplify, make staff's life a little easier, applicants life a lot easier. And that's really kind of where we come out with all of this. |
| 00:03:41.55 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I totally agree. This is almost exclusively about process and has almost nothing to do with the substantive zoning. So we're just trying to, you know, make things more efficient. So I couldn't agree more. |
| 00:03:53.60 | Assistant City Manager | And just want to thank our commission working group members for their participation in this process. Appreciate you being the tip of the spear on this and appreciate you meeting with staff to help to clarify what sections we would prioritize. So just to kind of double dip on this, I think the intent of this evening is not to go through specific sections of the code into Noodle with specific language. I think staff's understanding of intent and I think preference this evening is that we use this evening as a bit of a compass setting opportunity, right? So as related to one of these specific sections, What general direction? do we want to go in? to achieve some of the goals that Commissioner Murlott, Vice Chair Murlott mentioned, streamlining, making folks' lives easier on both the staff applicant, well, staff applicant commission council level. |
| 00:04:51.63 | Nastassya Saad | So I think my intention when we started this working group was that there would be an effort to reduce any redundancies, because I know we've got some open areas in our code that just naturally conflict I'm not prepared to speak to those this evening, but with the working group's efforts, I thought that would have been just a priority and something that would be easier to tackle versus necessarily reducing the bureaucracy. I don't know if the intent behind that statement means maybe more ministerial approvals or Zoning Administrator approvals. Can you just expand on that a little bit |
| 00:05:36.10 | David Marlatt | Sure, but I would put reducing or eliminating redundancies as part of that clarity section. I mean, some of the clarity, some of our sections are just very ambiguous, can be interpreted in lots of ways. We regret some of the wording sometimes, but then there are some redundancies and then there's some holes, some logical holes. So I think it's all part of the kind of that same effort of going, does this make sense? And trying to make it. you know, a little bit more plain spoken. Where we can. |
| 00:06:07.82 | Nastassya Saad | You know, non-conforming, I think we're probably all a little bit more familiar with. On the underground utility district... Yeah. |
| 00:06:16.93 | Andrew Junius | I think we're just gonna start with the top one and roll on down. |
| 00:06:21.51 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Can you use your microphone? Thank you. |
| 00:06:24.00 | Andrew Junius | Sorry. |
| 00:06:24.63 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:06:24.65 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:06:25.49 | Nastassya Saad | That's what I'm looking for. I'm looking for what you guys want to lead it. |
| 00:06:25.57 | Andrew Junius | That's what I'm looking for. I'm looking for what, how do you guys want to lead it? The vice chair and I had the idea that we were simply going to start with the first one, which would be nonconforming use and structures and vice chair would talk about what we've been discussing with staff and ideas about what's. You know where the problems are and why there's so much confusion and where we might be able to make it more efficient and then we'd close that discussion down and then we'd start on the next one. That's what I was. Okay. |
| 00:06:51.11 | Nastassya Saad | That's what I was absolutely hoping for. Yep. Okay. Take it away. |
| 00:06:53.10 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:06:54.31 | Matthew Mandich | Can I just jump in really quick too? I think from staff's perspective too, we'd like to move some of these forward. And I believe that tonight we'd like to figure out, kind of get the temperature of the commission. Where do we see some unification on which ordinances we should be prioritizing to update, which are going to be able to get planning commission approval? Because without a significant 4-1, 5-0 vote on some of these, there's really no point in taking them up to the council level so we want to try to establish kind of you know what are our priorities where do we have consensus where do we not and how can we continue to work through all that to kind of get a list of an order of you know which one are we going to do first which maybe we can combine some of them as well and a bit of a an omnibus update as well so really the goal is to kind of see where everyone on the commission is you know it's a brownock body we can't all talk to each other and talk outside of this forum so this is a great opportunity for everyone to kind of share their thoughts and see where we have consensus or not and then we can based on that prioritize some of the the sections you see before you to take forward to update |
| 00:07:57.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. |
| 00:07:58.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Vice Chair. Yeah, thank you. So I'll just... jump straight into the frying pan here. So our thought on non-conforming uses and structures, well, fundamentally, we all know that the city has many, many existing non-compliant conditions, not just uses, but actual structures. So the intent is to try to clarify some of that. And as at least in my experience in any other city I've worked in, not necessarily require a nonconforming use as a standalone permit. As has been suggested by attorney Rudin, if someone demolishes a structure, then of course it's no longer existing. So they can't replace it without a variant. So it would trigger a variance. There could be more as a result of not having a Nonconforming use permit just treating everything as an existing non compliance grandfathering and then there are rules which are we're not really touching about how to maintain and not exceed that nonconformance. It's just handled in the course of a normal building permit. to the degree that A variance may be triggered by maybe a complete demolition of a porch before it's reconstructed, then that might be a variance. And that kind of skips down to I know we don't want to skip out of order, but the third item zoning administrator just having a general effort of trying to encourage more of the variances and design review issues, kind of pushing down to the ZA level and then using the planning commission, I'm skipping a little bit, but using the planning commission more as an appeals board for certain level of variances and design review. And of course, we would still hear all the big stuff. So, That's the initial thought. We're not really changing fundamentally the rules about uses and structures and, um, whether they're involuntarily demolished and so forth, and the time dates and the time delays of replacing them, that's pretty much stays the same. Fundamentally, we just don't think it deserves having a standalone, you've got to get another permit application and that has to be subject to the commission independently of other design reviews. that. |
| 00:10:05.95 | Andrew Junius | Yep, just some of my thoughts here. You know, I actually didn't realize until we started these conversations with the staff how much of a burden this is on staff, because for those of us who don't eat, sleep and breathe and live zoning, Sausalito is a very, you know, a very old town, it's a very unusual town. And a lot of the, even the older rules don't apply to very old structures. So you've got enormous SISTS, YOU KNOW, VERY, VERY, VERY MANY HOMES AND BUILDINGS THAT JUST DON'T COMPLY WITH CODE. AND YET, THEY'RE STILL LEGALLY EXISTING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE SYSTEM ALLOWS THAT. BUT CHANGES IN THOSE BUILDINGS CREATE You know, it just, it seems to me just overly complicated. We have an overly complicated system to deal with that situation. It's a pretty simple situation. It's to me, it sounds like a, like you've got a deck and it's been there forever and now it wouldn't be permitted, but nobody's being bothered by that. It's a non-conforming deck and you just want to replace it. I mean, just you should, I think you should just be able to do that. I don't think you should have to jump through multiple hoops. I don't think you should have to get a variance. I don't, you know, there's just so much paperwork and process for things that that exist now and were legally built when they were built. So this is, this to me is, it's almost like a, an equity issue in that it's just fair to let people to the extent it was built legally. Now there's lots of situations that we would not, of course, want to allow somebody to rebuild the structure that was built 10 years ago. Didn't have a permit. If you know, that's a different situation, but there's a lot of older homes that are too big or too close to the property line or, you know, a variety of different issues. that you know, that wasn't their fault and were built legally, you know, back in the day and they should be allowed to keep that and and and rebuild it and replace it and and we i just think we just need a better process to allow that to happen and the staff to streamline that without bringing those things with these complicated calculations and permit things to the commission when it's just that doesn't seem necessary so those are my like high level policy thoughts |
| 00:12:10.25 | Nastassya Saad | OK, that's really good clarification. I guess we're going to go one at a time. Commissioner Luxembourg? I know we're kind of hearing this all at the first time. Anything to digest on that or commentary? |
| 00:12:22.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, for me, honestly, it's hard to see this without language and what we're actually changing. So just as a general thing, I would encourage us to do another study session when we have language so that we can review it before we're actually about to send it to the city council. I mean, I was a little I'm a little confused about the item earlier. I thought the RFP is going to come to us before it goes to before it goes to city council gets finalized. So I thought that was the plan. It was one of the reasons. about the item earlier, I thought the RFP is going to come to us before it goes to city council gets finalized. So I thought that was the plan. It was one of the reasons I didn't attend the working sessions because I thought it was coming back to us. So we don't have to revisit that. But in this particular case, language changes are hard to see without So just as a general thing, I encourage a red line version and not a Thursday before the next Wednesday meeting. So when we get all of these, we have the red line versions, we review another study session, and we can debate the specifics. I mean, conceptually, I agree with what you're saying that we should make it simple. And if somebody has something that was legally approved, I concur with that. But without seeing the actual language and see how it implements, it's difficult. |
| 00:13:31.20 | David Marlatt | you |
| 00:13:31.21 | Fred Moore | Sure. |
| 00:13:33.79 | Nastassya Saad | Mission and more. |
| 00:13:35.97 | Fred Moore | I'll echo those comments as well. Obviously, having more elaborate in front of us, we have a bit of opportunity to look at it. I agree globally, something that was legally built should be able to be replaced without as much effort as seemed to be the case right now under the existing code. However, in my short time here, it seems like we've had a number of situations where something was quote, legally approved with a building permit, but then illegally built. And then now they were replacing that. So obviously those are areas of concern, which I don't think you're trying to skirt around. But so globally, Thank you. permitted, legally built, now they want to change it, yeah, they should be able to have a faster process than what currently exists. |
| 00:14:22.06 | Nastassya Saad | I think you said it best. as long as we are covered on the illegally built items. But if it is as intended as Commissioner Junius stated, then my temperature is warm on what you have said for that. But I do agree with you, Commissioner Luxembourg. I think, I mean, the next step, there's a lot of content here and it's a slow start. So this was just trying to test the waters, but we will definitely end up with red lines for like a full conversation. But okay, are there any more commentaries on non-competitive? |
| 00:14:54.73 | Andrew Junius | Well, yeah, just to finish it up. So at the heart of this is something that the city attorney raised, is the idea of the need or not need for a variance in these situations. Yeah. Um, And like it probably we're not going to discuss it in detail, but I think definitely at the next meeting, because I have different views than the city attorney does. And, and I don't think we can get rid of variances, but I think we can make them easy to grant. I think, you know, variances can go to the zoning administrator, you know, with very much more streamlined process. So that might be at the part of it, I think. Uh, vice chair Marlott has got, has worked on a ton of different, you know, technical changes to crunch it down and make it more readable and clarity. And this idea of the variance is another piece of it that may or may not work. So it's just another thing to keep my mind out there as we move forward. |
| 00:15:44.25 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Okay. I'm going to look for one of you to move us forward to the underground utility districts. |
| 00:15:51.83 | Matthew Mandich | Also, sorry, just to clarify again. We will be bringing red lines to the planning commission. This isn't going on to the city council after this. The point of this session is to identify areas where we should- |
| 00:15:59.70 | Nastassya Saad | I'm not. |
| 00:15:59.75 | Unknown | Yeah. Don't put it on record that I feel warm to city council on anything at this point. |
| 00:16:06.87 | Matthew Mandich | So I'm hearing basically from this conversation that it sounds like there is an appetite for bringing red lines on the nonconforming uses and forms. |
| 00:16:14.16 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Or sexual. Yes, thank you very much. |
| 00:16:17.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to clarify what I'm suggesting we not see red lines on a Thursday before Wednesday meeting. I'm suggesting we have another study session when we actually have red lines because that and we haven't done that before. We traditionally just get it Thursday before Wednesday with lots of text. And I'm saying if we're going to get a whole package, we should have another study session. |
| 00:16:39.64 | Assistant City Manager | Appreciate the feedback, Commissioner. We will work with the agenda setting committee members on that. |
| 00:16:44.62 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Thank you. underground utility districts, |
| 00:16:48.97 | Andrew Junius | I cannot wait to talk about this one. So, um, This is something that has in my five and a half years on the commission, I've never seen this come and you might wonder why we've been talking about it because it's, it's, uh, in a different part of the code. But if we're trying to if one of our goals here is to help the staff and some property owners, you know, eliminate a process that doesn't seem to make any sense anymore, this may be the top on the list. Now I'm going to, definitely lean heavily on the staff to fill in the gaps where I'm either make a mistake or don't have the full story. But, um, to my mind, you know, city governments, state governments, federal governments, have a, it's really easy to pass new laws and it's really, really hard to modify them, amend them or remove them. Um, and this is a classic example. This has been on the books since 1968. And it's still still there. And I don't think any of the goals that that this ordinance was intended to tackle have been achieved 58 years later. Um, it's, it's even hard reading the section multiple times to understand what the goal was. Now, I believe the goal must have been in the late 60s, like, hey, you know, the city is growing, we should start to require underground utilities, underground, you know, electrical. Um, and there are definitely some parts of the town, the newer parts of the town, the neighborhood that I live in, some of the Northern parts of the town do have underground utilities. No question about that. But the center of the town, the old part of town is, It hasn't been touched. I don't, and there may be a few sections that, you know, property owners have been worked together to figure something out. But again, if the goal of 1804 and any resolutions passed by the city council in years after that was to create a process and a fund so that the city, and I mean the city in a big way, and the property owners could work together to underground power lines throughout the city, that didn't happen. But what got left behind is is essentially kind of the tail wagging the dog. From what I understand, and here's where I'm gonna turn it back over to the staff. From what I understand is not withstanding the fact that you live on a street where there are no underground power lines, you're staring at a giant transformer box out your window. If you want to do any significant amount of work on your house and you start the permit process, somebody at the planning department is eventually going to tell you, well, forget you got to underground your property lines, your power, your power lines. And so you're going to be required to underground the part on your property and then take it up to a pool. And what the purpose of that is, I have no idea because that, all that does in my mind is burden the property owner, Publicate the process. And some of the stories that I think the staff can tell you, I mean, undergranting a power line, if it's pretty straightforward on a flat lot, it might be easy. But if you've got, you know, we know we have multiple... you know, odd shaped lots, lots that where the power is way away from the street, where the, you know, the way these homes have been built, The bottom line is we're creating we've created this oddball system where people, private property owners are required to tie into a system with their own underground line to a system that isn't underground. And there may be some tiny safety benefits to that. And I remember I'm tiny, but it certainly isn't what was envisioned here 58 years ago. And I think this is the kind of thing that the city council should seriously consider just eliminating 1804 altogether and or replacing with something else maybe, but this doesn't work anymore. Matthew, Brandon, any Any thoughts? |
| 00:20:43.14 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I can jump in. I mean, we do get a lot of complaints about this ordinance from property owners. Oftentimes, the logistics become very difficult for people. We have a lot of very slow plots. We have uneven terrain. We have rock in certain areas. The practical solution sometimes seems to be very easy. And the kind of the example you provided of just connect the line to the transformer in front of you. And why are we undergrounding in that situation? There's the other side of it where you're very far away from the power line and the undergrounding is, you know, it could be, you know, hundreds of feet. So yeah, it becomes an extremely costly process. Working with the utilities on it is also can be difficult and time consuming and it really, it is, you know, can be a real damper on development. So, yeah, there are a number of issues with the ordinance, and I think it can be cleaned up in a number of ways. And we often have property owners. There's a component of the ordinance that allows for a variance to be granted by the CDD director and public works director. This is something that people are coming in for more and more. And, yeah, it's rather impractical and difficult. And I understand the purpose of the ordinance. I think we all get what's the goal behind the ordinance and not having the power lines and Sausalito is very much about its views and all that. But again, having the owner be the one that kind of solves this problem one house at a time is a bit impractical. So yeah, I definitely think there's room, room for updates there and the, and the property owners in town too. I think a lot of them who have built new homes are done really substantial remodels would probably agree. |
| 00:22:29.95 | Andrew Junius | Just a one more follow up. So it as far as you know, and we didn't talk about this, so I don't mean to put you on the spot. There is no global plan that Sausalito has right now to do. city to do undergrounding in the right of way. In other words, there's no, it's not like we're paving streets, right? There's no plan to like, okay, you know, in 2028, you know, Caledonia Street is going to have everything put underground. I mean, that's not that doesn't exist, right? or if it exists, it's not funded and it's been sitting on a piece, it's been a resolution from 1998 and nothing's happened. |
| 00:23:03.63 | Assistant City Manager | So I'll be careful with how I answer this just because I'm not familiar with all of the archived information. However, my understanding, based on Kevin's approach to a pretty robust CIP this year, $17 million, is that, you know, that CIP does not apply itself to undergrounding utility pull. It's primarily associated with maintaining our streets, right, and our right-of-ways generally. So with that in mind, I mean, I'm happy to ask the question of Director McGowan, but that being said, yeah, I would generally agree with your statement. We are However, looking into and doing some analysis related to a hillside ordinance. And whether or not our findings from the hillside ordinance support particular policy or capital improvement approaches, I think is yet to be seen. But some of those processes, pushing forward a greater understanding of how we want to alert folks of particular requirements that come with developing on a hillside, that may be integrated in, but not right now. Thank you. |
| 00:24:03.45 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:24:03.48 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. |
| 00:24:03.52 | Andrew Junius | So, I mean, bottom line is, undergrounding power lanes is a great idea This didn't work. It's been on the books for almost 60 years. Seems to be an unfair burden. Just spin the wheel and you're the one. you know, 200 feet from a transformer and it costs you, you know, $100,000 to dig the trench and do all the work. And three years later, BG&E finally hooks it up. That just seems unfair, unnecessary. And I, you know, Curious if anybody would agree. |
| 00:24:31.26 | David Marlatt | Yeah, and I can just add briefly that just from my own experience with projects prior to being on the commission, of course, there is definitely a sort of a chilling effect to this. And it's not the only ordinance. I mean, arguably, 51% threshold for demolishing walls triggers fire sprinklers. There's lots of stuff like that, school impact fees, arguably. And these come across to the applicants, the homeowners as gotcha moments. And it's not just the cost, which can be significant, but as anybody who's ever worked with PG&E can attest, the time difference between an overhead connection and an underground connection can be phenomenal. um it requires our engineering and they have to cross a public way and if you have to dig up a sidewalk or a road god help you um so it's kind of a law that was maybe well intentioned but no one considered the unintended consequences you know of what this would do and so that's why i think it's not working or if it's working it's in a very ad hoc you know manner |
| 00:25:25.35 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry. Thank you. you know. Can I ask a question of staff, which is very specific and totally okay if you're not prepared right now with the answer? Um... Matthew, you had mentioned that you, you know, giving variances for this. Is there a world in which a city would deny a variance for a homeowner looking to skip this part of the process? |
| 00:25:55.10 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so the, so I, can you repeat the ques, like what's the question there? |
| 00:26:00.07 | Nastassya Saad | I'm just saying because you had mentioned that, you know, people are coming in for a variance to get around this. |
| 00:26:03.97 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. So it's not the same type of variance that we see in the zoning code in 10. It's a variance to the, to the undergrounding requirement that can be signed off specifically by CDD and yes, exactly. Is there, |
| 00:26:07.92 | Nastassya Saad | I see. |
| 00:26:12.11 | Nastassya Saad | be signed. Yes, exactly. But is there, is that something that CDD has been consistently signing off on or is there, I know things are case by case. I'm not trying to make a blanket statement here, but I'm just trying to gauge the yeses to your variances versus the nos on, Yeah. How flexible the staff is. |
| 00:26:32.26 | Assistant City Manager | Yeah. Happy to answer part of that. So with respect to, yes, some of the primary challenges, I mean, I think we're hitting that on the head today. The timeliness and the different sequencing of development in coordination with PG&E is one of the big ones. The other one is this exception criteria and interpretation of exception criteria and the balance between staff's desire to provide exceptional and not cost prohibitive service and requirements to our owners, while also respecting and maintaining the letter of our code. So the interpretive aspect is where we run into the challengers. And I would say we've done both in my time here, but it's never... a objective kind of process. It's never a perfectly clear process, which does put staff in a difficult position at times. |
| 00:27:25.61 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, that's clear. I'll just kick that off based on the robust conversation from Commissioner Junius that I would wholeheartedly agree with you. I don't know where staff's position would be, but I would go so far with you as to say to get rid of it. So let me look to Commissioner Luxembourg. Feelings and thoughts? |
| 00:27:51.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No comments or questions at this time. |
| 00:27:53.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:27:58.32 | Fred Moore | I guess I plead ignorance that I'm not fully understanding how this applies to new development for single-family houses, which already have existing service. Obviously, I dealt with it a lot with my clients in large developments, underground utilities, bringing power in for a new project, and having to spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars for just a short undergrounding, and what a burden it was on projects, whether you do on one side of the street or do both sides of the streets and where the connecting point is going to be a total nightmare so i totally agree with that um i started reading a little bit about rule 20 and curious if there's are credits on that talk about rule 20 that the city has but without knowing more about how this actually impacts an individual who has power who wants to rebuild the house and now has to underground i don't know so i'm curious to see how we're going to clean that up |
| 00:28:49.01 | Nastassya Saad | I think this would be worth just, I mean, another one that we can lean on, the working group and maybe staff to just keep their eyes on. I mean, it seems like a really interesting discussion on this point. I wouldn't have come up with underground utility districts on your list. So that's a genius. OK. |
| 00:29:06.49 | Andrew Junius | Just to respond to Commissioner Morris. |
| 00:29:06.56 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:29:09.26 | Andrew Junius | I I urge you to read it and you'll won't be able to figure it out. I mean, it is it is unintelligible. It does not. I got most of the story from the staff and there's I'm sure there are. staff interpretation, staff practice, staff, you know, the way they've cobbled this together to try to comply with the law. is just doesn't make any sense. So what's on the books, either needs to be thoroughly thrown out or somehow completely, a huge amount of energy would need to be put in to completely make it at least understandable, because you can't read it and understand what it's saying. And so it's a, real difficult piece of code right now. So I'll leave it at that. |
| 00:29:48.21 | Fred Moore | you |
| 00:29:48.22 | Nastassya Saad | So is Rule 20. |
| 00:29:49.19 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:29:49.83 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Our next one is the zoning administrator. |
| 00:29:58.70 | David Marlatt | Yeah, and this one is a simpler question, may or may not be contentious, but the global intent here is to try to push more decision, more authority down into the ZA level. It's still a public hearing, it's just not in front of the entire group. And it can be done by a pretty simple edit in the Zoning Administrator section 10.80.04040 variance applications for the following when the application is not associated with any discretionary permit requiring planning commission approval. And it gives three conditions for setbacks and building height, kind of restricted building heights and fences, just saying variance applications for when the application is not associated with any discretionary permit requiring planning commission approval period, so that it opens up the door for more, what we call minor variances to potentially go to the ZA. I'm thinking of example of a couple of minor, what I would consider, maybe not everyone would agree, very minor variances when we had to uh, help a family through an issue where they discovered some on permitted work in their basement and they had to dig out a crawl space and so forth and without really impacting at all the, um, overall envelope and so forth. I'm not saying it doesn't need a variance. The code says it needs a variance. I'm questioning whether it needs a dais of five people and all of the bureaucracy that goes to support that and all the cost that goes to support that for a relatively simple question of relief from the current code. So that's just one example. But we've had other examples where we looked at gates and the gates had to be to the Planning Commission because gates aren't fences, because unfortunately the definitions, there's no definition of a gate versus a fence. So, you know, it's kind of angels dancing on the head of a pin sometimes. And I think we can push a lot of that down to the ZA level. If there's some Um, agreement on that. And it may not be, I understand that, but that's kind of the spirit of seeing some simple amendments to get more work down at the Zia level and allow, of course, the commission to be the first board of appeal for that. |
| 00:31:51.58 | Unknown | on that. |
| 00:32:03.97 | David Marlatt | And then hopefully that even lightens the load for city council that, you know, people don't appeal two times. |
| 00:32:10.14 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I totally agree. And I think, you know, it is... one of those things where we probably are taking some power away from our commission and giving it to the ZEA. Again, from efficiency standpoint, preparing matters for the planning commission takes the staff time. We get great presentations and those take time. And if they didn't have to do that, you know, for a given variance or a small matter. You know, every jurisdiction seems to do this differently, but the zoning administrator, you know, as a, as a, Uh... a sanctioned position by state law, I believe. Um, you know, is a powerful position and and can take take on a lot of these responsibilities without the informality of the five member commission ruling on this stuff. So yeah, very much in support of um, you know. this process and, and, you know, I think, to commissioners more's point on a regular basis. I think the Planning Commission should do a lot more planning and a lot less project approval. This is called the Planning Commission. It's not the Project Approval Commission. And that's what commissions all over California have become. They become essentially de facto. mediators and arbitrators and project approval commissions and not planning commissions. I mean, Look what just happened with the RFP. It's a planning issue. Didn't come to the Planning Commission. I mean, I'm not going to... |
| 00:33:21.91 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. I mean, |
| 00:33:25.76 | Andrew Junius | raise any issues about that. But yet we get stuck with tree permits and, you know, tiny little things where neighbors are fighting and it's like, oh, okay. I mean, that's the way it's evolved, but it doesn't have to be that way. And this is a little bit of a move in that direction. |
| 00:33:44.02 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Moore. Did you have a thought? Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:33:49.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... No. I'm sure where I'm on the zoning administrator, but I'm going to go to the example rather than the bigger picture. The gates versus fences issue should be resolved in definitions. And as part of your clarifications, we should not have ambiguity. We shouldn't need a zoning administrator to decide and decipher the language. If the code's unclear, since that's what we're clarify it and clearly we're we have all these issues that come up time again we're not sure what it was defined i think part of what your charge was to is to let's fix and make it clear a gate is a gate or gate is not a gate or whatever it is let's clarify the code and then and not have to have somebody be an arbiter of it. And we do have a lot of those in the code. So anyway, those are my thoughts on that. |
| 00:34:43.69 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Conceptually, I... I'm very cold on this one, ice cold. I don't think we should take any more power away from the Planning Commission. The state in our council, we have shrunk our remit quite a bit already. And I do understand the intention. And I still agree that we should have actual more, not actual, but more planning issues in front of us. But I just am not in favor of giving more power to the zoning administrator versus this commission. And I know it's a public hearing, but with all due respect for the zoning administrator, it's not at the same level. I mean, it's a public hearing that I don't know how many people would know or care or join. So I would just wholeheartedly want to intrinsically keep Keep that with us. But that's just my personal opinion. Commissioner Moore, did you have a thought on that, or? wrap up with our |
| 00:35:45.30 | Fred Moore | Well, I guess I'll go back to Mr. Luxembourg's original comment that without some sort of red lines, it's sort of hard to comment, but So I'm not sure how, I mean, I don't disagree that maybe some things can be removed, but depending on how far that goes, because I still think the planning commission, again, with the public, with the openness, the public hearings, it does provide opportunities for people to get their input. And you get good and bad zoning administrators and just depends on where we go with that pendulum, how far it goes with removing things. But once we get red lines will be easier to discuss. |
| 00:36:17.56 | Nastassya Saad | So we've got two really warms, we've got a lukewarm, we have an ice cold, and we have a, we're not sure, |
| 00:36:23.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want a second. I didn't raise it again, but yeah. No question of Commissioner Marlowe. If he's reading the code, we're not looking at it while we read it. That's really good. |
| 00:36:33.93 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, we get it. I guess so, but what, you know. |
| 00:36:37.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | in the future. |
| 00:36:38.03 | David Marlatt | Thanks. |
| 00:36:38.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:36:39.06 | David Marlatt | I thought everybody knew. |
| 00:36:40.01 | Andrew Junius | John M. Responding to Commissioner Luxembourg. you can try so hard to get it just right. So there's never any question and you'll always find a gap. So I think the, the, I, that, that is not what I'm any, have any interest in doing in this code. If the staff wants to go with a fine tooth code through every word and try to tweak definitions and whatnot, go for it. this is about process, in my opinion, and the process of moving you know, gray area decisions into the laps of the experts, as opposed to bringing them to a big public hearing and creating a whole bunch of extra work. I'm in favor of letting the staff do that. We can try, we can try to clarify things, but again, you're never going to get it perfect. And there's, it's, it's never going to be, this isn't geometry. This is, you know, like there's words in there that people have different opinions on. And you might think one year it works one way. And then two years later, somebody has a totally different view of it. You need somebody And I guess at this point, we end up trying to make those decisions, but I think the staff's been better positioned to do that. So I'll leave it there. |
| 00:37:42.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just responded. I'm going to strongly encourage staff, this might be a crazy idea. You guys get permits coming in every day. There are issues. There are issues you're trying to solve. There are things. If you have in your system any one of the planners, if there's a problem that keeps arising, and we'll get to one when we get to the last item on this list, that keeps coming up, gates versus fences put it down on a list so that in in what you know what the issue is just just you know just add it to a list so that when we're doing zoning changes that you've been beating your head against the wall because you can't uh clear you don't know or not only do you if you don't know who's going to make that, when you get two parts of the code that conflict with each other, just make a note. And then when the subcommittee is looking at it, they can solve that problem fairly quickly. Or if you know what the language should be, you can solve it fairly quickly and just add it to the list of when we're doing zoning changes. Anyway, just a thought. |
| 00:38:48.12 | Assistant City Manager | Appreciate that, Commissioner. And the slide that is before you is a portion of the top of that list. We have been tracking these items. I apologize the gate item isn't shown this evening, but it's on our list. Okay, thank you. |
| 00:39:05.44 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, we're gonna move forward if there are no other conversation points. |
| 00:39:08.68 | Matthew Mandich | I just want to make one mention about the ZA just so just right now, the ZA does hear several variances, several variance types, setbacks, height. There's a one for a specific type of building height and a fence height. So the purview of the ZA does include. certain variances already. So I think kind of what the question we were asking is not pushing every variance to the ZA, but some variances. And so that was kind of the point. So I don't want, I just want to make that clarification that it's not every variance would go to the ZA. It would be trying to expand maybe the purview of the ZA over certain variances, especially the smaller kinds. |
| 00:39:42.58 | Nastassya Saad | I think at this point, then, if those types of variances that Commissioner Junius and Commissioner Marlott, Vice Chair Marlott, are interested in moving, then we would wanna see that quite specifically at the next round, right, so we can discuss those. although I'm still eyes cold on that one. Um, setbacks and yards. Who's going to take it away on that one? |
| 00:40:04.53 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Sure, I can jump in. It's setbacks, yards, and actually height limits to the kind of all go hand-hand. As I said, the intention is not to actually change the status quo, but make it hopefully simpler. and straightforward. And I'll give you one example of our set bar height requirements. Um, I don't know if I'm the only one in the dais, but I kind of like the way we define height. I mean, a lot of people find it complicated as the average of the extreme points, and that establishes a plane. And it takes one or two projects to wrap your head around it. But actually, compared to a lot of cities where I work, it actually works pretty well, I think. So I don't think we have to fundamentally change that. But there are a couple of things, and we may remember back a few months ago to the project at 324 Sausalito Boulevard, which cleverly tried to use an exception in the height requirements for a garage on the road. And I think it was Commissioner Luxembourg who led the charge on that. The way it was written, it just makes no sense. Um, So we would propose, for example, to simply delete that entire sub piece of code. |
| 00:41:15.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:15.09 | David Marlatt | That raises a question of whether we delete a piece of code, maybe for attorney, I would have an opinion. Do we de facto? |
| 00:41:15.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:21.08 | David Marlatt | change the intensity of development. I'm not sure that actually the answer to that. |
| 00:41:25.94 | Peter Pfau | Amen. |
| 00:41:26.24 | David Marlatt | and the intention is to simplify something and take out this sort of weirdly written rule But did we, in fact, reduce the developability of a lot. I'm not even sure. But the intention is to sort of scrape out what we don't need, keep the 32 foot height limit. We're not questioning that the 50 foot overall height limit. And the height definition, one thing coming off some comments we had related to the historic preservation district, where I think we saw in a previous... hearing this sort of hockey stick example of height being defined by two extremes, we can Sorry, I was just getting to the weeds, but we can, instead of taking the points, the high and the low point of a building footprint, take every outside corner. And that would give you a much more accurate. Oh. |
| 00:42:10.69 | Peter Pfau | Thank you. |
| 00:42:10.79 | David Marlatt | So, |
| 00:42:10.96 | Peter Pfau | Thank you. |
| 00:42:11.15 | David Marlatt | Thank you. plain and you know it's just arithmetic so it's not any more complicated but fundamentally it's just it's about cleaning up similarly with the side yard setbacks five feet six feet all that i think is fine i would propose that the first 40 feet is when they write a little differently that you get 40 feet within five feet so that you don't have this sort of retro punitive setback that's something to be talked about. So there were increasing developability, potentially not decreasing it. So I guess that would be safe. But I think there's a lot of clarity that could be put in there. We have some ambiguity about whether deck extensions are part of that 40 feet that came up on a project a couple years ago. And then council finally made a determination of that question, I think, wrongly. But we can actually be more explicit about that. Like, is a wall surface the wall of the actual building, or does that include projections such as balconies and decks and open spaces? That adds a lot of stress to staff, I know, explaining that and justifying it. And we can clarify that another example. I just go on. We have, as my very first hearing when I joined the commission was for a new home and they averaged the setback because the setback was not parallel with the building. the building wall. And the way they average the setbacks was taking a certain averaging a building wall that was parallel, not adjacent to the property line, but maybe 12 or 15 feet inward of the property line. So at what point is a setback and not a setback qualify. It's just not defined in the code. Because Thank you. |
| 00:43:45.68 | Nastassya Saad | Was that the Wolfpack Project? |
| 00:43:47.60 | David Marlatt | No, no, it was the one, the guy with the modern house with the view, passed 5-0. I can't remember the address. But it was just an example where they used the averaging on one side of the lot and they didn't use the averaging on the other side of the lot because that's what worked best for them. And it really shouldn't be that way. There should be clarity on that, and we don't have that clarity. So that's where my efforts would go, not changing fundamentally, but trying to clarify the application. And I don't know if any other thoughts about let's go to 35 feet. Another thought, I'll just throw out one more thought just to try to, provoke a little bit of discussion. Other cities, I think this is very intelligent and others may disagree, is how we define height. So in San Francisco, we define height as the height of the building with very little allowance, very few allowances for Jim Collins- chimneys and flues and the depth of the skylight and that also becomes kind of a gotcha thing somebody has a. 3,000 or this big, but 2,000 square foot flat roof. And they have it at 32 feet. And then they want to put in a Velux skylight, which takes up six inches vertically. That's two feet by two feet. That actually raises the height of the building. And they've got to lower their entire building by six inches because of a skylight. This is an example. Or a fireplace termination or something like that. We just don't even account for exceptions to height. Another thought, and then I'll stop, I promise, is San Francisco does something very clever, and a few other places I've worked do clever, is they actually define height of a sloped roof as the average point of, and not the peak of the roof. And what that does is it doesn't buy you extra hype per se, but it encourages more variety. It actually has a macro level beneficial effect right now 32 feet is the absolute height no matter what, everybody is encouraged to just do flat roofs. And if we wanna encourage some variety, we give them a few extra feet maybe, and let that pivot so the peak can be at 40 or 35 or 36. some people would find that radical because of the review protection. I think it's just in the interest of the city. I'll stop there. That could really go on. |
| 00:45:55.16 | Andrew Junius | And I think that could really No, no, no, I hear you. And I really, I couldn't support commissioner Marlott's points Anymore that he's done. This is his area. I totally he's got it nailed. And I think we're extraordinarily lucky to have him working on these kind of specific issues because architects get this. A lot of us don't. And thank you, Commissioner, for handling that. |
| 00:46:21.64 | Nastassya Saad | I would like to see everything you said written down. The math is, the math concepts, I'd be very intrigued to see how, you know, in practicality, some of those suggestions, because I know we've run into a lot of these issues. Just, I mean, it's math. I think our last hearing, that tree was supposed to fall upward. Remember there's, right? Right. |
| 00:46:41.74 | David Marlatt | Yeah, the downhill tree was gonna fall out. |
| 00:46:43.12 | Nastassya Saad | Exactly. So math is not one to mess around with. And it's a nice, it's like our objective design standards. So I would definitely be really open to see whatever those discussion points are down on paper to do the math with you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:46:59.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to mention on setbacks, because this has come up on a number of projects. We have a front yard, and technically, and I think in our ordinance and in most other communities and places I've been, the rear yard is opposite the front yard, and that I think is sort of basic. But for some reason, on several projects, we end up with one front, and the front yard is where you have a street of some sort, whether it's private or public, and if you have a corner, you have two front yards and two rear yards, and for whatever reason, on some very strange interpretations, I think by the zoning administrator and prior zoning administrators, we've had projects where there's a front yard and all the rest are side yards and if that's what the code says then the code's raw it needs to be adjusted in my view to make it clear front yard and the mirror yard because we keep getting these weird uh projects i can think of about three or four examples on this so uh i would strongly encourage clarifying i believe the definitions say that but then there's some other qualifications that change it and whatever but anyways front yard in the front rear yard in the back makes life easy |
| 00:48:16.54 | David Marlatt | Actually, that raises just one, I didn't even think of it until you mentioned that, but in that same vein, we had a hearing where we had a front yard, a rear yard, then we had a side yard, and then it jogged over, so the side yard became a rear yard, and then it went back to being a side yard. And I get it if they took advantage of some complexity in the code or something like that, but there should be a front yard, there should be a rear yard, where it's a very complicated lot, you can declare the rear yard, because sometimes it's really not obvious, and everything in between is a side yard, period. And that's something, too, that we can clean up in the code. kind of in the same vein of what you're talking about. |
| 00:48:51.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, we had one that was like a U-shape, and the ones in the middle should have been rear yards, and that was part of the problem. So you need to look at the language on that. But anyways, if we're doing setbacks, I encourage you to look at how the code reads and go clarify to what you just said, which is front and rear, and it should be in the rest or side. That should be fairly straightforward, but for some reason, there's been a number of projects where it isn't, so. Right. |
| 00:49:17.85 | Fred Moore | Commissioner Morgan? |
| 00:49:18.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:49:20.02 | Fred Moore | I would say I'm very warm on this item as well. I think it does need a lot of clarification. I appreciate Commissioner Marlott having the height determination down pat. I don't. I think it is complicated. I think probably most applicants think it's complicated. Thank goodness there's architects like you that can figure it out. So I think the height issues of setbacks and so forth should be something we should address. and in connection with that i still think the far should be a topic that is considered in connection with the side yards um one option of removing far entirely i don't believe violates the housing act because it makes projects more intense versus less intense it may or may not be consistent with the other goals we have for sausalito, but I think the FAR, I think, is limited in some respects. And so I think going back to do the setbacks and height limitations trump FAR? Or is it reverse? Because you can't always put them together. Sometimes they don't work very well. So I would be curious how the subcommittee looks at that concept overall for the city. Thank you. |
| 00:50:27.09 | David Marlatt | I was going to respond to FAR. I think, because we've discussed that with Commissioner Junius as well, I'm in the camp of probably keep the FAR, just as a concept. And not every city has FARs, as you know. Many do, of course. It's the way that we choose to sculpt our city at that sort of high-level macro. Because you're right, if we just go with the setbacks, you're going to get these giant Costco boxes. And without any discussion about property rights and why can't I build a Costco box, as a community as a community, we say, well, what makes also legal valuable for the owner themselves is also that sort of sculpting effect. F.A.R. is a kind of an arbitrary way of sculpting. It's just saying carve this much out. We don't care where you do it, but they say to do it. But we could simplify it. So, for example, in the R2 district, we've got this really weirdly written rule about to prevent MacMansion, so that was the intention at the time, to say that the single structure can't take up more than, you can correct me if I'm wrong, 0.65 of the FAR. No, I had to be, there's a limitation in, see, that's even hard to recall. |
| 00:51:28.24 | Matthew Mandich | So yeah, just to clarify, it's in the multifamily zones and it's in regards to single family houses in multifamily zones where they're restricted. It depends on the size of the parcel. It's a math equation for if it's under 3000 from 3000 to 6000, then over 6000. And it's for building coverage, impervious surface and floor ratio that all get tweaked in different ways, depending on the lot size for a single family home in a multifamily district. |
| 00:51:28.54 | David Marlatt | Yeah, just to clarify. I think. |
| 00:51:43.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:44.03 | David Marlatt | And it's for building. |
| 00:51:53.15 | David Marlatt | And we could just pick a number. And I know we don't have to pick a number tonight. But that's a formula that's really hard and really somewhat ambiguous. And I know creates heartache for the staff because the architects and the applicants are never happy with what the staff says the result is. |
| 00:52:09.55 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, it's, it's definitely been a difficult one and it's, it's kind of, uh, an arbitrary and odd equation that you put together. Like, you know, you can't really point to a. specific thing that comes from here this is why you do that but i mean the intent was what you said was to minimize you know large single family homes in multi-family districts but um i just wanted to add one other thing on this before we kind of move it forward um the 40-foot rule is definitely something that is a huge bugbear for staff um architects and property owners and staff too have to do all these gymnastics to make this thing work the council's decision on you know including decks as part of this 40 foot rule which is not codified but it's something that we follow because that was direction that was given um makes things even more difficult um and a lot harder for you know design professionals like yourself and um the whole projections into required setbacks thing we have that as well which allows for these different articulation points as long as this part's this further back, like far back, and this can be a little bit closer and all of that. I mean, you have to be a really experienced architect in Sausalito to even know how to make that, those gymnastic work on paper. And it's, it's, it's just overly complicated. We have setbacks already, you know, we have limits on where you can expand on the property. The 40 foot rule itself is just something that's extremely onerous for designers and Thank you. already. You know, we have limits on where you can expand on the property. The 40 foot rule itself is just something that's extremely onerous for designers and for staff to implement and something that we all work with, something that we all look for and check for, something that we follow, but it's definitely something that we could probably do without and would likely develop, I mean, a benefit development in the city too. I agree. |
| 00:53:44.47 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:53:44.49 | Andrew Junius | I had one more thought I wanted to follow up. You know, I'm kind of curious why we, especially in a quirky town like Sausalito, where we have lots of odd shaped big lots. You know, do we really have to keep the term rear and front? I mean, it just seems those terms come out of, you know, like 1930 subdivisions where everybody's got the exact same. It's like it's like the sunset and the Richmond. Everybody's got the exact same. And everybody's trying to build into the back where, but the lots are the same size. They've got no front setback. They've got 40% rear yard and everyone's at just a, that's easy. We don't have, you know, 90% of the lots here in San Francisco are not that. So, and we still try to torture ourselves into front, back, rear, side. |
| 00:54:25.29 | Unknown | I'm going to be, |
| 00:54:25.43 | David Marlatt | Bye. |
| 00:54:25.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:54:25.55 | David Marlatt | you |
| 00:54:25.60 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:54:29.85 | David Marlatt | Any reason why we're playing? Well, I live on the north side of Sausalito, so I would argue that 90% of the pilots are like that. |
| 00:54:30.00 | Andrew Junius | Any reasons why I'm playing? |
| 00:54:36.03 | David Marlatt | And I've never encountered, I mean, sometimes, yeah, there's flag lots. Flag lots are really tough, but the code's pretty clear. You just get to pick one unless it's been picked in the past. And that's true anyway, we have a flag lot. No, I don't see, I don't know, my personal experience has not been really an issue or an overwhelming issue. |
| 00:54:56.04 | Nastassya Saad | what would the alternative be? |
| 00:54:58.23 | Andrew Junius | Well, for, I mean, for these bizarre situation, okay. So on the, on the north side of town where there's a lot of hillside lots that are octagons or strange, you know, strange shapes. that's when we have these problems, right? I mean, it's in your part. Yeah. In the parts of the town where everything's square and rectangular, no problem. People too. |
| 00:55:15.99 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:55:16.26 | Andrew Junius | But in these other parts of town where we're again, I don't know, maybe there's a different way to approach it if it's not obvious. They should all just be called setbacks. And there should be a rule about where the building sits on the thing. Why do we get all hung up about rear and front and side? |
| 00:55:29.76 | David Marlatt | Well, think about what the original intent, maybe back 100 years ago, of a rear yard setback that's larger than the size is, is, I learned this from the San Francisco Planning Commission, is to protect the open space, the rear yard open space, so that everyone is fronting on a shared sort of garden or something like that, vegetation. It's good goals, you know. Now, of course, you can pop an ADU in there, so that we are suddenly becomes ADU space now. And there's nothing we can do about that. So maybe there's a question of saying, well, what's the point of having a rear yard if you can come within four feet of the property line anyway. And you can build up a deck up to 20, four inches within five feet or something like that. So maybe it's outlived its usefulness, but the original intent was that mid-block open space concept. |
| 00:56:12.65 | Andrew Junius | Trust me, we've all fought those battles in San Francisco, and we've seen that block where everything's really beautiful in the middle, and then people start building into it, and after a while, it doesn't look so nice anymore because there's been 100 variances granted, and people have built into the backyard a long time ago. So anyway, interesting issue, but yeah, I will definitely leave it to you. |
| 00:56:33.36 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I think this is, well, the most interesting one to me so far. I think this was a really good discussion because it's... It's gotten us into a tricky Tricky times up here, for sure. even though the mouth is... should be straightforward so uh definitely appreciate that one commissioner or vice chair marlott um so Matthew, we are very warm on this one. Thank you very much. Okay, heightened review findings. I am terribly curious to hear your thoughts here. I think I know. If it's Andrew Junius, I feel like I know what the thoughts are. |
| 00:57:02.36 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:57:02.55 | Unknown | Good night. |
| 00:57:02.97 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:57:06.06 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 00:57:06.08 | Andrew Junius | I'll be taking this one forward here. |
| 00:57:07.87 | David Marlatt | And I wholeheartedly agree with whatever he says. Sure. |
| 00:57:07.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:57:07.92 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:57:08.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:57:11.58 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:57:11.66 | Nastassya Saad | I really like that. |
| 00:57:11.73 | David Marlatt | Everybody know in my school. |
| 00:57:12.96 | Nastassya Saad | Keep going. |
| 00:57:13.15 | Andrew Junius | Keep going. |
| 00:57:13.66 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:57:14.38 | Andrew Junius | You know, not notwithstanding the fact that we are certainly in a brand new world where the discretionary findings in what is it? Uh, 10.54. aren't going to be applying to, you know, multifamily projects or even two or three unit projects, they still apply to single family homes. So we're still going to have. There's wonderful discussions occasionally when we get those projects in front of us. But I think the simple, you know, proposal here is to, you know, put the, put the basic findings and the heightened review findings kind of next to each other and try to ask ourselves, well, Why do we have the heightened review findings? When you look down and they're basically duplicative for the most part, or there may be a simple add from the heightened into the regular findings, but the trigger seems a little odd as to when we need heightened versus regular. And again, most of it's already in the regular findings. There are 13 different things. And, you know, just a simple like if you're going to go to design review, let's just have one set of these very subjective, impossible to apply, but let's just do it once as opposed to twice and not throw the staff into these weird, I think we've even had a couple of these things where we literally had to have multiple hearings because we got to the hearing and it was like, uh-oh, we forgot, or now we think it's a heightened design review and we only did design review. I mean, that just makes, you know, it's just a killer. So for me, it's, this isn't, this isn't, you know, I would get rid of them all, but I know that's not possible, but at least simplifying it to some extent. So where we just have one consistent set of findings would be a huge improvement for staff. So that's, I would very much think that's a good idea. |
| 00:59:00.27 | David Marlatt | For me, coming at it similarly, but coming at it from a practitioner's point of view, the first thing when you encounter heightened design review findings in Sausalito is, well, then what are the other findings? Are they lower height? Like, why don't you just do your job? And I guess the intent was, well, If you're only if you've got a 20% buffer you know, because you're only within 80% of FAR, 80% of what the criteria are, you have a 20% buffer, that's okay, we don't have to look at it too closely, we can screw up. But what you're getting within 95 or 99% of the maximums, we have to really look close, we have to charge you extra money. That's just bizarre to me. But that's really the way it comes off to a practitioner. you know, is that there's, I'm going to do my job. Then I'm going to really do my job. And I think we just have to find the right place and say, just do your job, and it's not an extra charge. David Myers, Some projects are complicated, some are not maybe that needs to be reflected in the fee schedule somehow I don't know. David Myers, Because I appreciate that certain projects do take extra time, because you know you're really walking the thin thin line between compliance and non compliance but. This idea that, you know, we've got B-level quality and A-level quality. It's just very strange to me. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 01:00:13.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to disagree on this one, as you probably anticipate. Heightened Design Review is designed for projects that exceed 80% of the FAR, meaning that they're trying to build the lot somewhere between 80 and 100% of FAR to the maximum they can build. Given the amount of building, there are other issues that come into play, which then encourages people not to overbuild the lots. This comes out of the whole thing, maybe, I don't know if it was in the 90s, 2000s, of McMansions, where people are, and some of our other stuff, which goes to the weird FAR 0.65, that was designed to the housing element. The reason you can't overbuild a single-family house is because in multi-family districts, they want units. And that's what that's about. There was one in the paper today in San Francisco where somebody thought it was a single-family home, but it was a four-unit building. But the previous people had made it a single-family home. And now the city is in the process of forcing them to put three more kitchens back in to the single family house that's there so that our ordinance is similar to that in concept even though you don't know that by reading it but that was what it was put in for after the previous housing element in order to increase the number of units but heightened design design review requires a higher level of view protection because it goes to primary and secondary. It involves some other issues regarding trees and landscaping and whatever. So if you're really going to overbuild the lot, you need to protect the privacy of the neighbors. So I don't think it's that hard. I would strongly encourage staff not to have a, I think it's fairly simple. If it's over 80%, you review the trees and you review the view with a couple other vantage points, but I don't think we should be charging people more for heightened design review than review. There's design review, and if it's over 80%, it has additional requirements. So, if we can relabel it and add the requirements in and not be charging people more for heightened design review, that's the change I'd make, but I'm cold on in any way eliminating heightened design review. |
| 01:02:40.59 | Fred Moore | Commissioner Moore. feeling the cold over here. So, I sort of go back to the concept that the double process, you know, like Commissioner Marlott's comment, okay, my job, but then I really got to do my job. I don't see why if there are so critical design elements in the height and design review that are critical for they should be critical for the project, whether it's 80% or 79%. So to me, I would be in favor of looking at the whole standards of review and whether we have one list, whether you're way below the FAR or you're 80% of the FAR. Why are those? I'm really going to do my job. Shouldn't they be considered at a lower level of FAR? So I think the double standard, the double hearings, the multiple findings are duplicative and sometimes not consistent and sometimes over overly burdensome. Obviously, we have a little issue with the housing element. If we're going to mess with this, if they're going to be considering whether we're Minimizing or taking away building rights, but I would be interested in looking at how we could have one set of standards for whatever the project is. And they're all looked at because we all want to do a good job. Thank you. |
| 01:03:57.27 | David Marlatt | Yeah. I would just say, picking up an example of privacy, for example, if a project is 99% to the FAR or 79%, But the side wall is five feet away and with rooms looking straight into bathrooms of the neighbors. It's the same privacy issue. So an overdeveloped or 80% or greater. FAR development is not inherently more invasive, it's not inherently or does anything better or worse, and it's up to each commissioner at the dais If a project comes to us that's developing up to 95% of the FAR, As commissioners, that's our discretion. We can apply a higher standard of that, you know, I'm going to say yes for this. 50% FAR project, but I'm going to be tougher on this 95%. I think we're not talking about ceding any of our authority here. We're just talking about simplifying the process and applying a single set of standards. |
| 01:04:50.75 | Andrew Junius | and rationalizing it again i would encourage everybody to look at the heightened review findings and look at the findings and it's like i can't you know four of them i can't they're the same i mean they're the same finding and so i just it doesn't make any sense in response to commissioner luxembourg though that article that everybody saw in the chronicle about that that unfortunate family in north beach that that has absolutely nothing to do with the housing element and the current situation the san francisco planning department and planning commission's rules on unit mergers have been extremely strict for 20 years leading into the housing all the changes of the housing laws but san francisco is trying to tackle this issue decades ago and they've been they've been slowly moving toward essentially banning unit mergers. And that specific property, along with a number of other in the city are people that just didn't follow the rules. And these aren't new rules, these are rules that have been in San Francisco for decades. So that's that. Again, I think the findings here really just need to be cleaned up. And maybe to Commissioner Moore's point, We just need to look at them all and get a new single list going that applies to everybody, applies fairly to everybody. |
| 01:05:59.50 | Nastassya Saad | to know and surprise. I'm ice cold on this one. But, Isn't it just another math conversation? I mean, the FAR, unless we've got a lot of things going on here, right? If we get rid of FAR. |
| 01:06:12.15 | Andrew Junius | No, no, this is not, this is just the design guide. This is just the completely subjective, no math involved design guidelines. I'm sorry. |
| 01:06:18.46 | Nastassya Saad | But the trigger for heightened design review is math. And so to me, that's a, that's a, objective to trigger a subjective thing, but But with the concept, and I'm going to tell you from firsthand experience, the house on the corner at 403 Bonita was the smallest house on the block. It was tiny, tiny. And that became a heightened design review. And it is approved, so that's how it is, that's how it shakes out. But it is a monstrosity from what it was, and it is every day overwhelming and daunting and And, you know, with with the effort that was rigorous that they went through, They deserve their permit because that's what they received. It has a really great impact on the neighborhood and the direct neighbors. So to go from what that home was to a heightened design review of over their 80%, I mean, it's impactful and it is meaningful in the community. So to Vice Chair's point, right, if you have a, side yard and you're looking into someone's bathroom, no matter how big it is, that's a kind of minute, I think, example. If you're going to overbuild a lot and you're going to have the opportunity to go above and beyond, Is it the criteria that we have? Maybe that's open to interpretation. Maybe you're right. Maybe some of these concepts between regular design review and heightened design review are a little repetitive. So to that point, how do we make them more strict, right? How do we get the, how do we squeeze the limit out of a heightened design review? I mean, that's my honest position. And I think as a math trigger, I don't like to mess with the numbers. I like the numbers. So I would be open to... making heightened design review even more stringent and impactful and meaningful rather than eliminate them. But I do see your redundancy point for sure. So I would definitely be open to that conversation, but not open to removing those into one fell swoop. I'm not even sure how that would work based on the trigger of the FAR today. And then I know we've definitely come across the occasional hearing that there was an oversight and we did have to stop a hearing because it was supposed to be a heightened design review, but that's... It's pretty rare, staff tends to do their job pretty well, so this concept of two hearings is not, necessarily equitable to this conversation, in my opinion. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:09:04.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just an additional thought on this. I mean, I wouldn't have no issue with one list. I mean, if we start with one list and then do it the other way, you start with heightened design review, and if it's less than 80%, maybe we can reduce something or something like that. Having said any of that, and I think if you look at a number of the projects around the city, the heightened design review has actually made the projects better. At the end of the day, the project that was built was better. The process that happened, that make it happen, was not so good. It took too long, and we should expedite that. But I think this eventually ends up with better projects. Having said all that, in reading what Attorney Rudin wrote today, I think if we touch heightened design review at all, it's going to trigger at some point a cascading effect that all of these have to become completely objective, which is going to be very hard to do. So I think in some respects, once we start trying to monkey with this section, it's a non-starter. So again, I'm going back. I'm cold on this one. |
| 01:10:12.23 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Just in the interest of moving forward. Any other thoughts on that one? |
| 01:10:16.42 | Andrew Junius | I have so many thoughts, but I will just leave them for the next one. Okay, yes. |
| 01:10:18.32 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, yes. Any other? Okay, thank you very much. Um, And we are now moving on to zoning permits. |
| 01:10:27.15 | David Marlatt | Yeah, zoning permits actually, honestly, I'm not even sure why it's on the list because We are proposing that we maintain zoning permits as a concept, clarifying a little bit. |
| 01:10:37.75 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I think this was really just the staff wanting to codify some rules that they've been doing for a long time, right? |
| 01:10:41.17 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 01:10:45.36 | David Marlatt | And I know one thing and I'll let Matthew speak, but one thing we do it on some very simple clarification in practices is the way it works. But a lot of people. misunderstand that a zoning permit is not a construction permit. And that's an easy language change. Um, the other thing that the code says, uh, which is not the way it should be really practiced is that the zoning permit is applied for in conjunction with the building permit where the intention is. You can apply for the zoning. It's a zoning clearance. It's similar to San Francisco's PRJ. Um, It's a it's the planning department's review, you should be able to apply for it before you've got all your structure and all your investment in architecture. And you pass the zoning permit and then you can go forward with structure and architecture and that investment. So these are very simple little things, but I think it will clear up a lot of confusion because people don't understand why do I need to have a complete building permit. I'm really just asking if the planning department agrees with my with my entitlement. Sorry, Matthew. |
| 01:11:41.64 | Matthew Mandich | Oh, not at all. I think that was a great way to describe why this is on the list. The zoning permit section right now could certainly do with a touch-up, some clarification, some additional information. There are parts of the zoning permit process that are cast across the code disparately. We'd like to probably bring some of those all into one section so you don't have to look in different sections. The clarification, I mean, it's exactly what you just said about the zoning permit in San Francisco, the PRJ. it's the planning clearance for that um there's different ways that you can apply for them there is an avenue to apply for them in conjunction with the building permit if you sign like basically a waiver saying that you know if your zoning permit is appealed or is in process that your building permit will not go forward um and then there's a way to do them fully without any building permit uh application as well so we'd love to like flesh that out a little bit in the code, let people be able to, you know, kind of understand and read that. Also, I mean, this is basically our like base level zoning permit for all planning applications, all development applications that don't rise to the level of a discretionary permit. So, um, that's not also super clear. Um, there's certain things that, for example, a zoning permit right now we have in the code that a zoning permit is required anytime any sign is strung. mean, we have assigned permits for that. Yeah. Building permits. There's other ways. We don't need to be duplicative and issue a zoning permit on top of another permit. So, um, and then the appeal process of the zoning permit is only in the appeal section. It's actually not even included in the zoning permit section. Um, so, I mean, these are just things that we would love to clean up. It makes it easier for the applicant, the homeowner to understand it makes it easier for staff to facilitate. So, um, that's why it's on the list. It's important to us. And I hope that it's kind of one of those things that for the commission would be, um, you know, relatively a minor ask. It's, it's not asking for any like big sweeping changes to how we do things here, more of getting everything in one place, codifying, and, you know, kind of re reducing ambiguity and, you know, any other confusion around that and just making it super clear. |
| 01:13:47.09 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Lexenberg. |
| 01:13:48.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I could be hot on this one. |
| 01:13:51.96 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. It's a different different implication if I say that so I'm just gonna say I approve of this one and I think that one's almost a no brainer and we appreciate that I. That's I think exactly what Commissioner election number point was you know staff tell us where you have your problems and that sounds like an easy win Commissioner Moore. No, we're good. Okay. Uh, I'm going to look to you, Commissioner Junius, preservation of trees and views. |
| 01:14:16.38 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, this is an interesting uh, very large chapter in our code. The one thing that I want to focus on tonight is not the whole thing. It's just the, the best. at the end, there is a, uh, the last part of 1112 it's 11.12.040. is about obstructing views, and it creates something, it creates a system that I've heard about in myth, and I know of, I know of one. case of this in Sausalito. There may be others in the past, but I've actually, or I've won that's kind of happened. and clunkily moving along, but it You know, we've talked a lot. A lot of my views in this commission, and I think a lot of people understand where I come, to that point in terms of you know, people. uh, claiming view rights over properties that they absolutely have no legal right to, and they come to the planning commission. And they demand that the Planning Commission you know, pick winners and losers, choose their view over the other person's right to build a building or, you know, increase the height of their structure or whatever. This is not that, but it's kind of close to that. And it's that and it's that in a strange. Andrew Roth, Jr.: In way it creates there's it's five pages of of process that that people in South Salido can theoretically avail themselves to to ask the planning Commission to arbitrate whether somebody should be required to trim their tree. to preserve a view. I think everybody's heard of this. Again, I don't think it gets used very often, but I think it does. create certain um, a belief system, you know, and an idea that you might have the right to do something to somebody else's tree, which I don't think is right. The bottom line here is that people should work their tree issues and their view issues out amongst themselves in a civil manner that really isn't, I think, for the planning commission or the city to get involved with. I'm frankly not even sure it's legal. um, to, to force somebody to trim their tree. Um, But it's anyway. The bottom line is, I encourage you all to read it. If you haven't read it before, you should read it and go, wow, thank God we haven't been dragged into one of these before because it's insane. It's an absolutely insane process. And I think we should just get rid of it. And the rest of the chapter probably should be revised as well. People like Saucer to Beautiful should take a look at the way we protect trees. I think the commission does a pretty decent job trying to discourage people from discourage people from, you know, cutting down or radically altering trees. We find people for trees. This is kind of in the same vein. You're basically... This arbitration process theoretically allows somebody to go on to another person's property and force them to, you know, continue to trim a tree to preserve the other person's view and there's and there's just no You know, there's no compensation for that. It actually very well could be a constitutional taking in that respect. So anyway, it's a messy section. It's never been used in the five and a half years I've been here, and I think we should get rid of it. |
| 01:17:32.48 | Nastassya Saad | That is interesting. I think we, our last hearing or the, or I was at the last one, but the one before that we had, We did have neighbors work together quite well to have that discussion, but that is a really, I don't think I've ever I'm gonna say something that probably Andrew Junius is not gonna appreciate I'm of a minor. that if you own a property, you should be able to do what you want with that property. So to be honest, if, Outside of the protected trees, I would say, and we do have quite a few of them in town and on people's properties, I wouldn't go so far as to say that somebody, a property owner can, or should be able to take out every single tree on their property, but I would say that we should have I would tilt in the other direction of at some percentage of trees, you should be able to do what you want without a permit. I mean, at some point, It limits your development. It can limit your sun or shade. And to have to come here for a permit to develop your property that you want to that is your right that you're paying property taxes on, to me is, you know, the tree issue, I think... Thank you. |
| 01:18:54.06 | Andrew Junius | Can I just make sure I interrupt you for a second? You're talking about the rest of the Orton. I'm sorry. You're on the normal thing. Okay, kind of. |
| 01:18:55.80 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:18:56.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:57.77 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry. |
| 01:18:58.70 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:18:58.73 | Nastassya Saad | Yes |
| 01:19:00.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:19:00.84 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 01:19:01.45 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:19:02.18 | Nastassya Saad | I'm very intrigued about what you brought up. Okay. Absolutely, and I'd love to learn more about it. But on the rest of the tree ordinance, I feel like we're a little tight on... on tree protection, on private property. And I think it would be something I'd be more open to loosening up to give a property owner more developmental rights and less of a need for a permit for tree removal at the very least. |
| 01:19:31.23 | Andrew Junius | I generally would agree with you, actually. I actually do agree that that the Planning Commission probably shouldn't be involved in this issue at all. I mean, there are some, you know, let's be honest, people do things with their trees all the time, they don't get permits, they don't, you know, it's like, it's one of these almost impossible things to regulate anyway, so why are we even trying? That's one end of the spectrum, and I, the people at Salsuida Beautiful might not like me for saying that, but Um, yeah, I agree. I tend to generally agree. I think you're right. It's sad sometimes when a really beautiful tree has to go because of a development, but it is their property. And in the same vein, you shouldn't be able to point to somebody else's tree and say, that tree blocks my view, get rid of it. |
| 01:20:10.01 | Nastassya Saad | get rid of it completely agree on that absolutely um yeah so i completely agree with you there but anyway that's just my personal take on the overall tree um tree ordinance um commissioner lexenberg |
| 01:20:12.19 | Andrew Junius | And that's what this other projection does. |
| 01:20:21.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Let me start with, probably before you were on the commission, we did have one tree where they wanted a neighbor to trim their tree, and we did do that. I haven't read that recently, and you've read it sooner than I have. But as I remember it, it was an arbitration process, and they would come to the Planning Commission and we would make a decision, but they didn't have to implement our decision. It was sort of a joint thing. So that's how I remember that part of the code, and we have done it at least once. I think it was on spring or somewhere in sort of central Sausalito. So – and it allowed the different parties a mechanism to try to come to terms. So that's on that. I'm hearing you on if people have property, they should be able to do with their property. So I don't disagree with that. But if we are doing it, I just want to go to that part of it. I read this in one of our recent hearings. If we're going to hold a public hearing, if we are going to do tree permits, again, you're suggesting maybe we shouldn't, but if we are going to do them and we are going to have public hearings and we need to have notice for public hearings, and if you read our tree ordinance, the notice provisions for trees are not the same as the notice provision for everything else. And so I think we should make the notice provision the same for all public hearings that we're doing. It should have the same notice provision. So I think we should fix that little problem and make it clear. I think it says you have to post the notice but you only have to post it on the property and you have to tag the trees is what the tree ordinance says but then we hold a public hearing and if we're holding a public hearing we should be putting on a public notice so i just want to uh along with the where we started this fix the little inconsistencies let's fix that one assuming we're going to continue to do tree purpose |
| 01:22:25.99 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. But, Baischer, did you have thoughts on Patrice? Lots of trees. |
| 01:22:31.24 | David Marlatt | Absolutely. |
| 01:22:31.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:31.75 | David Marlatt | Thank you. I like trees. No, but I generally support. Yeah, I think the whole concept that someone can compel someone, you know, on their property to trim a tree or cut a tree. I'm absolutely not a legal authority, but I'm astonished that it hasn't been challenged previously. It's amazing to me that it's still there. but I may not understand all the reasons why. But generally, no, I support the idea of removing that section entirely. I am not familiar enough, I admit, on the rest of it, as far as whether the other restrictions are too loose or too tight. I defer to you on that. Probably that's the case. Sure. |
| 01:23:08.23 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:23:12.16 | Fred Moore | I don't disagree. I think there's a big dichotomy between property owners rights and the adjacent owner who has a tree blocking or not. So I think there should be looser with respect to permits or no permits. I mean, I think it is a little overburdensome on staff to have to get permits when you're trimming trees. One would hope that neighbors Working with each other, if my tree is blocking someone's view, probably in reality, if it was five feet lower, it's not going to impact me because I'm below the damn tree. So that's frustrating that we can't rely on people having good intentions with one another and being good neighbors and cutting down a tree that I'm not enjoying that 40-foot top of the tree, but that's blocking someone's view. And I would cut it or trim it voluntarily versus having to be forced to or have litigation over it um unfortunately i've seen a lot of litigation over trees um with view communities down in southern california and i think loosening this up would be beneficial for everybody without destroying the value and the the aesthetics of the city so i would be interested in looking at it |
| 01:23:48.85 | Unknown | and, |
| 01:24:19.73 | Nastassya Saad | So I think we just, for staff who's taking notes, we've got two things. I think we're all kind of somewhat in agreement. Commissioner Luxenberg didn't necessarily comment on what, oh, I guess you did, what Commissioner Junius brought up around the concept of an owner being able to tell somebody else essentially to cut a tree. |
| 01:24:41.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I would like to reread it because that wasn't something that I knew we were doing but my Understanding of that is it was an arbitration process and didn't require anybody to do anything And I don't have a problem with the Planning Commission providing an arbitrary to save trees in the city if we can do that if we're if if it is as Commissioner Junius is saying that we're the code allows one neighbor to force another neighbor |
| 01:25:08.18 | Andrew Junius | That's what the code allows. The code allows one neighbor force another neighbor |
| 01:25:09.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The code allows one neighbor to force another to That one I have a problem with, but the arbitration process that I do think is in there also, I'm okay with. |
| 01:25:18.35 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so I think we're, yes, please. |
| 01:25:21.26 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. Just to, just to clarify on that a little bit. So, taking a step back on that that that whole thing about the trees and views and the preservation all that actually comes from a pre-existing committee that was the trees and views committee in Sausalito that existed years ago was then disbanded in that that function was absorbed by the planning commission which is kind of why this is in title 11 it's not a title 10 it's not part of the zoning chapter so it's it's been absorbed by the planning commission through this process over the years so In order Jeffrey Lux or excuse me, chair Luxenberg is correct in that, or it's not chair. Sorry, commissioner, you know, it was at one point, um, is correct in that you actually both parties need to agree to binding arbitration in order for the planes commission to a decision to carry any weight. So. |
| 01:26:00.81 | Unknown | What was it? |
| 01:26:11.80 | Matthew Mandich | The planning commission can make a decision, and that decision could then potentially be used in litigation or something like that. It's kind of an arrow in the quiver of whoever gets that determination for them. However, the planning commission's decision on this matter is not final, and it's not binding. So the whole point of the section really is just the make-work section. It's archaic. It's from an older system that we had in place. And it's kind of just carried forward as being this, you know, planning commission thing that can occur, but in practice doesn't, because in practice, if you have a dispute over the tree, you're not gonna get both parties agreeing to binding arbitration. So therefore the commission's decision will really never carry any legal weight or be impactful in any real way. So, I mean, I would be very much for just repealing this section of the code if other people- |
| 01:27:00.63 | Nastassya Saad | I think we're all pretty warm to that one. Also, it doesn't seem like any of our business to have to do that. But I just want to be clear on what I was saying, because people seem to be somewhat on board, and I don't know if you actually are. |
| 01:27:02.83 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:27:13.10 | Nastassya Saad | What I'm saying is not take it out of the purview of the Planning Commission, I'm saying like really when you're looking at chapter 11 for treat like loosen the whole thing up whomever it is counsel us um you know, let the trees meet their fate as they will based on a property owner is more what I'm trying to say. But with that, if there are no other comments, any closing comments from the working group, I want to say a huge thank you because I know the code is a beast and this is only a first step. And I know we're going to expect red lines, which is going to be even more work. So thank you very, very much. And if you have anything you'd like to close with for our study session, |
| 01:27:46.90 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:27:56.19 | David Marlatt | Yeah, well, I'd like to just invite kind of a what did we miss? Other people's input about, like, Commissioner Moore, you've been here for a little bit less time than Commissioner Junius or Commissioner Luxembourg. But, like, what's on your top three list? What's your hot list? What didn't we cover that's really important, if you have thoughts on that? |
| 01:28:18.90 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:28:18.92 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:28:18.93 | Fred Moore | I think you did a great job. I'm not sure I have the top list that the things that you missed. Again, one thing I mentioned earlier, which is already covered on your section, was how you deal with FAR and setbacks has always been an issue in calculation of heights. I think those are some big issues which you've already identified. |
| 01:28:36.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. um the only thing i think we've missed well i don't know the only thing but uh which i've said repeatedly since i've been on this commission is and we've gotten better about this but anything we can do to help the staff to expedite so it doesn't take such a long time to get from application to final uh final final submittal or whatever to get to us uh would be important in the code so wherever we can streamline it and if it means timelines that's one thing if it means taking out some clarifying some provisions so people aren't going back and forth constantly with whatever but whatever we can do to make it easier for the people live in Sausalito to renovate and improve their properties I encourage that as well |
| 01:29:31.41 | Nastassya Saad | I don't have anything else to add at this time. |
| 01:29:33.54 | David Marlatt | I'll just have one very last thing, because that's a great segue into the final comment, inviting ACM Phipps to chime in here is where do we go from here and one of the conversations we've had is if we can identify those code sections which I call non controversial like you know we all agree about zoning permits clarity and we all agree about that sort of thing and what can we reasonably expect to present to the city council in such a way that it can be passed. You know, because obviously going one by one through the ordinances is incredibly burdensome and maybe charging the task force with working with staff to come up with a list of sort of an omnibus measure of, you know, those things which are simply clarity, simply non-controversial. as a tactic, as a strategy, like where do we go from here? So this doesn't fall by the wayside for two more years or three more years. |
| 01:30:27.08 | Assistant City Manager | Yeah, I absolutely endorse that approach and appreciate the comments. Commissioner, I think that Matthew and I are excited to continue working with the both of you and to continue to have you assist in actually implementing some of these changes based on working group preference as well. Of course, all these items are going to get filtered through staff, and then they're going to get brought back to the commission for review. That's more specific to this list, but I found this evening to be very clarifying, at least as far as ranking and filing our immediate next step priorities as related to this list, right? I think, you know, zoning administrator, a little bit cold. heightened review, maybe a little colder. But some of the other ones, you know, I heard a lot of consensus this evening. So I think that that bodes really well. As far as additional sections, maybe that you don't see here, I think same process, you know, staff, we do have a list, and we will continue to refer to that list and add to that list based on any additional comments from right commission and working group members this evening. I think that it's very appropriate for us to chunk some of these amendments, particularly those ones that, |
| 01:31:12.69 | Unknown | Well. |
| 01:31:21.22 | Unknown | Have a look. |
| 01:31:37.74 | Assistant City Manager | aren't super substantive as far as philosophically changing the way that our code is implemented. I am I'm very supportive of that and look forward to making progress with the commission. |
| 01:31:50.92 | Nastassya Saad | That's it. Wonderful. Thank you very much. |
| 01:31:57.23 | Nastassya Saad | And thank you to everybody in the working group. So we're gonna close the study session and our very patient applicant is up now. So we have item seven, it's the hearing. This is item seven A, this is 44 Toyon Lane. It's a design review permit with heightened review findings of variance and encroachment agreement. And we'll have associate planner Adam Blair come up. And before that, Commissioner Junius, do you wanna state for the record |
| 01:32:25.04 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I live within 500 feet of the subject property for the next matter, so I will be recusing myself at this time. Good evening, everybody, and we'll see you next time. |
| 01:32:34.59 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Commissioner Junius, we will wait for you to depart and then we will get started with Adam Blair. Yes, thank you very much. While we're doing that, thank you very much, Commissioner Wexenberg. Any expert communications? |
| 01:32:51.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I did view the site, but I did not have any interactions with anybody, so there were no ex parte communications. |
| 01:32:58.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you. |
| 01:33:00.15 | David Marlatt | None from Ethan. |
| 01:33:01.03 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:33:01.47 | Nastassya Saad | And then for me as well, Commissioner Moore, anything to declare? |
| 01:33:04.42 | Fred Moore | I also went and looked at the site but had no communications with anybody. |
| 01:33:07.85 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you. um, Okay, with that, Adam Blair, whenever you are ready, |
| 01:33:35.12 | Adam Blair | Okay, thank you, Chair. Good evening, Commissioners, members of the public. I'm Adam Blair, Associate Planner with the Community Development Department. The item before you this evening is an application requesting approval of a design review permit with heightened review findings, a variance, and an encroachment agreement. to demolish and reconstruct a garage structure with the addition of an enclosed lower level storage room totaling approximately 335 square feet to reconstruct and expand an existing main level wood deck between the garage and the main residence, to add a new exterior style. Thank you. Airway connecting the new storage room to the garage and main residents and to facilitate driveway and retaining wall improvements within the city right of way at 44 toy on lane. Next slide. So here's a location map showing 44 Toyon Lane. The property consists of a single family residence constructed in 1961 through building permit number 2733. The parcel is identified by assessor parcel number 064-231-10. The lot is about 8,830 square feet in size and has a general plan land use designation of low density residential and is located within the R-1-8 single family residential zoning district. Next slide. |
| 01:34:50.08 | Adam Blair | Here we go. So applicant Peter Pfau on behalf of owners Peter Pfau and Mary Star is requesting approval of a design review permit with heightened review findings to demolish and reconstruct an approximately 400 square foot garage structure. This structure is located in the front yard area of 44 Toyon Lane. The garage is proposed to be demolished and rebuilt, maintaining the same footprint as the existing garage structure, but the garage will be shifted into the left by about four inches to comply with the required five foot side yard setback for the easterly side of the property. The overall height of the garage will increase by about a foot, and that's to allow a car to more easily get in and out of the garage. And as noted earlier, it will have that lower level storage room, about 335 square feet in size. The project also proposes the reconstruction and its expansion of a main level wood deck by about 391 square feet that deck serves to connect the residents in the garage which are separated the garage sits on the easterly side the garage the residents is further west. And that improvement will also have a new connecting staircase, which will basically lead from the lower part of the garage where the storage room is going to the main level deck that connects the garage and the main residence. A variance is requested for relief from accessory structure height requirements since the proposed garage extra structure exceeds the 15 foot maximum of height allowance for accessory structures. And then an encroachment agreement is requested to facilitate improvements within the Toyon Lane right-of-way. This includes some driveway paving work, replacement of some existing guardrails, and then the installation of a new 5'9 height concrete retaining wall on kind of the easterly side to help support the slope. and to protect some current underground utilities. that are just adjacent to that portion of the property. Heightened review findings are required since the proposed project exceeds 80% of the maximum allowed FAR and building coverage limitations. within the respective zoning district. Next slide. So diving a bit into the project as noted in the staff report for this application, the proposed project complies with most of the development standards for our dash one dash eight zone properties, as you can see summarized in the table. its current form the property has a non-conforming right side yard setback of four foot eight inches it's noted there in the table That setback is the result of the current nonconforming garage structure, which That has a measured height of 22 feet, 10 inches, which is also nonconforming. proposed project will Uh, Correct the nonconforming right side yard setback by demolishing the nonconforming garage structure and reconstructing it. maintaining its same footprint, but set four inches into the property. to allow for a five-foot side yard setback. With that being said, the only non-compliant aspect of the project is the height of the new garage structure, which would be 23 feet. 10 inches, about 8 feet 10 inches over the maximum height allowance. Due to the steep downhill slope of the lot, there was no practical manner to construct a garage structure, which complied with the 15-foot accessory structure height limit. Therefore, a variance is requested for relief from the accessory structure height limit to facilitate the construction of this new garage. Before we proceed, I would also like to note that in spite of the proposed deck extension and the new connecting staircase, There was an overall decrease in building coverage for the property, as noted in the table, and this was because a large, approximately 462-square-foot rear-yard garden deck will be removed as part of the proposed project. Deck was noted as having extensive dry rot, and thus... Warranted removal. Next slide. So diving into the findings staff finds the proposed project is in conformance with the required design review permit and height review findings staff finds that the proposed architecture and site design maintains. the prevailing design character of the neighborhood since the improvements will result in minimal visual impact from the street with the exception of the reconstructed garage. existing trees and natural features on the site will not be altered as a result of this project again due to the garage work and then minimal improvements with the retaining wall on the right of way, the deck further downhill, which overhangs the slope. The project poses minimal neighborhood impact because, as noted earlier, due to the downhill slope of the lot, a lot of the proposed improvements will occur further downhill and they will not be visible from the street. the exception being the reconstructed garage structure. Off street and on street parking demand will not change as a result of this project the property currently currently has compliant off street parking and The new garage will be will basically maintain that um required off street parking. Finally, the proposed project will pose minimal view impact Since the garage structure is located uphill from the residences along the northerly portion of Toyon Lane. You essentially have the roadway, you have garages at the top of the hill, and then as the hill goes down, a lot of the residences overhang the hill So they're usually located a little further downhill from the main roadway. So most of the residences won't be able to see the garage structure at the top of the hill. The garage and deck extension work will not impact light and air on the property, since the separation between the main residence and the garage structure will be maintained. Next slide. Diving to the variance findings, staff finds the proposed project is in conformance with the required variance findings, Staff finds that The literal enforcement of the provisions of Title X would result in practical difficulty for the property owners This is due to the steepness. 51% downhill slope. of the property. It presents great practical difficulty to construct a garage structure which complies with the 15-foot accessory structure height limit and this is mainly due to the orientation of the site which essentially requires a garage design which hangs over the slope. and thus require structural support, usually in the form of peers, going down into the hillside that results for a low point of contact with natural grade. us pulling that average down. Staff finds that the proposed project will enable the property owners to construct their garage structure for increased safety and to achieve greater compliance with Salsolito zoning ordinance. The reconstructed garage, while it may not be able to comply with height, We'll pull that garage out of the side yard setbacks. So it's moving closer to conformance. The original partially enclosed carport structure and the enclosed garage structure have been enjoyed by Property owners, since the original construction of the single-family residence in the 1960s, Finally, the granting of such variance will not result in a grant of special privilege For the property owners at 44 toy on lane. Neighboring properties have similar carport and garage structures, which they continue to improve. Enjoy. Most of those structures are likely legal non-conforming structures. neighboring properties would face similar challenges due to the downhill slope of their respective properties, because that portion of Toyon Lane takes... quite a deep dip, but then average slope noted of about 48 to about 50%. And next slide. Finally, for the encroachment agreement findings, staff finds the proposed encroachments are in conformance with the required encroachment agreement findings. Staff finds that these encroachments are compatible with the surrounding area. The encroachments consist of replacing existing guardrails, which serve as a barrier and fall protection for the property owners. They serve to replace a wooden section of the driveway with concrete. This would still be within the current driveway aprons. and the new five foot nine inch concrete wall would ensure the stability of the downhill slope of Toy on Lane. All of these encroachments would be minimal in terms of visual impact and are consistent with similar encroachments in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds the encroachment is necessary to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. since the proposed encroachments will ensure the stability of the hillside and enable safe ingress and egress for the property owners as noted through the guardrail improvements, paved driveway, And then that concrete retaining wall would reduce landslide risk, landslide risk, for the property and ensure the permanence of existing underground utilities, which currently serve the property. Then finally, the proposed encroachments will not adversely affect the public circulation or constitute a hazard to the public. All these proposed encroachments, as mentioned earlier, are minimal in terms of physical impact to the Toyon Lane right-of-way. and all proposed encroachments are set back from the Toyon Lane roadway. So they're kind of off to the side almost before the hill starts to take a dip. So if you're driving by... You might not even see him. Next slide. So with that being said, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve application 2025-00120 for 44 Toyon Lane and adopt the attached draft resolution, which is approving the design review permit with heightened review findings and the requested variants for relief from accessory structure height limits. and recommending approval of an encroachment agreement to the City Council. Stopp lines, the proposed project is in conformance with the criteria listed below, as was summarized earlier in this presentation. And with that, that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. |
| 01:44:24.39 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much for a very thorough report. Um, open up for questions. Commissioner Alexenberg, any question for staff? |
| 01:44:32.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Adam, thank you for your presentation. No questions at this time. |
| 01:44:36.18 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:44:36.89 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation. It was very thorough and I appreciate the applicant having to wait around two hours, so I apologize for that. Quick question. I guess this goes back to how easy it is to determine height. When you read this, you think 15, it's 28 feet. Oh, my gosh, it's like giant above the street. When you go by there, it's lower than almost all the houses on the side. So is it easy for you to show for the public how you calculate the fact that it's way over the 15 foot when in reality from the street level? It's under nine feet. |
| 01:45:11.75 | Adam Blair | It's easy in the sense of when you look at drawings, because you can see from a side angle the high point and low points of contact for the garage. You'll see for the high, in this case, the high point was near the driveway. And then the low point, the hill takes quite a dip as you go down. So that structural post. runs quite low relative to the top. So from a side angle, it's easy to see, but from the street, it wouldn't be easy for the average person to tell. |
| 01:45:36.88 | Fred Moore | The other question, with respect to the retaining wall, the retaining wall is not going to be 5'9 above the street level, is it? I wasn't able to find a view from the side view of it. I'm assuming it's because you're measuring 5 feet from down the slope coming up? |
| 01:45:53.67 | Adam Blair | Yeah, my understanding is that it won't be because right off the street, it already starts to go downhill. So that retaining wall will be five feet, nine inches in height, but it will be set downhill. So it won't be projecting above the street line. |
| 01:46:05.50 | Fred Moore | like Massey applicant is probably going to be street level or a few inches above it, I imagine. Okay. Okay. No further questions. |
| 01:46:11.63 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:46:12.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. vice chair. |
| 01:46:14.12 | David Marlatt | No, thank you, Adam. No questions. |
| 01:46:16.28 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. See, the math, F-A-R. No questions. Straightforward. Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:46:19.57 | David Marlatt | and it's not going to be |
| 01:46:19.78 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:46:26.34 | Fred Moore | Thought I had this great system here, which may not be that good. But with respect to the encroachment agreement I noticed there based on the plans. There are a couple other items in the right-of-way There's an existing concrete stairs. There's an existing non irrigated planner and there's a mailbox Do those items even though they're not part of the application because they're not being changed. They've been existing Do they need to be added to the encroachment permit since they are encroaching? |
| 01:46:53.98 | Adam Blair | That's a good question, which I would defer to the applicant on, at least in relation to this application. They didn't propose any modifications to those structures. I believe they'll just be remaining as is. |
| 01:47:05.49 | Fred Moore | totally understand that is was curious if we can ask the applicant if if you're trying to get an encroachment agreement for your encroachments and you're getting new encroachments, it seems to me, you might want to include the existing encroachments of their covered as well. But I guess I'll leave that to the applicant or the staff, if they have a different opinion. |
| 01:47:27.65 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:47:29.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just a quick thought. When was this application submitted? You know that? |
| 01:47:34.94 | Adam Blair | It was submitted going off memory at about mid 2025. |
| 01:47:38.97 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. |
| 01:47:39.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to. |
| 01:47:39.44 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. |
| 01:47:39.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:47:39.65 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. |
| 01:47:39.78 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 01:47:39.85 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:47:40.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:47:40.47 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. And I'm happy to comment on the encouragement agreement item. I mean, you know, generally when we look at or think about encouragement agreements, I think of them as contracts that allow an owner to maintain a particular structure, you know, or – |
| 01:47:44.37 | Adam Blair | We've seen. |
| 01:47:44.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:57.94 | Assistant City Manager | design concept any improvements essentially in general that extend onto a public property right municipal land if the applicant doesn't have an interest in maintaining an improvement that might be there, then it shouldn't be in the encroachment agreement. So I would generally gravitate towards not including the elements that the applicant does not have any interest in maintaining and having an agreement with that with the city. But I will defer to the – I'm interested in hearing from the applicant as well. |
| 01:48:32.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Adam. At this time, we'll have the applicant presentation if they wish to make one. You will have 15 minutes. If we stop, you won't count against your time. And if you could just state your name and address for the record and the floor will be yours. |
| 01:48:53.44 | Peter Pfau | I think we're going to have a little slideshow here to visualize. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Peter Pfau. I live with my wife, Kim Starr, who's also present here at 44 Toyon Lane in Sausalito. And I also am an architect. My wife is a retired landscape designer. so actually it was interesting for me to sit through the previous discussion. In light of that, we went through this whole process of things you discussed, and I want to thank Adam for his guidance in that process, and it's because of his role helping me shape the application that we have a complete presentation here tonight so. |
| 01:48:57.02 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 01:49:46.02 | Peter Pfau | Thank you, Adam. for that. Um, I think one thing I would mention is we moved into this place. We bought it three years ago, moved in a year ago, and have been there two years. We have a great relationship with all our neighbors. I think you'll see on the record, we have five of our adjoining neighbors have all written letters, and so they've been included in discussions about what we're doing, and all of them are very supportive. And you can get a sense of the relationship between the main residence volume, which we renovated before we moved in, so we developed a good relationship with Kenneth Henry. And so, looking forward to working with him on the garage. Okay. So next slide. I think that Adam mentioned the four feet. I think the key thing to keep in mind is our intention is started out very simple. We have a garage that is not in a great state of repair. It's been there over 60 years. And it is, in our opinion, not safe to park our cars. So we do not park our cars in there. And I'll give you a sense of that in a moment. But we're basically replacing a 20 by 20 garage in kind. and seismically upgrading it for safety. And so that's really kind of the core of what we started doing. So excellent. Am I changing this or are you changing? Okay. So I think Adam mentioned how steep the slope is. This is sort of looking back up towards the house from the bottom part of our site. And you can get a sense of how steep it is. It's quite steep. And on the left there, you can see the supports that hold up our garage. They're basically kind of you know, not looking that great and they're cracking And at the foundation, there was some funky foundation repair that happened at some point in time. And it really is not a sound structure. So that's one of the reasons we wanted to replace this. And so, um, Next, you can go to the next slide. I think here you can see kind of the existing configuration. There is like a very strange way of getting from the upper level to the bottom. As we have sort of a connective walkway in front that goes from the garage to our front door. And then there is a way down to the garden. Next slide. And you can get a sense of how strange that is. There's like weird little walkways and ramps and stuff. So we really wanted to clean this up as well. So next slide. The idea is to have a stair that takes you down to the lower deck more directly, a proper width stair. And to basically build the same garage, but it has a little bump out in the back for our bikes to go in because it's really just big enough for our cars. And in the front, we're moving the PG&E service. So it's on the driveway. Right now, you have to kind of climb down the hill under the house to get to the service. And so we've worked with PG&E. We have a permit to do that with PG&E already. And so that allows immediate access to the service from the driveway. Next slide. So here you can kind of see underneath is just open. We have a large deck in the back that we're rebuilding because it's well beyond its service life as well. So next slide. We're taking this opportunity to connect that into a larger deck that brings the two structures together. So there we'll have storage in that lower floor of the garage. I'd say the intention here is to take Sausalito mini storage off of the payroll and put all of our stuff that we've collected over the years down there. in the lower floor. And that'll be directly connected to the deck, which connects into the main house. And then there's a more generous and code compliance tier that leads down to the lower level. So next slide. Here you can get a sense of kind of the section. complexity that we're dealing with. You can see the old structure. On the left. You know, basically, I think the way I describe it is when it was built in the 60s, it was probably a carport. that was open. And at some point, we don't really know when, they basically nailed plywood on the inside and put a garage door on. And so that's been there for quite some time. Um, So next slide. The intent of the. Building is to match the siding on the house, which is a one by eight painted wood siding. And we're actually taking that down to grade in order to make a WUI compliance structure where sparks can't fly up under the structure. And so while we're at it, it made sense to us to enclose the space underneath for the storage. Next slide. I think you can get a sense of how it fits into the buildings along the street. The primary residence is actually down the hill, so it's quite low. And the trees, which, interestingly enough, we, our neighbor and us, we trim them for them because of the ordinance. But you can see the story poles are up over the garage in relation to the building next door. It's not really a very big change. And for us, that'll be meaningful because right now, the garage door, if you go to the next slide, The garage door that is about six foot four high, which is pretty low. And so I have a truck. I cannot drive it in there. So we're going to take the garage door up to seven feet and the interior up to the appropriate probably about eight feet clear on the inside because it's sloped. Next slide. And you can see a sense of what that's like on the inside with the sloped roof for drainage. So next slide. talks about the right-of-way, and it seems like maybe we can dwell on this a little bit because you had some questions. These are just things where the items in the right-of-way that we're replacing are not in a great state of repair, and so it seems like now is the time to repair them and make them sound and more safe. The handrail down the steep stairs to our front doors is not code compliant. We'd like to replace it with a metal rail so that it's easier to grab and safer. And the rails next to our driveway are pretty funky. So, And the apron is something that while we're at it, we want to replace that. And the PG&E right away, you can kind of see it over to the side there on the right. We have a number of boxes there, but the retaining wall will actually continue that line out. So if you go to the next slide, You can see the retaining wall is kind of an L. And what that will do is continue the level that's flat from the street where those boxes are, and it will allow PG&E to rebuild our service there. And you can see the service on the left there. It's actually downhill. So we have a neighborhood that's all those services are underground. We had an incident. in November where there was a lot of water that that came down the street because the sewer was clogged. and it washed out the whole service. So we had PG&E there to stabilize it. They will not. rebuild it until we put this retaining wall there, because they can't get a Green Book compliant installation of the new service. So working with PG&E and working with staff, Adam chipped in, Megan from Public Works chipped in, and we kind of figured out the best way to get PG&E. What they needed to rebuild the service was to put this retaining wall in. And so we had this application and Adam helped us add this to the application so we can resolve that as well. So that's why that's in there. And we have worked with the neighbors because it exists in the right of way between the two properties to make sure they are comfortable and actually they're quite appreciative of it because it is an unstable hillside. So next slide, that's really the conclusion of my comments. I think we're here to do the right thing, and we hope that you feel that way about our application, that we've put all the pieces together to allow us to move forward and build our garage. So thank you for your consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions. |
| 02:00:30.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We'll stop the clock. Thank you very much at 328. So if there is any public comment after that period, you can... Use that remaining time however you wish. If you could just stay close for us. Commissioner Luxembourg, do you have any questions for the applicants? No. |
| 02:00:45.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, thank you. I want to congratulate you on a very thorough presentation. Thank you so much. |
| 02:00:51.42 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, I completely agree. Commissioner Moore, did you want to ask some questions of the applicant? |
| 02:00:56.26 | Fred Moore | Just a couple of questions, and I also appreciate, again, you staying out through all the hours. And also, the presentation package was excellent. I appreciate all the detail you went through there, especially with the tight streets here and the thoughtfulness that you went into, where the pallets were going to go, where equipment was going to go down, the deliveries. Just really appreciate that. I think it helps the neighbors substantially. Just two quick questions, I guess, and this probably doesn't really matter much, but I know in the storage area you have two rooms. Was there a reason you have divided that space up into two areas versus one? |
| 02:01:30.40 | Peter Pfau | Yeah, one's sort of where bikes and some tools would be and some exercise equipment, and one's where kind of deep storage would be. So they're kind of two different levels of storage is how we're thinking about it. |
| 02:01:45.84 | Fred Moore | And also with the retaining wall, I know there's a, there's a tree. I'm not sure it's on your property or a neighbor's property, right? Thank you. The retaining wall can fit in there without |
| 02:01:55.85 | Peter Pfau | Thank you. |
| 02:01:55.87 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:01:55.88 | Peter Pfau | that tree. Yeah, actually it'll help stabilize that tree because there's one side of that tree is kind of hanging into the precipice. |
| 02:02:05.79 | Fred Moore | And then the last question, I know you have your new panel on the front and looking at the elevations on the right-hand side. Is there a way that that panel can be put inside the garage rather than outside? |
| 02:02:18.48 | Peter Pfau | No. It has to be accessible from PG&E. |
| 02:02:23.61 | Fred Moore | So that's your house panel with your switches and everything? That's our main service, yeah. |
| 02:02:26.78 | Peter Pfau | Is that going to be? That's our main service, yeah. |
| 02:02:28.47 | Fred Moore | Is that going to be like a door to cover to match your |
| 02:02:32.98 | Peter Pfau | It's going to be lush with the surface, so it'll be framed in and then it'll be painted the same color as the house. |
| 02:02:42.76 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:02:43.10 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:02:45.43 | Nastassya Saad | Vice chair. |
| 02:02:47.17 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Yeah, and thank you for an excellent presentation and a very clean and modest project, but very clean and well thought out project. Thank you. |
| 02:02:59.00 | Nastassya Saad | I also don't have any questions. We appreciate your presentation and your time. At this point, you can go ahead and take a seat, and we will open it up for public comment just to see. And just for the record, the public comment that was written by our neighbors is all attached to the public agenda, so we've all had a chance to go through that, and that is there. Assistant City Manager, can you help me facilitate public comment, please? |
| 02:03:25.52 | Assistant City Manager | Yes, looking to the chamber. looking to the Zoom application. Signan. |
| 02:03:31.90 | Nastassya Saad | Easy enough. So at this point, I just made you sit down, but you do have three minutes and 28 seconds. You're more than welcome to use it however you wish. If you want to forego your time, we'll just bring it up here for discussion. Okay, so for those on Zoom, they're going to forego their time, so we will close that portion of the public hearing and get started. Commissioner Luxembourg, do you want to kick us off? |
| 02:03:55.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to make two comments and sort of seconding Commissioner Moore's comment about height. So the height from the street is what it is, and it's going up a foot, but it is not above a reasonable height limit. So going back to our earlier conversation about how you measure height, and I'm not suggesting we change that definition, But in this particular case, the fact that the project slopes downward and it means the height is 23 feet, it doesn't mean from the street this garage is any bigger than any in the neighborhood and, in fact, maybe a little bit smaller. So I have no issue with the height on this one. And to the encroachment permit, I believe Attorney Rudin responded to Commissioner Moore's comments last time and changed the template for the encroachment agreement. And as I carefully look today, I believe that the encroachment agreement attached to this incorporates all of those changes as well. So this is the new encroachment agreement, I believe, which I think is a good thing. And so I'm very supportive of this project. I think they've done an excellent job. Very happy to see that all their neighbors are also very happy with this and can support this project. |
| 02:05:13.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Commissioner Moore. |
| 02:05:16.56 | Fred Moore | I also reiterate those same comments and also the applicant very, very supportive of the project. In a perfect world, I guess I would like to see the utility box on the side of the house or inside the garage. Applicants indicated that's not possible. I know there's not other utility. |
| 02:05:34.58 | Nastassya Saad | I'm very sorry. It's only because we've closed. We appreciate it. Thank you. |
| 02:05:41.79 | Fred Moore | I appreciate the response. Yeah, so that's really the only thing that I would like to see different with the plans if it was easily done. Other than that, I'm very supportive. |
| 02:05:52.84 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair. |
| 02:05:53.92 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. I'm also very supportive of the project and appreciate that it's a limited its scope to what is needed and didn't go for a grab of what they could have potentially had. I really appreciate that. Thinking about connecting this back to our earlier study session about height it, Had this been a house, no variance would be required. It would have met with the 32-foot requirement. So it raises a question not so much of how we define height, but whether our sort of simplistic limitation of 15 feet for accessory structures measured vertically from the ground needs to be somehow finessed or looked at. So that such reasonable thing wouldn't require a variance in the future, because it it seems reasonable and it may have to do with looking at how we define height for accessory structures. as a semi unrelated comment. |
| 02:06:48.80 | Nastassya Saad | Not to use this applicant as a guinea pig who also had to sit here and listen to our study session, but it's got everything. It's got heightened design. We talked about utilities. We have encroachments. I mean, it really sort of sums it up, and quite frankly, especially with heightened design review and variances and encroachments and all that good stuff, we usually have pretty robust discussions, but I will echo what my colleagues have said. You know, Adam, Adam, you did a wonderful job here on, you did the applicant justice, and to the applicant you did yourself justice, and it's very clear cut. And I think it's very straightforward and everything makes sense, and I don't have any issues with any part of this application. So with that, I'll look for a motion unless there's any other discussion points. |
| 02:07:35.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I'd like to move the project pursuant to the attached draft resolution. |
| 02:07:41.33 | Nastassya Saad | Is there a second? of the |
| 02:07:42.60 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:07:42.63 | Nastassya Saad | Oh. |
| 02:07:42.85 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:07:42.92 | Nastassya Saad | I can. Thank you very much. Assistant City Manager, can you take roll? |
| 02:07:46.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 02:07:46.04 | Assistant City Manager | Commissioner Moore. |
| 02:07:47.49 | Fred Moore | Yes, approved. |
| 02:07:48.77 | Assistant City Manager | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Junius. She's not here to let the record show. Vice Chair Merlant. Yes. Cherson. |
| 02:07:55.74 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 02:07:55.79 | Peter Pfau | you |
| 02:07:57.09 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:07:57.77 | Assistant City Manager | Motion passes. Congratulations. |
| 02:07:59.40 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. um, With that, we have adjournment. All those in favor. |
| 02:08:04.13 | Assistant City Manager | you |
| 02:08:04.35 | Nastassya Saad | Hi, thank you very much. Thank you very much for being here this evening. |
| 02:08:07.79 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, community members. Have a great evening. |
| 02:08:15.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |