Sausalito City Council Meeting

Meeting Transcript

Time	Speaker	Text
00:00:00.03	Nastassya Saad	much. like to call the regularly scheduled planning commission meeting to order. The time is 632 and it is March 25th. Assistant City Manager.
00:00:15.81	Assistant City Manager	Thank you very much, Chair, and good evening to you, the Vice Chair, Planning Commissioner, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom, and with that, I will call roll. Thank you. Commissioner Junius. President. Commissioner Moore.
00:00:37.04	David Marlatt	and I think that's a good thing.
00:00:37.33	Fred Moore	Thank you.
00:00:37.36	David Marlatt	Thank you.
00:00:38.30	Fred Moore	you
00:00:38.32	David Marlatt	Present.
00:00:38.98	Assistant City Manager	Commissioner Luxenberg. President. chair. Merlot.
00:00:42.39	David Marlatt	Right.
00:00:42.64	Assistant City Manager	Cheers on.
00:00:43.92	Nastassya Saad	Here.
00:00:44.70	Assistant City Manager	We have a full house. We have quorum. Back to you, Chair.
00:00:47.60	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Item number two is the approval of the agenda. Is there a motion?
00:00:52.16	Assistant City Manager	So moved.
00:00:52.92	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:00:54.22	Assistant City Manager	Thank you.
00:00:54.32	Nastassya Saad	that.
00:00:54.35	Andrew Junius	I can.
00:00:55.11	Nastassya Saad	Thank you, ACM.
00:00:57.41	Assistant City Manager	Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice Chair Merlot. Yes. Chair Assat.
00:00:59.99	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
00:01:04.29	Assistant City Manager	Thank you.
00:01:04.33	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
00:01:04.73	Assistant City Manager	Motion passes.
00:01:06.06	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Item number three are for public comments on items that are not on the agenda this evening. Assistant City Manager.
00:01:12.98	Assistant City Manager	Thank you very much chair this is the time for the Commission and staff to hear from citizens regarding matters not on the agenda. Video or audio public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker unless it's modified by the chair. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right considering the amount of folks in the chamber, we will also accept raised hands. If you're joining us from the Zoom application and you'd like to raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. And of course, you'll be called upon when it's your time to speak if you're raising your hand virtually and or in person. Thank you chair look into the chamber. Look into the Zoom application.
00:01:56.82	Assistant City Manager	Seeing none. Back to you, Chair.
00:01:58.64	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Item number four is the approval of the Planning Commission minutes. We have 4A, which is one set of minutes from March.
00:02:06.83	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:02:07.22	Nastassya Saad	Commissioner Luxembourg, did you have comments?
00:02:10.05	Jeffery Luxenberg	I do. I want to know why the recording is missing everything before item six. The when you go to the video, it starts with item six. It doesn't allow you to do the previous items.
00:02:25.87	Assistant City Manager	Excellent question, Commissioner technical difficulties is the answer
00:02:29.65	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay. To that question, we then have to resolve two issues. Page one, line 31, has blanks for who moved and seconded things because the video didn't have it. Page one, line 41, who moved and who seconded. We don't have that, so we need to fill those in. I know I moved one of them, and I can't remember which one. and then my other comment is page 16. It says city attorney Otto provided a PowerPoint presentation. She did not provide a PowerPoint presentation. She provided an overview, and it really wasn't the PowerPoint. It was one slide, and I don't think that could be called a presentation. So my suggestion is I would move these minutes, if we can fill in those blanks, and change the reference to Attorney Otto as providing an overview rather than the PowerPoint.
00:03:29.62	Nastassya Saad	Thank you for the details, Commissioner Luxembourg. Is staff, first before we move to a second, clear on those directions? Yes. Thank you. Is there a second on that motion for the changes to the minutes?
00:03:43.57	Fred Moore	I'll second.
00:03:44.42	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. ACM, can you take roll, please?
00:03:47.83	Assistant City Manager	Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice Chair Merlot. Yes. Chair Assange.
00:03:54.97	Nastassya Saad	Yes, thank you very much for the attention. As always, Commissioner Luxenberg.
00:03:55.52	Assistant City Manager	Okay.
00:03:59.52	Nastassya Saad	Item number five are communications. Does city staff have any communications for us this evening?
00:04:04.47	Assistant City Manager	THE FAMILY. Thank you for the opportunity, Chair. I have one communication item for the Commission this evening. That communication item is related to one of our more recent council meetings where that was on the 17th of this month, where we discussed program aid implementation specifically as it relates to the joint development RFP for the MLK and corporation yard site. Once again, Commissioner Merlot, thank you so much for being a commissioner as well as a dutiful task force member. We really appreciated all your feedback. At that meeting, we presented the RFP as amended by the task force as well as the public forums and the numerous public comments that we received. And we got some feedback from city council on amendments to make prior to our end of March deadline to have the RFP distributed. So my job prior to the end of the month is to update the RFP in a way that's compatible based on council direction and to issue it formally submitting to the public Sol Solito's request for development proposals for each site. As far as primary changes that were made, I won't go through all of them, but some of the primary ones were increasing the requirement for senior housing at MLK, affordable senior housing that is, from 70 to 80 percent to a minimum of 80 percent of total units and to remove that senior affordable housing requirement from the corporation yard. So instead of focusing on affordable senior housing development at that site, the city would like proposals that incorporate other housing types that are supportive of the community, such as workforce housing. So that I think is one of the largest ones. We look forward to receiving development proposals following our release. Thank you.
00:06:05.29	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much, that's an important update. Does anybody have any communications?
00:06:10.98	Jeffery Luxenberg	No, just as a follow-up to that comment, so we don't have to go search for that. When that's ready to go, ACM, can you submit to the Planning Commission copies of the RFP?
00:06:26.42	Assistant City Manager	Absolutely.
00:06:28.56	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:06:29.59	Nastassya Saad	Does anybody have any other communications? Commissioner Moore.
00:06:32.98	Fred Moore	Well, no, there was recently a study dealing with the design surrounding the public docks near their joinery before they sent out an RFP. I attended it. There were a number of people that unfortunately had to leave early. But if the assistant city manager could direct us, as well as anybody listening, where to find the design sheets that they presented at that hearing so people can make comments who might not have been able to attend the meeting um then i'd also suggest whether we consider having that group come before the commission as a sunny session before it goes on i think there was some significant potential deficiencies in that we're creating a design of how to deal with the bulkheads how to deal with the peers before we have a potential user. I think if we knew what the user was, we may have different design ideas. I think there's also a possibility that we change the scope of work to include adjoining lots and maybe have lot swaps in order to make the project more potentially sustainable and attractive to an end user so those are some things i think as a commission and as the public you know if we look at those design ideas you should make submittals give your ideas so that they can be evaluated by staff but i wasn't able to find it real quickly on the website so i probably need your direction to find it on the website. And then maybe other people can do the same.
00:08:02.57	Assistant City Manager	Thank you, Commissioner. Clarifying question, are you referring to the RFP that has been approved by council between City of Sausalito and Anchor QEA, or are you referring to the RFP currently out for bid that we're entitling the Churney Street Floating Dock and Business Partnership?
00:08:22.08	Fred Moore	The presentation that was made by Alec, I guess, was The engineers were evaluating the design about what type of idea should be put into that. So it seemed like it was before the RFP. So I was a little confused about the engineers asking for input about the location of the docks, dealing with the bulkhead, dealing with trailer parking, et cetera, and how that tied into or not into the RFP that was being circulated.
00:08:49.42	Assistant City Manager	Understood. So this sounds to me like this is initial work being done in connection with the council approved Anchor QEA proposal. And Anchor QEA responded to a city RFP that was solicited or distributed by primarily DPW and the Division of Sustainability or Climate Resilience. So with that in mind, that process is kind of off and running. And part of that process includes collaborating with the city on providing design ideas to help to improve that area from a shoreline adaptation standpoint. So inclusive of the bulkhead, I think, in particular. Now, as it relates to the Venn diagram with this RFP that is currently out for bid, that RFP is a little bit more of a narrowed scope to revitalize some currently Mm. not in optimal shape slips that are within a city paper street. So as far as the extent of that scope, it's really more limited to that and the interplay between that space and the turn East street public boat ramp. That being said, there is an optional task in Anchor QEA's proposal related to collaborating with the well the city on how we may provide or or develop more innovative design alternatives that might impact this floating dock area um i'm not certain if council or staff have directed that that optional task be invigorated but when the rfp was approved by council between city and anchor qea that task remained optional so we have not you know bitten the bullet, if you will, on that specific task. What I imagine will be the case is Fingers crossed. I'm hoping that we'll receive some innovative proposals for the floating dock and business partnership RFP that is expiring this week, the solicitation period, response period. So frankly, I'm excited to review.
00:11:04.84	Fred Moore	I've heard you of all times.
00:11:06.83	Unknown	What's he want to chat with you? I don't know. He sent that. Oh, your business?
00:11:07.67	Assistant City Manager	Thank you.
00:11:07.74	Fred Moore	Thank you.
00:11:07.79	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Thank you.
00:11:08.28	Fred Moore	I don't know.
00:11:08.74	Nastassya Saad	them.
00:11:08.97	Fred Moore	the
00:11:09.02	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. is.
00:11:10.36	Unknown	Thank you.
00:11:14.41	Assistant City Manager	Thank you. Sorry, we had some feedback for folks who are listening from the public. In any case, we look forward to reviewing innovative proposals for how we develop this space. And based on, I think, the approach to the development, there will either be, you know, more of an ability or less of an ability or more of a rationale behind additional design options and collaboration with anchor QEA. So short answer to your question is I don't know.
00:11:41.39	Fred Moore	Right. That was an excellent question.
00:12:47.39	Fred Moore	other than just at the hearing the other night. So that's kind of where I need direction how to get there.
00:12:53.31	Assistant City Manager	Yep. Appreciate that. Yep. I'll follow up with my colleague. Thank you, Commissioner.
00:12:58.00	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner Moore. Anything else? Okay, I don't have any communication either. We'll open up communications for public comment at this moment. ACM, can you help facilitate public comment for communications?
00:13:14.61	Assistant City Manager	Absolutely. Looking to the chamber for raised hands. Seeing none, looking to the Zoom application for raised hands.
00:13:25.79	Assistant City Manager	Sign up.
00:13:26.18	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Thank you.
00:13:26.72	Assistant City Manager	Back to you, Chair.
00:13:27.75	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. We're going to move on to item six. This is a study session, item 6A. We have a study session on a draft sign ordinance for updates to our municipal code, chapter 10.42. We have Katie Nelson here this evening as our senior planner. Just to note, again, this is a study session, so we'll have a discussion and be able to ask questions. We're not going to take any action this evening. And whenever you're ready, Katie, I'll turn it over to you.
00:13:54.14	Katie Nelson	Thank you. Good evening. Good evening to members of the public as well. Tonight we are conducting a study session on proposed updates to the city sign ordinance. That's our municipal code chapter 10.42. and I'm here to walk you through the draft amendments, explain the legal and practical reasons behind the proposed changes, and hear your feedback before we finalize the ordinance and bring it back to you for formal review. Let me give you a quick overview of what we will cover. Next slide. We have a few topics tonight. First, I'll provide the background on why an update is needed. Second, I'll explain the central concept that is driving most of the proposed changes, what it means to regulate signs in a content neutral way. Third, we'll talk through the key changes in the draft ordinance. Fourth, we'll cover how the permit review process is proposed to be streamlined. And finally, we'll close with talking about what we're asking of the Commission tonight and what happens next. Let's start with the most important question. Why is this update necessary? California cities have broad authority to regulate signs. They can regulate their size, their height, how many a business can have, how they're illuminated, what materials they're made of, and where they can be located. That authority is well established in law. What we cannot do is regulate signs differently based on what they say. This is what courts consider content based regulation and in 2015 the Supreme Court decided a case called read the town of Gilbert that fundamentally changed how strictly courts scrutinize these content based distinctions. The court held that a sign ordinance is considered content-based and therefore triggers the highest level of constitutional scrutiny if a government official has to read the message on the sign to figure out what rules apply. Even if a city's intent is entirely neutral, If enforcement requires reading the message on the sign, it's content-based and it's presumptively unconstitutional. Okay. California cities across the state have been revising their signed ordinances since Reed was decided. Several have even faced litigation as a result of content-based provisions. our legal counsel has identified provisions in our existing chapter 10.42 that need to be brought into alignment Next slide. So what does content neutral mean in our existing ordinance we have different rules for temporary political signs versus going out of business signs versus real estate for sale signs each of those categories is defined by what the sign says. The proposed solution is to organize our regulations around objective physical characteristics that don't require reading the message at all. Instead of asking what does the sign say, we ask what zone is the property in, how big is the sign, and how long has it been displayed? You can answer all of those questions without reading the words on the sign. On the left are the types of categories we're moving away from, categories defined by the message, and on the right are the replacement categories, such as commercially zoned property and residentially zoned property. They're location-based, size-based, or duration-based. Next slide.
00:17:07.50	Katie Nelson	I'll summarize the heart of the changes briefly. You have the full red line as an attachment, and I'm happy to go deeper into any section after the presentation. In the definition section, we've tightened and clarified the definitions throughout the chapter. Clear definitions will make the ordinance more enforceable and reduce ambiguity for staff and applicants. For signs without for signs allowed without a permit. This is where the content to location shift I just described is most visible. The content based categories in the existing ordinance will be replaced with location based categories. What were separate rules for political signs, real estate signs, grand opening signs and so on. are replaced with regulations based on commercial versus residential zones, for example. Next for the prohibited signs section, this section's been consolidated with regard to what signs are prohibited. Some redundancies have been removed and it has been reorganized for clarity. Billboards, animated signs, inflatable signs, bench signs, and floating signs all remain prohibited. and section 10.42060 is our assigned standards section measurement standards illumination requirements and placement standards have been consolidated as well notably exceptions from the sign standards will now require formal variance by the planning commission rather than discretionary findings in the historic district provisions this section has been fully retained and refined Signage in the historic district overlay or for a historic property must still comply with the historic design guidelines and obtain a certificate of appropriateness with historic preservation commission review. Those protections are not weakened. Lastly, the administrative sign permit process. I'll talk more about this on the next slide, but the short version is that the community development director or their designee, may administratively approve signs meeting all objective standards in section 10.42060 with a required decision timeline of 60 days. Next slide.
00:19:17.72	Katie Nelson	So the second major area of improvement is the permit process itself. Our existing ordinance routes most sign applications to the Planning Commission for a discretionary review. The draft ordinance establishes a streamlined sign permit process that allows signs to be approved by staff without a public hearing. Any new sign that complies with all applicable objective standards under section 10.42060 would be eligible for approval under this pathway. Under the proposed process, a staff level decision can be rendered with a required turnaround of 60 days from a complete application. The 60 day mandatory decision window is not arbitrary as case law dictates that permits for First Amendment activities be processed within a specified period without a defined timeline. An ordinance that allows infinite delay in processing assigned permit is itself constitutionally vulnerable. For exceptions to the sign ordinance, the planning commission review would still be involved in the form of a variance request, as I mentioned, and signs in the historic district or in a historically designated property will still require both HPC review and planning commission review. Next slide.
00:20:35.53	Katie Nelson	a reminder tonight is a study session there is no vote or formal action what we are asking the commission to do is engage with the draft ask questions and give staff direction on any provisions that should be modified before we bring this back Specifically, I would appreciate your perspective on four things. First, the overall structure of the revised ordinance. Is it navigable for business owners and residents? Second, the expanded administrative sign permit process. Are the objective standards clear enough? Are you satisfied with the size limits? Third, the permit-exempt sign categories, the location-based approach to temporary signs. Do these proposed categories adequately serve our business community and residents? exempt sign categories, the location based approach to temporary signs. Do these proposed categories adequately serve our business community and residents and forth any other modifications you would like to see before we return and last slide. In conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Commission receive and file a presentation on the proposed updates to the City of Sausalito sign ordinance in Sausalito Municipal Code Chapter 10.42. Review the draft ordinance amendments prepared by staff and legal counsel. provide feedback on the proposed revisions and direct staff on any modifications prior to bringing the item forward for future consideration. Thank you.
00:21:54.05	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much, Katie. We appreciate it. We're going to go ahead and open it up for staff for questions at the moment. Commissioner Moore, do you want to kick us off? Do you have any questions for staff at this time? Sure. You can say no.
00:22:10.83	Fred Moore	Thanks, Katie, for the presentation. You did a great job as well as at handouts. So I've got a couple of questions here, some for clarification and some for your opinion you may not know. So please, I don't mean to put you on the spot. I'm assuming the red line is actually a complete red line from your existing ordinance to the proposal by you and the city attorney. Correct.
00:22:30.59	Unknown	Thank you.
00:22:30.64	Fred Moore	Thank you. Are you aware, has the city been engaged or threatened with a lawsuit for content-based signs that inspired this, or is it mainly in response to the old Supreme Court hearings?
00:22:44.71	Katie Nelson	Staff are not aware of any current pending litigation. However, this is a proactive response. And maybe the city attorney can weigh in
00:22:56.47	Attorney Rudin	Yeah, I will say I'm not aware of any pending claims or threatened claims related to this ordinance as it currently stands. But yes, um... Part of the city attorney's job is to try and get our codes, ensure that our codes stay current with trends in case loss. So, yes, this is a proactive step.
00:23:13.60	Fred Moore	Another question that just because rumors run abock sometimes in the city and with the new lighthouse location, there was discussions a while back that it was being delayed because of signage issues and it was county health department. Was it a signage issue?
00:23:28.74	Unknown	Thank you.
00:23:28.77	Nastassya Saad	I'm sorry. Go ahead. I appreciate you, Commissioner Moore. I'm just not sure that relates to what we're intending here for. I mean, we can maybe get to that down the road, but if we can stick with some questions for the revisions. Sure. Thank you.
00:23:30.39	Fred Moore	Thank you.
00:23:30.41	Unknown	Go ahead.
00:23:35.24	Unknown	be late.
00:23:46.05	Fred Moore	Thank you.
00:23:46.14	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:23:46.39	Fred Moore	Um, During the ordinance and the various changes you've eliminated some definitions and added some other ones yet later on the ordinance we reference some other sign terminology that maybe was in the past or one of them was window sign. Under section 1042 30 does that need a definition similar to what you did with roof signs.
00:24:10.71	Katie Nelson	I don't have the red line in front of me. I'm happy to sit down and go through it with you. I think that might be the best approach in this case.
00:24:18.52	Fred Moore	Okay, another question would be whether or not we need to define flags, banners and murals and they're removed but then later on they're referenced in the ordinance as certain restrictions apply to them but there's no definition so maybe that's something that needs to be looked at whether or not needs to be added.
00:24:18.92	Katie Nelson	Love you.
00:24:35.82	Nastassya Saad	Sure.
00:24:36.07	Fred Moore	Bye.
00:24:36.15	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:24:36.17	Fred Moore	Thank you. Um, And then
00:24:38.21	Nastassya Saad	Commissioner Moore, did you have a note on where you saw the flags? I'm just going to take notes while you talk. um, for the flags and the banners. Can you just state that for me one more time? You're saying that there needs to be a definition there?
00:24:50.21	Fred Moore	Yeah, we removed a bunch of definitions, but in the ordinance, there's references to flags, banners, and murals. as something that applies to them, but they're not defined earlier in the statute about what constitutes a flag, banner, or... Okay, thank you very much for clarifying.
00:25:08.37	Attorney Rudin	And so without definitions, typically the way that you would interpret statutory phrases or ordinances is you apply the common English definition. So a flag is what we typically would find A flag to be defined at in the dictionary, for example.
00:25:25.50	Fred Moore	totally understand that. So if, if that's a rationale, then they understand that it just seemed inconsistent when we went through this. And then I wasn't sure what the, if we're asking your questions about how we're moving forward with this, what you declined, decided to determine was not a sign, was non-illuminated murals or sculptures on private property visible from the right of way. So I'm assuming if it is illuminated, then it is a sign. So it seems like if we think a non-illuminated or illuminated is a sign or not a sign, that seems like an interesting distinction. So I wasn't sure what the rationale was.
00:26:04.33	Katie Nelson	That was provided by our legal consultation. I'm happy to kind of go deeper into that if that's something that we want to add or define more.
00:26:16.17	Attorney Rudin	And I can provide a little bit of context here. Typically, When you have illuminated signage of any sort, that is the kind of signage that will trigger things like building permits because it requires electrical work. Additionally, illuminated signage is usually more concerning for most jurisdictions because of concerns over aesthetic impacts. Some jurisdictions don't like neon lighting, things like that. So typically, while you may exclude from sign permitting, you know, non illuminated sculptures or other items that you don't necessarily want to have inside the ambit of your ordinance. Things like art, for example. Um, Typically, when it is illuminated, most jurisdictions do want to regulate it as signage or apply some sort of permitting requirement to it.
00:27:08.05	Assistant City Manager	I'll just dovetail on city attorneys comments. Thank you, Attorney Rudin. This is partly a carryover based on, you know, some of the policy decisions related to signs that the city has made in the past, particularly in connection with our historic district. Eliminated signs do require a higher degree of review and approval.
00:27:28.80	Fred Moore	totally understand the illumination issue and the impacts it has on the city and the residents, et cetera. On section 1042.04, it looks like the sentence was redlined, and it looks like you intended to put a time period in there, but it's not included.
00:27:44.78	Katie Nelson	for temporary signs.
00:27:46.56	Fred Moore	Um,
00:27:51.16	Fred Moore	See you. Yes.
00:27:53.41	Katie Nelson	Yeah, I believe the duration limit was 30 days. However, that's up for discussion as well.
00:28:00.75	Fred Moore	Well, it was included 30 days when you struck it out. So now the sentence doesn't make sense. So you intended it to be 30 days. So the red line should keep that provision, not delete it.
00:28:11.41	Attorney Rudin	And I think some of this got lost in the red line as multiple people red line this, but the definition of temporary sign
00:28:12.39	Fred Moore	Thank you.
00:28:20.74	Attorney Rudin	in the definition of what a temporary sign is, there is a durational limit. So that may have gotten moved out of, that particular section into the definitions.
00:28:28.79	Assistant City Manager	Yeah, page five of the clean line contains explicit mentioning of 30 days.
00:28:29.06	Attorney Rudin	It did.
00:28:34.36	Fred Moore	Right, and then on page six, it says temporary sign shall be permitted for a period on commercially zoned property. So that's obviously an issue that needs to be corrected. under section 1042.050. Is the intent there to include existing plaques on benches throughout the city as being prohibited?
00:28:58.22	Katie Nelson	Because the plaques were removed? Is that what you're asking?
00:29:01.40	Fred Moore	they're there but If we go by the revisions, those plaques would essentially be prohibited. So was that the intent to prohibit those signs? I'm just trying to understand where we change the order. The intent is not to have those plaques removed from benches. Then we need to address that more clearly in the revised ordinance.
00:29:13.06	Unknown	Right.
00:29:13.58	Unknown	Thank you.
00:29:21.07	Katie Nelson	IN THE REPUBLICAN. Um, again, that wasn't a staff decision. So, um. I think maybe the thought was that there would be another category that may include that. like a wall sign or, yeah.
00:29:38.74	Assistant City Manager	Okay, Commissioner Mark could you help me understand the basis of your comment, so I think that you're focusing on 1042 50 is that what I heard you say prohibited signs correct okay so. Which.
00:29:48.75	Fred Moore	Correct.
00:29:52.97	Assistant City Manager	Which section of that section are you referring to?
00:29:56.93	Fred Moore	There's other sections we talked about plaques being prohibited. So plaques on benches, we talked about prohibited.
00:30:02.15	Assistant City Manager	Thank you.
00:30:02.20	Fred Moore	Thank you. That's what I'm trying to dovetail. Which are we trying to do? Are we trying to prohibit those or not prohibit them?
00:30:07.21	Assistant City Manager	Okay, I don't see plaques on benches as included on this current draft.
00:30:13.37	Attorney Rudin	I think the concern there may be over 1042.050G, which prohibits bench signs.
00:30:19.24	Assistant City Manager	Bench sign.
00:30:19.63	Attorney Rudin	Yeah.
00:30:19.81	Matthew Mandich	Understood. Okay. Now, now I understand. I believe that's more in relation to like advertisements on the back of benches, like real estate, like where you say you see a bus stop and things like that. I don't think that's intending to get out our dedicated benches.
00:30:27.95	Attorney Rudin	THE END OF THE END OF THE
00:30:28.03	Fred Moore	Yeah, I would expect that.
00:30:33.40	Matthew Mandich	But we totally understand.
00:30:33.50	Fred Moore	We totally understand. I appreciate the clarification from the attorney, but you're right. That, as again, comments going forward, the ordinance, that's unclear, and it would need to be significantly revised if that's the intent. Just have a couple more.
00:30:45.58	Nastassya Saad	Sure. And just to help this conversation, is it Matthew or ACM, can we pull up the Red lines so we can at least the public and us we can all follow along.
00:30:56.18	Matthew Mandich	All right. So would you like to pull up the red line or the clean version? I think the red lines, the red line.
00:30:59.52	Nastassya Saad	The red lines. The red lines.
00:31:00.82	Matthew Mandich	Okay.
00:31:01.09	Nastassya Saad	THE FAMILY.
00:31:01.17	Matthew Mandich	you know,
00:31:01.24	Nastassya Saad	Do you mind? We can just hop around so we are all on the same page here. Continue. Sorry, Commissioner Moore.
00:31:08.45	Fred Moore	Thank you. Again, just last comment, we have references to neon tubing, and I think we may need to look at the ordinance and determine whether LED lighting solar is more popular usage because it looks like some of the old language needs revised. But I'll stop the questions there.
00:31:26.54	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Thank you very much. I took some notes on, um, your feedback and if you have anything more, we can come back around, but I think pulling them up will be helpful. Commissioner Luxenberg, would you like to move us on?
00:31:36.49	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, I'm going to have a similar long list, but I'm waiting for this red line to come up. But while I'm waiting, so thank you for getting the red lines, because unlike the last meeting where we didn't have red lines, this is very helpful and we can give specific comment when you come back to us in the spring. I just want to understand, Katie, you wrote the staff report, but the language, is that coming from Attorney Rudin?
00:32:04.93	Katie Nelson	Much of it was advised by Attorney Rudin, yes.
00:32:08.22	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay, so when I get those specific questions that look to language, I'll ask him when they're more to the staff report.
00:32:13.27	Katie Nelson	I'm going to lean pretty heavily on him tonight. Yes, thank you.
00:32:16.42	Jeffery Luxenberg	So page six, this is the, are we having trouble finding this? There we go. If we go to page six of the PDF... Um... I don't see any red line.
00:32:38.19	Nastassya Saad	I think this is the resolution with the queen version.
00:32:41.70	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, let's bring up the red line version.
00:33:03.55	Unknown	So weird.
00:33:03.97	Unknown	Thank you.
00:33:04.90	Unknown	Thank you.
00:33:06.69	Unknown	There it is.
00:33:07.87	Jeffery Luxenberg	There we go. Um, page six, uh, 1042 040. Um, Yes, okay, so this was what Commissioner Moore is talking about. Under A, temporary signs shall be permitted on commercially zoned properties. So we either have to reword that or we have to put back in not to exceed 30 days.
00:33:34.79	Katie Nelson	It's defined in the definitions under temporary sign. But we don't want to.
00:33:37.93	Jeffery Luxenberg	But we don't want to have a statement that says temporary signs shall be permitted on commercially zoned properties that way. I mean, I think it's intended to have a number or it has to be rewritten.
00:33:48.95	Nastassya Saad	Okay. So I think, yeah.
00:33:50.80	Jeffery Luxenberg	We heard that one.
00:33:51.70	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, let's go ahead and ask our questions. I've got notes going and then when we come back to collate our feedback, we can definitely put that one in.
00:33:59.76	Jeffery Luxenberg	OK, next one is page eight. about in the middle of the page. Um... and I guess this will be an Attorney Rudin question, we're crossing out menu boards. So, and I walked around, we're a tourist town, we have a number of places where we have freestanding menu boards. So those are signs, they're not within the 15 feet internally. By removing this, I think we're eliminating somebody's ability to do this. Attorney Rudin, is that correct?
00:34:37.92	Attorney Rudin	Short answer, yes. And typically, if we are lessening the content, like we have had certain kinds of signage, which are content based, including menu boards, because the definition of what a menu board is, is that it has to display specific content. So where we're eliminating menu boards, one consideration for the planning commission is do you want to increase either the wall signage or other kinds of signage to make up for that loss, or do you want to increase the number of temporary permitted signs, which because in theory, menu boards which are freestanding, and they get put away every night, are also considered temporary signage. So you could make allotments to address this without addressing the specific content of the signs, make additional allotments for more signage if you're concerned about the loss of menu boards specifically.
00:35:30.94	Jeffery Luxenberg	In my opinion, I don't want to solve the content issue by eliminating something that's useful and make people put signs in the windows when Poggio's, other restaurants, have them outside. They work well. They're not a problem. We can put in a – we can indicate that a board related to the restaurant. I mean, I guess I'm a little less concerned that we'll get a lawsuit because we can say you can have a menu board that has menus without telling them what the words are. But I don't think we should eliminate menu boards because of a Supreme Court case in 2015 that had nothing to do with menu boards. I guess that's...
00:36:18.91	Attorney Rudin	Yes. What I will say is the actual risk here is if you have something that is a content based regulation, you say, You know, restaurants get menu boards. Well, when you have other similar regulation, like basically the issue with the Reed decision was It was a decision over... temporary signage and regulations being applied differently based on who was the speaker. And in that instance, it was, temporary signage that was placed in the public right of way. And the court said, you shouldn't be able to discriminate between people who are advertising garage sales and say, Nonprofit groups that were advertising church services and having different distinctions between those. So as soon as we get into the policy of telling folks, well, you can have signage that is specifically limited to menu boards. Well, if we have a restaurant that wants to on that same menu board. you know, put a, you know, a, protest of some city policy or a protest of a war that happens to be going on. And we tell them, well, you can't have that because that's no longer a menu board. That is a content-based restriction, and that would be illegal.
00:37:36.13	Jeffery Luxenberg	Can we add to the definition of a commercial restaurant use as part of the CUP that indicates that they can have a menu board and it's not assigned?
00:37:48.93	Attorney Rudin	We would not want to call it a menu board, and we also cannot restrict the content of that board to just the menu. That's the problem.
00:37:57.58	Jeffery Luxenberg	I will come back to this, but I think we should find a way over tourist time, we should be able to have menu beds and find a creative way that it doesn't violate the Supreme Court. But we shouldn't eliminate, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, please. But we'll put that on a list of things we need to solve, given how important restaurants are to the city of Sausalito.
00:38:15.64	Unknown	Yeah. All right.
00:38:23.97	Attorney Rudin	Yeah, and one way of handling this potentially is to allow freestanding you know, A-frame signage, and give every commercial restaurant in specific districts, X number of them to be determined you know, by our policymakers, including you. Um, But we can't tell them you have to put menus on them.
00:38:47.35	Jeffery Luxenberg	okay, but I also don't want them to be A for A times. They're much nicer when they're not.
00:38:53.12	Attorney Rudin	Yeah, well, and that is exactly why we're coming to the Planning Commission for their input.
00:38:58.05	Jeffery Luxenberg	So we'll come back to that because that sounds like a discussion for the board and not a question. So we'll come back to that.
00:39:04.26	Assistant City Manager	And if we're adding this to a list, I'll just state this isn't content specific, this is more location specific, that one of the challenges that CDD has with enforcement of these types of signage at times is that it impacts safe passage of travel. So just want to add that to our future discussion.
00:39:21.08	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yes, and I think they should be out of the safe passage of travel. That's why we have a way to regulate them. But I understand the issue, but let's deal with that. Let's go on to page 9. Um,
00:39:42.61	Jeffery Luxenberg	Page nine. Page nine. page. I think it's coming. Okay. In page nine, about the middle of the page, what used to be I, why are we deleting signs in residential zoning districts? We want to prohibit signs in residential zoning districts, don't we? existence.
00:40:11.52	Assistant City Manager	somewhere else? Well, this is, this is an, thank you for the question. This is an item for the commission to provide their feedback on this evening. I think it's important. One of the reasons why we've removed this is because we get a number of requests from multifamily projects, for example, who want to display the name of their project more prominently. Part of the impetus or reason why staff consider supporting a policy like that is because it can sometimes assist in health life safety circumstances where, you know, an emergency vehicle needs to locate an address and a property quickly.
00:40:49.86	Jeffery Luxenberg	Wait, say that last part, an emergency vehicle
00:40:52.10	Assistant City Manager	It helps with emergency access because the cars know where they're going.
00:40:55.43	Jeffery Luxenberg	goes where they're going. Well, then we should have regulations of what they are.
00:40:59.70	Katie Nelson	So there is a provision included that was added to address
00:40:59.75	Jeffery Luxenberg	THE END OF
00:41:06.85	Katie Nelson	identification of apartment complexes, potentially HOAs, because our code was pretty silent on that before and it prohibited it largely. So, There is, I think, either the options were one wall sign or one monument sign up to 50 square feet if you read through. Yeah. And then there is another provision about signs in residential zones up to 16 square feet, whether permanent or temporary.
00:41:36.94	Jeffery Luxenberg	I mean, I think we just want to be careful we're not getting commercial signs in residential zones. Because there are commercial, people do do commercial uses, sometimes legally, sometimes illegally. But we don't want a signage peripherating in the residential zone. So let's put that on the list of something to discuss. Next one is page 11.
00:42:05.85	Jeffery Luxenberg	Item K, are we on page 11?
00:42:14.30	Jeffery Luxenberg	let's see, what used to be M is now K. So I'm just gonna note for the record, if you're gonna change this to K, then inside that statement, the K has to become I, and the L has to become J, because it doesn't make any sense if you don't do that. That's just, I assume, a typo, but it needs to be fixed. Um... Thank you. Page 15, now these are substantive questions because I'm not sure why these are here. Page 15, what is now number four, Up above there. So I understand the content items, and I understand that we're trying to clean up the ordinance, but none of that explains why we would want to have an almost 80% increase in size for upper floor signage. Why are we increasing signs from 6 square feet to 10 square feet?
00:43:12.89	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:43:13.01	Unknown	Thank you.
00:43:23.00	Katie Nelson	Yeah, I think that's great feedback and you're welcome to discuss it.
00:43:27.61	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay, let's put that on the list. Similarly, down in the bottom for projecting signs, So the reason cities regulate signs is that you don't want certain signs in a commercial area blocking your neighbor's signs. So projecting signs, some cities prohibit them completely. We've had success with small ones because they don't block the neighbor ones. It does get tough in the downtown area where you have small, you know, very small storefronts. But we're talking about a 33 percent increase. So this seems to be a policy decision, not a clean up the ordinance. So what was the rationale for the 48 versus 36?
00:44:22.13	Matthew Mandich	I'll jump in on that. Yeah. So as the department that deals with a lot of different sign types and different businesses in the city, we found the current sign code to be very restrictive on sign size. It makes permits very hard to issue. It means that the planning commission in the previous and current form of the ordinance has to provide exceptions on a frequent basis to allow just what is almost common sense signage. So one of the goals of revising this ordinance, in addition to cleaning up, clarifying, redefining, aligning with First Amendment, is also to give a little bit more, in staff's opinion, a little bit more generous conditions for signage, especially because the whole concept of this is that these would be administrative permits. And if many signs that are proposed do not fit in an administrative permit pathway, they would have to then request a variance. Um, just becomes it becomes very difficult then for staff to have to process all these variances and then a lot of signs which many of which you probably like in the city um but at least i do i would say are exceed the some of the limits that we're provided and we're often provided exceptions by the planning commission in the past so it's really just not a route we want to continue going down and we hope that we could get some support from the planning commission to hopefully expand some of these uh guidelines little bit. And that's, of course, at your discretion. But that's the reason why you've seen some larger numbers here before you today.
00:45:46.17	Jeffery Luxenberg	Well, I'd suggest we put this one on the list, and I'm all for getting right-sized signing on the walls, but projecting signs are historically a problem. This is why this ordinance came in. I've been on the commission for almost six years, and I don't remember an exception to a projecting sign in six years. so I'm not sure what those are but if we if you can make a list of those for the next time this comes up so we can look at what those are. That first graphic that you had and the thing with all these signs covering each other up, that's exactly what we want to eliminate. That's what occurred. If you look back in the 50s, when they had projected, huge projecting signs, they were a problem. And I don't think that's, especially in the historic district, it's gonna come up again in the historic district, but we can add that to the list. Next one, well, the next one is, page, well, I think that's the one on the historic ones, but it shows up in two places, I believe. Then page 18, The next one. So when we get to sign permits, I'm confused. If something's in the historic district or basically when we do when the planning commission reviews a conditional use permit, they we also approve the signs for a project. I don't think we want to go to, we'll put this on the list, a situation where we're administratively approving all signs rather than approving a sign ban and a concept for a sign when somebody comes in with a new commercial project. If we're going to approve it, we want to know what the signs are going to be, and we don't want them to have to come back later. We did this with a couple projects where we approved the signs as part of the CUP. And it sounds like we're not going to approve them at all. And so put that on the list of, I think the Planning Commission should still be approving signs in the historic districts for any new projects or substantially renovated projects. And maybe you will approve the concept of where they go and what they are, not the word. I mean, we approved the ones I think it was for the Schnell Building. And we approved that when the words come in, they can just change the words. But where the signs go should be part of that.
00:48:19.71	Assistant City Manager	Commissioner? Is there a question?
00:48:21.77	Jeffery Luxenberg	No, I was confused on this thing because it sounded like Katie said that for the historic district, we would review them. But when I read this, it doesn't sound like they're coming to us. So I'm confused on this section. Thank you.
00:48:38.63	Matthew Mandich	Okay. They would go before the commission if the COA was
00:48:41.35	Katie Nelson	Yeah, I can clarify.
00:48:42.65	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. So they would come. There is something in this section that says, The-
00:48:49.58	Katie Nelson	Yeah, the applicability, it should state that those need to be in alignment with 10.46060.
00:48:58.88	Nastassya Saad	So if there's a certificate of appropriateness for the historic district, those stay within the planning commission remit as proposed.
00:49:00.87	Katie Nelson	Yes.
00:49:05.95	Katie Nelson	Correct.
00:49:06.37	Nastassya Saad	Otherwise you're proposing that they will be in a, you know, administrative approval.
00:49:11.69	Katie Nelson	Yeah.
00:49:11.86	Unknown	Thank you.
00:49:11.89	Katie Nelson	THE END OF THE END OF THE
00:49:11.97	Jeffery Luxenberg	for a while. I didn't see that. I understand that's what you said. I didn't see the language for that. It did say something about public notices, but it didn't see where it was.
00:49:20.82	Unknown	Yeah, it should be right above that.
00:49:25.64	Matthew Mandich	currently highlighted, we might be able to make it a little bigger.
00:49:36.24	Katie Nelson	And I think it does address it in the historic section as well.
00:49:41.42	Jeffery Luxenberg	So it's saying administrative approval. So it's still saying you're going to do administrative approval. It's not saying that the Planning Commission, as part of that, is going to approve it. It's saying that it's subject to, I think it needs to be, we can talk about this when we add that to the list, but we'll reverse it so that for these signs, it needs to go to the historic and to the Planning Commission, as opposed to saying what it says here, which is administrative approval, are subject to the provisions of that, because it's-
00:50:13.65	Katie Nelson	Right. I think that might be a little bit ambiguous between what the historic section says, but you can talk about it.
00:50:21.87	Jeffery Luxenberg	about it. Just clarify that. The next item is a question on page 20 about the 60 days.
00:50:36.13	Jeffery Luxenberg	Let's see. So we hear a lot about 60 days, and I would like the staff, when this comes back to us, to go into your records and for any new buildings in a commercial zone for, say, 2025 and 2024 that's come before this commission, how long it takes from when you cert certify this will be a simple chart uh and they're probably only six or so in 2025 what was the date that a project had final approval from the staff and what was the date of the hearing of the planning Commission? Because we keep hearing a lot of people saying, you know, this has been going on a long time, and we just get it the Thursday before Wednesday meeting. So for commercial things, and there's not many of them, if somebody could just get a little chart that shows how long it takes from a final approval to how long it gets, and if we did any signs in 2025 or 2024. Again, there's not that, there wouldn't be very many. It's a simple chart.
00:51:42.28	Katie Nelson	Again.
00:51:45.81	Katie Nelson	Can I just ask a clarifying question?
00:51:46.14	Jeffery Luxenberg	Possibly. Yeah.
00:51:48.32	Katie Nelson	Um, when you say staff's final approval, do you mean when we deem it complete?
00:51:53.22	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yes, the language you have on this page, which says complete application.
00:51:57.70	Katie Nelson	Thank you.
00:51:58.33	Jeffery Luxenberg	So, and that doesn't have to be just for signs because it would help clarify signs as well, but this thing keeps coming up. My last question is on page 22.
00:52:19.57	Jeffery Luxenberg	And the section E, this new section that's been added. So I want to know how this would be implemented. It says at the end of that that any sign that was legally erected but has been abandoned by order, not maintained. But the last part says not used to identify or advertise an ongoing business for a period of 90 days shall be removed. So my question is, how do we address things like on Caledonia street for Sausalito optometry where they have five star station on that and they have that for historic reasons, but obviously the five star station, I guess this is a question for attorney Rudin. Are they going to be required to, I think they're required to keep that, are they going to be required to remove five-star station under this provision, Attorney Rudin?
00:53:14.40	Attorney Rudin	Unless we make an exception for, say, historic structures, which may be something the Planning Commission wants to do. Typically, you know, the discontinuation of signs is subject to state law. It's the Outdoor Advertising Act. And yeah, if there's a sign that exists that no longer complies with current standards than once they discontinue you know, using that sign for 90 days to advertise whatever it is that they're advertising, the city is entitled to ask them to remove it and abate it.
00:53:46.75	Jeffery Luxenberg	So I guess you're saying we should modify this section to allow, there's a sign on the old city hall. There are a whole bunch of historic type signage that no longer relates to the current uses. I'm not sure this would apply, but Venice, I think, has a, there are a bunch of historic artifacts in a number of buildings in Sausalito. So I think maybe we just need to revise this section to allow those to stand.
00:54:15.83	Nastassya Saad	I think that's a good point because otherwise what's the alternative, like a variance, like,
00:54:20.03	Jeffery Luxenberg	they would either need a variance, we'd be forced to cover over signs that we actually want them to protect.
00:54:24.36	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, let's definitely I took a note on this one. Let's discuss this one as well. I'm just,
00:54:28.43	Attorney Rudin	And this may be one where you want to carve out, say, architectural features. The reason for this language typically is for abatement of old abandoned billboards
00:54:39.55	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, no, I understand that. I think that's a good reason to have it, but I think we need to address the reality of a historic city here. So with that, I'll give back to the chair. Thank you. Thank you.
00:54:50.67	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. uh commissioner Luxembourg uh for those detailed questions I'm gonna call you vice chair, no questions, okay. Vice chair, actual vice chair.
00:55:00.29	David Marlatt	Any questions? Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much. And thank you, Katie. Yeah, I just have. A few questions.
00:55:06.18	Unknown	Okay.
00:55:06.80	David Marlatt	based on the clean copy, because I don't know the sign ordinance well enough to even follow the red lines. May just scroll up. in some of the clarifications or maybe some suggestions. Uh, okay. In 1042.040. A. Is it? Is it correct that someone could theoretically Should we bring, you want them to bring up a clean copy? We're on page five. On page five with a clean copy.
00:55:31.59	Nastassya Saad	They're on Patreon. Do you mind? Thank you, Matthew. SO, I THINK THAT'S A
00:55:37.35	David Marlatt	Temporary science. You want to move to the plane? Okay.
00:55:39.34	Assistant City Manager	Thank you.
00:55:41.77	David Marlatt	It's kind of a question is a little bit of the law of unintended consequences. That someone could have a temporary sign. I'm sorry, could you give me the section again? Oh, 1042.040.
00:55:49.63	Unknown	I think we should.
00:55:52.97	David Marlatt	Yeah. So someone could. have a series of temporary signs. There's nothing that prohibits effectively a permanent sign, as long as they change it out every 30 days. And was that thought through or intentional?
00:56:06.64	Katie Nelson	We should check the definition of temporary sign because it might be
00:56:09.48	David Marlatt	It just says 30 days, but it doesn't say 30 years. It doesn't say 30 years.
00:56:10.78	Katie Nelson	Yeah, but we could have a modifier like 30 days in a calendar year.
00:56:16.06	David Marlatt	which might be too severe. I'm not saying that. Yeah.
00:56:17.85	Attorney Rudin	Yes, that may be too severe. I think in practice... Typically, Publix... Public jurisdictions are allowed to impose reasonable size limits on the amount of signage. But again, we're not supposed to be regulating the content. Our regulations as a whole do have to allow for, you know, things like reasonable amounts of free expression for political activity, things like that. So you know, we have to be mindful not to set limits that are so significant and impossible to overcome for non-commercial activity that they are an impediment to free speech. Yes, I think that the issue of the temporary sign being taken down and then putting back up every 30 days is potentially a problem. Um, You know, I, I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that has really drafted their way out of that problem.
00:57:18.24	David Marlatt	It's always a first. My next comment is kind of small, but in that same paragraph where the last sentence, such signs shall be composed of lightweight, flexible, et cetera, material. I would suggest moving that to the definition. and not here because just further down, the residential zone property, it mentions temporary signs. The temporary sign material has been defined under a commercial property. So I think that's kind of an easy... You on 13.
00:57:43.86	Katie Nelson	Do you want there to be a difference between residential and commercial?
00:57:48.13	David Marlatt	temporary.
00:57:48.76	Katie Nelson	I'm not.
00:57:48.77	David Marlatt	not something to talk about. Of.
00:57:49.99	Katie Nelson	something to do. Wow.
00:57:52.45	David Marlatt	bricks or concrete or stainless steel. My assumption was that if it's a temporary sign, as lightweight, flexible material, as you say. So I'm just saying, clarity. if that's the definition. then I would suggest just putting that into the definition.
00:58:08.82	Unknown	Yeah, I'm open to that.
00:58:10.44	Attorney Rudin	Well, and it does seem like a two foot by eight foot sign man out of bricks would be problematic for other reasons.
00:58:17.53	David Marlatt	Never know. Then,
00:58:25.53	David Marlatt	Yeah, and then 10, let me find this again, sorry. 10.42060. I'm on page seven of the clean copy. Um, And it was a little confusing for me and maybe not for others, because it says basically that the bottom of, in one sense, it says that. bot mode awning sign. has restrictions on that. And then in the last number four, it says no warning shall be placed within a public right of way. or easement without an encroachment permit. So So we're saying that you can do something in item one, and then we're saying it also includes entitles it requires an encroachment permit. just seemed not totally clear to me. The thing you just said you could do entirely requires an encroachment.
00:59:09.91	Matthew Mandich	So the encroachment permit is different than the encroachment agreement. You just have to apply for a recruitment permit through DPW. They're signed off every day. It's for parking in the right-of-way. any work in the right of way signage. It doesn't require a discretionary hearing or Anything of that nature.
00:59:26.80	Nastassya Saad	Um, Sorry, the encouragement agreement is through DPW.
00:59:32.37	Matthew Mandich	No, accroachment permit. Thank you. Sorry if I misspoke. No, no.
00:59:33.55	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:59:34.66	David Marlatt	Thank you.
00:59:35.44	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:59:35.49	David Marlatt	No, no, I misheard. Okay. Well, that might be something that we should just move to under the sign permit section because that's really a condition of a permit not a physical it doesn't relate to a physical state.
00:59:46.56	Attorney Rudin	And that should actually relate to the encroachment agreement process under the city's municipal code, because that portion of the municipal code says that you can't erect any encroachment that is permanent in the public right of way without approval of an encroachment agreement, either approved by the. you know, community development director in certain instances or by the council. So Either we need to modify those provisions of the municipal code or reference them here. as appropriate.
01:00:16.95	David Marlatt	Yeah, thank you. And then another very minor thing. We go from in that same page, we go from B to four to D. So I think the four wants to be a C.
01:00:28.11	Attorney Rudin	Yeah, that is a section got deleted and not renumbered.
01:00:33.35	David Marlatt	Okay, no problem. And then on E, just a kind of question maybe for attorney Rubin. I know that this wants to be as objective as it can be so staff can approve these things or treat these permit applications, but, It says roof signs shall only be permitted when designed as an architectural part of the building. And isn't that awfully ambiguous.
01:00:59.48	Attorney Rudin	I agree, and I would recommend that we take this language out. And I'm certainly open to questions as to how best to do so.
01:01:10.48	David Marlatt	Uh... I think I just had one more comment. Scrolling all the way down to page 10, which is 10, it's page 10. And it's something we discussed a little bit earlier with Commissioner Luxembourg on projecting signs I know the awning signs have to have at least an eight-foot clearance to the right of way. Don't we know at the same clearance, or I'm missing it somewhere, there's no clearance requirements? Uh, vertical clearance. Usually a projecting sign should not be less than 80 inches, 96 inches from the side.
01:01:44.40	Unknown	Yeah, it was the same, but you Yeah, I'll... I'll have to double check.
01:01:50.69	David Marlatt	Yeah, it was under awnings, but I didn't see it here. So I think it's just a small.
01:01:55.06	Attorney Rudin	Yeah, that should certainly be added.
01:01:57.66	David Marlatt	um, Then my last comment.
01:01:59.38	Attorney Rudin	I heard clearance for roadway surfaces to be perfectly blunt.
01:02:04.61	David Marlatt	Yeah.
01:02:04.92	Attorney Rudin	Thank you. we have any signs of overhanging roadway surfaces.
01:02:09.22	David Marlatt	Would roadways, would that incorporate a sidewalk? when we say roadway, is sidewalk part of the roadway just from a definitional? It's a question, I'm not sure.
01:02:21.24	Attorney Rudin	Usually not, and I think most jurisdictions generally don't allow signage over roadway surfaces based on interference with vehicular travel. Again, something that we would probably want to consult with DPW on.
01:02:35.61	David Marlatt	And then my very last suggestion, all the way down in 1042-080, submittal requirements. And this is more of a suggestion because in our municipal code reform task force, one of the things we're going to come back and suggest is generally speaking, moving submittal requirements rather than hardwiring them into the code because they're subject to change over time, and their circumstances and so not coming back and revising your code having language that simply says, you know, shall be, submittal requirements shall, you know, comply with standards published by the CDD, maybe updated every year. So we're not locked in, because we've seen that in our codes where sometimes submittal requirements aren't completely consistent one or the other, or sometimes they're out of date or a little bit obsolete. And I think we could move that outside the code.
01:03:23.67	Unknown	I'm not sure.
01:03:23.98	Katie Nelson	Thank you. Thank you.
01:03:25.02	David Marlatt	Thank you. And I think that's it for me. Thank you.
01:03:27.88	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you to the entire Commission for all the questions. Commissioner Moore, I know you had a few. Did you want to go back to any point from the beginning Sorry, I know you're typing.
01:03:39.03	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:03:39.05	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:03:39.06	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:03:39.13	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:03:39.28	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:03:42.45	Fred Moore	We referenced the historic sign ordinances, but have you thought about putting that into this ordinance so there's not two different locations for signage? referenced in here, but it's not.
01:03:54.98	Katie Nelson	Do you mean moving the historic sign section into the historic ordinance or I'm sorry?
01:04:01.76	Fred Moore	In order to streamline the process, we put the historic signage obligations into this ordinance so they don't have to go to the historic, just look at the signs, they go to one sign ordinance that does both.
01:04:13.74	Katie Nelson	Yeah, I think there is some language that speaks to that.
01:04:18.75	Fred Moore	it references it, but it doesn't list all the criteria.
01:04:23.58	Katie Nelson	Right. So you're referring to 10-46060, like putting the COA requirements into the sign section itself.
01:04:36.98	Nastassya Saad	That's how I understand it. Yeah, that's
01:04:38.48	Katie Nelson	Yeah.
01:04:38.99	Unknown	.
01:04:39.02	Katie Nelson	So it is discussed, it's touched on. Would you prefer to see something more detailed?
01:04:39.36	Unknown	Thank you.
01:04:39.41	Nastassya Saad	that's not going to be.
01:04:39.46	Unknown	Thank you.
01:04:39.58	Nastassya Saad	So.
01:04:39.74	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:04:46.45	Fred Moore	Well, I'm kind of deferring to staff. One of the objectives was to streamline sign processing and make it easier for the public to understand, make the applications of staff. So if I'm in a historic district, I might go to the sign ordinance, see a reference to the historic district sign ordinance, and then flip over to another section to see the historic sign ordinance obligations. So if we put it all under the overall signed ordinances, it seems like it would make it easier for the public and easier for staff than flipping back and forth.
01:04:58.68	Unknown	Sure.
01:05:18.42	Katie Nelson	Yeah, I mean, we flip back and forth all the time, but I think the historic section of the sign ordinance is perhaps the most detailed section. and the overall historic preservation chapter in 10.46 is more broad and like the overarching framework. But but I'm open to these ideas.
01:05:44.98	Nastassya Saad	OK, we can definitely have that conversation, we bring it back up. Thank you very much. I think they all ask excellent questions. I don't have any, and I think it will be a good time to open this up for public comment before we start continuing our discussion. So thank you, Katie. Thank you. Assistant City Manager, will you facilitate public comment for?
01:06:01.00	Unknown	Thank you.
01:06:01.01	Assistant City Manager	Thank you.
01:06:05.44	Nastassya Saad	this item.
01:06:06.13	Assistant City Manager	Absolutely, thank you very much chair. I'll look to the chamber just to remind folks who may have joined us since the start of the meeting. If you'd like to make a comment on this item, I'll accept raised hands. We'll also accept speaker cards, which you can find at the front of the chamber. looking for any raised hands or interested speakers or submitted speaker cards. Seeing none, looking to the Zoom application. Seeing none, Cher. Back to you.
01:06:36.55	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. And thank you for the public for sitting through this. I know we have your item up next, but you know, the sign ordinance here, it does, it does affect the entire town. So we appreciate your patience. We got into a little bit of commentary throughout the question period. I took quite a few notes. I might lean on Commissioner Moore, who I think took quite a few notes. But why don't we go ahead and get started on some basics. And we can go ahead and take them by the topic that is asked for us from staff, so just to be organized. Overall structure and organization of the revised ordinance. That's a little broad. I know we have some initial feedback. I mean, the most recent one being potentially adding in some of the historic, um, district verbiage, but is there any overarching commentary on the structure and organization of what we're seeing here tonight in our study session? Commissioner Luxenberg.
01:07:38.40	Jeffery Luxenberg	I'm fine with the overall organization other than wanting under signed permits to have the requirements for historic district and planning commission clearly spelled out.
01:07:48.98	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Since this is another study session, we can do something similar that we did last time on the hot, warm, cold. I feel that one might be a shoe, and I have no objections to that, Commissioner Luxembourg. Any feedback from anyone else? Otherwise, I'm going to take silence as consent.
01:08:07.29	Andrew Junius	Thank you, Chair. I'm confused by that because I'm staring at Section 10.42.070, And it looks to me like that's the whole deal, that those are the regulations for science in historic districts full stop. What's the issue?
01:08:24.22	Jeffery Luxenberg	My issue on it is if we're going to approve a CUP for commercial property, I think the signs are part of the architecture. The sign bands, where they would go, should be part of that. And I don't want us approving a concept for a building and later somebody come back and put sign they design a sign band that's two feet and then putting a three foot sign and a two foot sign band so i i think we want to approve the signage when the new buildings are substantial we have buildings uh as part of the cup and don't want to have you know it's stuck in where it doesn't belong
01:09:09.12	Andrew Junius	But that's but that you said nothing about historic signs. There is no question about should we combine the historic. I mean, any questions about where the historic sign code is? It's right here.
01:09:18.25	Fred Moore	But I don't think that's the case. Under this section of historic district guidelines, any sign blah, blah, blah, shall comply with historic design guidelines adopted by the city council, which are not here, and the design and performance standards identified in 1042.060. So I'm assuming somewhere there is historic design guidelines that are adopted by the city council that are not included in this particular ordinance.
01:09:44.69	Nastassya Saad	I'm gonna ask if it's not too burdensome of staff, can we leave up the copy just so we can also, for the public's sake,
01:09:59.05	Nastassya Saad	So, And just to clarify, and let's pick one copy. red line versus queen version. I think at I think the red line might be a little easier just to see the previous language. In fact, I pick it on the chair. Can we pick up the red line version, please, up here? And can you point out, Commissioner Moore, one more time, where you were seeing that note that is a reference?
01:10:26.85	Andrew Junius	It's on page 13. Sorry. It's just to jump in here. And it's new subsection C. Yeah, that's interesting. I mean, maybe that section just comes out. i don't know i i we're talking about signs here not the you know the the building or the uh the district anyway i i that's an interesting issue but it does see it seem to me again This section, this new section point for this revised section point four two oh seven oh is the sign permit requirements for historic district. Notwithstanding that section. I mean, I don't know what that section adds to the science. It probably doesn't say anything about science.
01:11:08.75	Attorney Rudin	And I did pull up the city's historic design guidelines, which are posted on the... planning department's webpage. With regards to signage, in those 134 page guidelines, there is one policy that directs that we preserve a historic sign where it exists when feasible. And that is exactly all it says in the guidelines regarding signage.
01:11:37.10	Andrew Junius	So maybe we just take that out because that out. Yeah.
01:11:39.04	Attorney Rudin	Thank you.
01:11:39.06	Nastassya Saad	Take that out. Yeah.
01:11:43.98	Nastassya Saad	Okay. So just from a structural standpoint, I feel like that's our big ticket item. Okay. And then from there.
01:12:04.39	Nastassya Saad	Okay, let's go, let's keep this as a general concept, high level, the proposed administrative sign permit process. Maybe we could just go down the line unless somebody wants to kick that off as a concept. What do we feel about the potential for changing this and taking the remit out of the planning commission to move to an administrative? process. in Luxembourg.
01:12:33.11	Jeffery Luxenberg	I think for similar to anything that we have that requires permits by the Planning Commission, signage should also be reviewed by the Planning Commission when it's part of a bigger project. The staff reviewing simple signs that meet the code is probably logistically a good idea in my view. So I would be hot on that, but I would be cold and not reviewing signage as part of a major rehab of a, especially in the historic district, but anywhere in the city. If we're reviewing something, they're going to need signs. And I've seen enough cases where people just stick a three foot high sign on a one foot sign band and it meets the square footage, but it doesn't meet the design requirements. And so the staff, somebody comes in and says, I want this sign as less as it meets the square footage, but it doesn't meet the design review intent. So I don't want to take signage out of the design review approvals for any projects that require design review approval.
01:13:18.65	Unknown	HOME.
01:13:47.05	Nastassya Saad	I wholeheartedly agree with that one. And I think there's a nice balance between staff and the planning commission. But let me ask vice chair, where would you land on that concept?
01:13:56.62	David Marlatt	Yeah, I think conceptually, I'm warm on that. It makes sense. I mean, all it's like everything. when you have got something that could otherwise be approved administratively, when it's presented in the context or in the larger context of a project that for whatever reason requires design review or a variance or a CUP, everything's on the table. It's kind of, and that would include non-content-based sign
01:14:24.31	Andre Sedwards	Thank you.
01:14:24.35	David Marlatt	uh, applications. So I think that sounds reasonable.
01:14:28.02	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Commissioner Junius.
01:14:32.09	Andrew Junius	Yeah, I disagree. I side with slimming this process down. giving the staff as much authority to uh, implement this ordinance as possible. It's a very specific ordinance. The scenarios that we're discussing up here, I think, involve signs that would have been cited as illegal. So to the extent somebody puts up a sign that doesn't comply with the code, they'll get into an enforcement process with the city. Um, You know, I don't have any problem with separating sign process from project process. Uh... So I'm fine with the way that staff is approaching this.
01:15:09.34	Nastassya Saad	find. Okay, thank you. And Commissioner Moore.
01:15:16.76	Fred Moore	So I understood the prior comments that we were keeping those signs that are associated with project approval up here and the ones that are not associated with staff. So if that's what the other three comments were, as well as Commissioner Junius, then I would agree with that conceptually.
01:15:33.43	Attorney Rudin	Thank you.
01:15:33.47	Fred Moore	Okay.
01:15:33.53	Attorney Rudin	I will just comment as you're giving your feedback. While we can have the Planning Commission review and approve signs, it does need to be part of a Uh, somewhat non-discretionary process. You have to review it for clear rules and there must be a process by which a signed permit shall issue And we have to have a process that is relatively quick enough to allow for judicial review, prompt judicial review under the applicable case law. So in terms of having the planning commission review signs, certainly that's something we can do, but we In terms of any things you want to judge the signs on, they need to be in the ordinance.
01:16:16.07	Jeffery Luxenberg	Sure. Thank you. Conceptually, what we've done in the past, for example, on some buildings is we approve the concept of the signs. The language can change. The businesses can change. But we approve where they go. And they can be labeled as part of the design review. And when somebody comes in later to change the sign, they would be approved by staff under the design agreement that's already been approved. So I'm not suggesting that, and all I'm suggesting is that we approve the concept of the design of where signs go and the height they should be with the architecture allows for a two foot band or a one foot band, then the signs go in that band. And if somebody comes in and wants to change the sign later, we could define the design review approval of where the signs go, not the language, not the content. And we've done this on other projects. So some way to write that up, I think that is consistent with what you're saying the law is now with regard, case law is with regard to that. But I'm not suggesting, I'm not even suggesting that the future ones come into us, but A sign that might look nice on one building might not look nice on another building if they put it in the wrong place. So we just approve a drawing that shows this is where signs go, and the names can change because we can't control content anyways. Anyways, that's a thought.
01:17:50.52	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Thank you. The next category, categories of signs allowed without permits. This one's eluding me slightly. Somebody help. Categories of signs allowed without permits. If staff can maybe kindly direct us back to that.
01:18:05.36	Unknown	Thank you.
01:18:05.38	Unknown	Thank you.
01:18:05.44	Unknown	Thank you.
01:18:05.51	Unknown	Thank you.
01:18:05.54	Unknown	Thank you.
01:18:15.47	Nastassya Saad	rough area
01:18:17.56	Katie Nelson	Yeah, it's 10.42040.
01:18:21.56	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:18:21.76	Katie Nelson	you age six
01:18:32.07	Jeffery Luxenberg	This one had a typo we needed to put in 30 days, I guess. I don't know.
01:18:36.48	Nastassya Saad	So,
01:18:40.96	Andrew Junius	I'm actually very, if you work through this, it's really just the minimum, I think, as the city attorney would say, you know, private property owners are allowed to put signs on their property, you know, to do things like, You know, there's warning signs here. If you're, you know, I do think there's a little bit of a organizational thing here. You've got at the beginning, there's commercially zoned private property, and that's the temporary signs. And then you've got this, I think, an excellent new section regarding allowing interior signs that can be seen from within a business. That's that seems fine. I don't know why we'd want to be permitting that the temporary. or permanent signs that used to be called campaign signs. We can't say campaign signs anymore, but again, people need to be able to put a sign on their website on their on their home to express their First Amendment rights. That seems fine to me. And then the warning signs as well. So all of those are just such low hanging fruit. I think the staff is going is in the right direction here. And I think I don't see any issue with any of any of these.
01:19:48.75	Nastassya Saad	Okay.
01:19:48.97	Jeffery Luxenberg	for clarifying for us can we go back to the page six there uh there's two simple ways to solve this this language problem either we wanted to say this is a one temporary signs shall be permitted on commercially zoned property only if they're not illuminated and eliminate the words for a period or we want to have for a period and have a number of days. So what are the number of days? So it's either one or the other. If we want to let the definition stand elsewhere, just take out the words for a period, if that's what we want to do. I'm not sure. But something has to fix this leg.
01:20:23.18	David Marlatt	Thank you.
01:20:30.28	David Marlatt	I don't know.
01:20:30.79	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
01:20:30.82	David Marlatt	Thank you.
01:20:30.97	Jeffery Luxenberg	I agree.
01:20:31.02	David Marlatt	with us.
01:20:31.34	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
01:20:31.44	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, and I think conceptually, from what I understood from staff and city attorneys, the definitions stand alone and are woven throughout as they are, not explicitly restated. So I think that's a good point, Commissioner Frayton.
01:20:47.43	Jeffery Luxenberg	just to leave for a period, and then it'll work.
01:20:52.79	Nastassya Saad	I've got no problem with that. Yep, Vice Chair, thank you for clarifying that. Commissioner Junius, are you good, Commissioner Moore?
01:20:58.90	Fred Moore	I think the staff did a good job of removing many, many pages and limited down to, like Mr. Junior said, the low hanging fruit. comment, it seems odd whether you have a temporary sign, you don't want rigid materials or metal or wood. I guess I'm thinking if I'm putting up a temporary sign and I think canvas... is pretty cheap looking and I want to put a rigid material. I'm not sure why the city would care since it's only temporary. So that was just a odd, odd inclusion, I thought.
01:21:35.28	David Marlatt	I mean, it does say such as and lightweight could be any material that's hand care. I think the idea is that it's something that you would, without extensive work or tools, you can remove and
01:21:44.90	Fred Moore	Right, but use of rigid materials such as wood or metal are not permitted. So if you want to put a temporary wood sign, you can't do it. Thank you.
01:21:54.05	David Marlatt	You have to have a temporary chat to be not all inclusive. I would interpret that as not being
01:21:54.08	Fred Moore	You have to have a temporary.
01:21:59.85	Fred Moore	Well, the last sentence is very specific. Use of rigid materials such as wood or metal are not prohibited. So you could have other rigid material that's not allowed. Okay.
01:22:05.73	David Marlatt	Thank you.
01:22:05.74	Nastassya Saad	So he could have.
01:22:09.10	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:22:09.12	Nastassya Saad	I mean, that's,
01:22:09.84	Fred Moore	which is, you know,
01:22:09.91	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:22:10.06	Fred Moore	that.
01:22:10.43	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:22:10.48	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:22:10.55	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:22:10.65	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:22:10.67	Nastassya Saad	Strike it. That's up to us. Strike that sentence.
01:22:11.24	Fred Moore	That's a blast.
01:22:11.97	David Marlatt	and
01:22:13.88	Nastassya Saad	That works. We can be more flexible there.
01:22:16.04	Nastassya Saad	It wasn't.
01:22:16.42	David Marlatt	that.
01:22:16.78	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Okay, thank you for the detail. This one we may have a little more discussion on. Sign measurement standards and regulatory framework. I just want to come back to what you brought up earlier, Commissioner Luxembourg, on the sign. I think we understood what staff and city attorney were saying. But, you know, again, this is within our discussion point. So on page 15, we had the signs going from a 6-square-foot, I think, to a 10-square-foot size. and then we also had the signs going from a six square foot, I think, to a 10 square foot size. And then we also had the increase, I have so many notes here. I think we went up to 48, sorry?
01:22:57.11	Assistant City Manager	36 to 40. Thank you. Yeah. Checking size from 36 to 40. Thank you.
01:22:57.75	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:23:00.23	Jeffery Luxenberg	I'm sorry.
01:23:00.35	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:23:01.82	Jeffery Luxenberg	Right.
01:23:02.41	Nastassya Saad	36 to 40.
01:23:03.29	Jeffery Luxenberg	48, which is four feet. And that's wider than some of our sidewalks. And I think it will block adjacent signs, especially in the historic district, which is what this is. So I think 36 is fine for what we want to do in the historic district. so I think 48 is I think projecting signs generally are a problem anyways but 36 seem reasonable. The ones we have seem reasonable because they meet this code. Making them bigger and then the guy next to him wants his to be bigger, it's, you know,
01:23:03.30	Nastassya Saad	48, which is
01:23:42.34	Jeffery Luxenberg	Anyway, so that's the historic issue on-
01:23:43.23	Matthew Mandich	That's the historic issue on projecting. Clarification here, Commissioner. This is not addressing the size of the sign. It is addressing the projection from the building face.
01:23:52.46	Jeffery Luxenberg	No, I understand that. I understand that the size is six square feet, I think.
01:23:53.05	Matthew Mandich	Yes.
01:23:57.23	Jeffery Luxenberg	somewhere.
01:23:59.89	Nastassya Saad	Okay, so we basically take opposition to the increase in size from Commissioner Luxembourg
01:24:05.74	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, I'm suggesting that 36 inches is, you know, which is probably, if it's six square feet, is three by two. It makes sense, works. And this is the historic district we're talking about. in the Orient of the Pedestrian. I think putting it out four feet. It's actually four feet. So yeah. Anyways, I'm just.
01:24:34.31	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, that's a thought. Let's see.
01:24:36.81	Jeffery Luxenberg	I don't know where the other commissioners are,
01:24:38.41	Nastassya Saad	PEOPLE. Commissioner. Um, more, do you have a thought on the size differential we're discussing today?
01:24:46.22	Fred Moore	My thought may be a little broader, but we'll come up later before we conclude this item. But to me, it would be interesting to see where the existing signs are. Do they comply with the 36 if they were the 48 would be a problem. Sort of get an inventory of where we stand right now with the signage before we kind of decide on that. I understand the concept of increasing it, but. We might wanna see the visual ramifications before we decide.
01:25:15.42	Nastassya Saad	Okay, thank you. Commissioner Junius.
01:25:18.54	Andrew Junius	Yeah, the historic district's obviously very important and a lot of our businesses are in the historic district. Um, that said, I think that this, the comment made earlier by staff is, is, is really relevant here. You know, we're really Running a business in Sausalito is expensive. It's complicated. I think this is a great, step toward trying to simplify things and speed things up, especially with timelines that require the city action on on signage. Um, so, you know, anything to give the businesses a little extra, a little extra something, I think I'm always in favor of, you know, a lot of, you know, some, sometimes we hear up here, how much we support businesses and then we saddle them with more rules and more regulations and more difficult things for the staff to figure out before this, before the business can get a sign permit. Um, I don't think it's also, it has got a sign problem. I, I, when I first saw this, I was. pleased anytime we can shrink regulations down and make them simpler and clearer that's great. And then when I realized, Oh, but it's only because we're being forced to because of a court case, it's like, All right, well, we'll still take it. But, you know, come on, 10 feet, six feet, that's not much. And the staff is seeing issues where I think businesses would benefit from a slightly larger sign on their property and a slightly more projection. I mean, 12 more inches over a sidewalk doesn't seem like much to me. Might be a lot to a business, and we want to support our businesses.
01:26:43.81	Nastassya Saad	Okay, thank you very much. So we are all over the place on this one. And Vice Chair, where do you land? Thank you.
01:26:49.02	David Marlatt	I'm very, very, very, intuitively, I'm more comfortable with the 36 inches. I don't think it's extra regulation, it's just maintaining the existing. A lot of the sidewalks are narrow in that area, as Commissioner Luxembourg says. So in some cases, 36 inches will be half the sidewalk. feels right, but I'm also sensitive to Planner Mandich's comment, I believe, that the 36 to 48 inch differences in response to a very common occurrence that you're constantly making exceptions. Was that correct? Cause I also want to Or did I understand that correctly?
01:27:21.02	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, it's come up a number of times. I mean, a lot of the times with the projecting signs, you have mounting brackets and things like that, that push the sign a little bit further out. They have to be affixed to the building face, especially in historic. going to usually keep everything on the surface of the building and not penetrate too much into the facade. So it does add just a little bit of additional. Also, you have to think about to the shapes of the signs. Sometimes, um, circular signs going to extend out further sometimes and rectangular. It just depends how they're hung, where they are on the brackets, how far across. So it just adds a little bit of flexibility instead of being so rigid. I think I would just echo commissioner Junius' comments with that. And instead of saddling an extra requirement, let's give them some flexibility.
01:27:58.23	Unknown	Thank you.
01:28:01.50	Assistant City Manager	And price does pay a role here. I'll just add and agree with principal planner Mandich. You know, we've had cases in which a business is trying to get a simple projected sign approved. And we tell them that they need to pay for two hearings. Before the historic preservation commission and the planning commission to review the certificate of appropriateness associated with the reasonableness of that addition to the property, when in some cases in a specific case that we already went through the projecting sign. Um, you know, kind of kind of skeleton was preexisting. Unfortunately, it didn't comply with our code. So again, the cost prohibitive nature of this is also something we're trying to address.
01:28:51.96	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay, so I agree with Commissioner Moore. I would like to see the examples of which ones you're talking about, so let's do that. We've just told you that we agree with the administrative approval except for a full renovation of a building, which is coming before us anyways. So, and a smaller sign is going to save the money, So, if it doesn't project out as far. And so, we're not suggesting them coming before us. What we're suggesting is keeping the current code as is, which is the standard all the other existing businesses have lived with, and we're agreeing with the administrative part. So this is not adding costs. It's a question of the dimensions, and so I concur with Commissioner Moore. We need to see the examples of where the issue was, and if somebody had a bracket that was illegal, and so we're going to codify something illegal, that's not the issue. If somebody has a nice design that would have worked, and it's not going to block the neighbors so we can see what it looks like, then possibly we'd want to consider this when it comes back. The hearing problem is not for this because we're not suggesting they come before us. We're just suggesting you have a dimensionals and they'll know the dimensions when they come to you and they'll save money because it'll not project out as far.
01:30:04.44	Unknown	Thank you.
01:30:21.16	Andrew Junius	But let me just respond. I thought I just heard the staff basically say, if you give the... of the business the opportunity to make a slightly larger sign, it actually might save them money. It'll give them some flexibility. It'll add some creativity. The smaller the sign, the more difficult it is to deal with, especially in the historic district. I mean, that's that's that really resonates with me. And I think I'd like you to respond to that.
01:30:48.36	Jeffery Luxenberg	I spent 10 years in a small city the size of Sausalito managed a sign program, and the city had actually a program where we paid for signs so we could keep them consistent, and we had a historic downtown. So I completely disagree that this is going to cost them more money. I do agree having to have two hearings and all that kind of thing costs them money. That's not my question. I think having a standard at 36 inches, which every other business today in Sausalito has had to comply with, is a reasonable standard to Commissioner's moral point that we'd like to see examples of why you'd want to be bigger rather than just arbitrarily saying we want to be flexible and then find out that they're blocking the neighbor's thing and then there's an issue and then they get appealed to the planning commission because it's out too far. So yeah, let's see some examples to make it work. You asked me to respond and then maybe we can see why the 48 would be necessary, but 36 has seemed to work, the downtown works, the hearings don't work, I agree with that, so I'm resolving that.
01:32:02.00	Nastassya Saad	Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That is an interesting point. I'm going to lean on.
01:32:05.35	Matthew Mandich	Yeah. just a quick clarifying question in here because I think it's a little unclear in the language of the ordinance too. When we're talking about maximum projection from building face, what part of the sign are we talking about? Are we talking about the part of the sign closest to the building or the furthest extent of the sign? That's,
01:32:21.44	Jeffery Luxenberg	maximum projection from the building would be the farthest point that it goes over the sidewalk
01:32:21.46	Matthew Mandich	I'm not.
01:32:26.79	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
01:32:26.81	Matthew Mandich	So I think that's on a, on a Dubai, like, let's say it's a six act right now. So on a two by three sign.
01:32:27.01	Jeffery Luxenberg	.
01:32:34.23	Matthew Mandich	That's already 24.
01:32:36.01	Jeffery Luxenberg	or...
01:32:36.63	Matthew Mandich	Yeah. So let's say it's three feet long. It's 36 inches. And it needs to have a minimum of six inches from the building.
01:32:42.69	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. No, it would be two feet by three feet.
01:32:42.91	Matthew Mandich	Okay? Well, it could be the other way it's aggregate.
01:32:46.03	Jeffery Luxenberg	It can't be the other way because it says that-
01:32:49.20	Matthew Mandich	Well, this is- that I'm running into.
01:32:51.02	Jeffery Luxenberg	The number two says, I'm just using the language you have before us. It's very clear. This is one of the things that's completely objective. It was 36 inches. It has to be out six inches. So the maximum it can be is two and a half feet by three feet or whatever. I mean, that's the dimension. And that's very...
01:32:51.19	Matthew Mandich	No,
01:33:08.96	Matthew Mandich	limiting for a lot of businesses.
01:33:10.30	Jeffery Luxenberg	So do Commissioner Moore's thing, bring us examples so we understand the issue rather than sitting here arguing about it without getting a visual.
01:33:21.33	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, just to make a decision in a vacuum, I think your staff's position is well heard. somewhere. on the map here with no clear direction back to staff on this one. We do have some leaning towards keeping it at 36, but if the onus is not too difficult, we would like, you know, this is a study session. And so whenever you come back, to have at least to what principal planner manage said about making those exceptions, at the very least, that would be helpful to know how many exceptions you've made into what those sizes are. So let's put a pin in that one. At the last note, yeah, absolutely, by sure.
01:34:04.28	David Marlatt	Yeah, absolutely. Very sure. I just didn't really think about it previously. But number two, minimum clearance between building face and sign six inches. Why? What does that serve? Like, so if you wanted to have a more modern sign with just a bracket and a a blade or something like that, that would be prohibited. So signs must be yield sign that's hanging off of a bracket with chains or something. What's the logic of that? Why not?
01:34:27.67	Assistant City Manager	I would ask the architect what the basis for that kind of a design standard might have been. It seems as though it's aesthetically motivated in some way.
01:34:27.69	David Marlatt	I,
01:34:38.42	David Marlatt	Okay, so this is a holdover from the previous code. Well, I would suggest we consider just striking that completely.
01:34:44.73	Nastassya Saad	And where is that? Can you please point that out?
01:34:46.27	David Marlatt	to go. Thank you.
01:34:46.97	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:34:47.01	David Marlatt	uh,
01:34:48.29	Jeffery Luxenberg	Number two, minimum clearance. Okay, thank you.
01:34:50.40	Nastassya Saad	Okay, thank you. I have no problem with taking that out either. The last point, we're getting to any additional considerations or modifications, just from the feedback. The point, Commissioner Luxembourg, that you raised about the existing signage, on a historic structure or not, because we do have other non-historic structures that have old signage, where are we landing with that because i agree with you that we do not want to be put in a position where those need to be removed necessarily this was
01:35:33.62	Nastassya Saad	as it was.
01:35:33.67	Jeffery Luxenberg	This is number E on page 22.
01:35:37.58	Nastassya Saad	Section E on page 22. Correct.
01:35:40.15	Jeffery Luxenberg	My suggestion is to just add a clause. We'll ask the attorney that says something to the effect, except for historic signage that relates to historic denotation or something. I don't know.
01:35:59.44	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, Attorney Rudin, would you be able to comment? I think you even had some... General guidance here.
01:36:06.76	Attorney Rudin	Yeah, I think this is an area where I would like the opportunity to do a little research and come back with a recommendation to the Planning Commission, in part because you may have signage that is old but is not historic but could be historic. This also may be an area where perhaps signage can be removed without necessarily affecting you know, like the historic character of a building. in certain instances. So that should be something to be considered further. Um,
01:36:38.15	Unknown	Thank you.
01:36:38.97	Attorney Rudin	And so obviously if the signage is inherent in like an architectural feature, I could see there being concern over damage to a historic resource.
01:36:39.70	Unknown	Obviously, if they get to sign in
01:36:47.83	Attorney Rudin	But for freestanding signs that are just old and abandoned, I don't think you necessarily want to avoid the requirement to have them removed.
01:36:60.00	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, no, I think we should have this. I'm not questioning it at all. I just want to know what to do with, look at the one on Caledonia Street, look at the ones on Bridgeway.
01:37:00.19	Attorney Rudin	Yeah.
01:37:11.66	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. The one on Caledonia Street isn't even part of the, it isn't even an architectural feature. It's a sign that was there because it used to be a service station, and for some reason it's historic, and that's where they were told, I think they had to keep it. And then there are ones on Bridgeway where it's built into the concrete or whatever, you know, there, you know.
01:37:37.11	David Marlatt	Would it be an idea to more or less use the same standard as we have for triggering CEQA and historic resource evaluation and to say that any sign that is greater than 50 years old is grandfathered on the assumption that it's been abandoned for a lot more than 90 days and the city doesn't want it down? And some language like that, that signs greater than 50 years old are de facto existing non-compliant.
01:38:02.00	Attorney Rudin	I would want to... Look. Look at that suggestion in light of some of the actual signs mentioned by the other commissioners and see how that would work in practice before coming back to the commission with a recommendation. I'm sorry.
01:38:16.54	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
01:38:16.56	Attorney Rudin	I'm not sure.
01:38:17.05	Andrew Junius	Thank you. Exactly. So there's a really actually relatively straightforward solution here. There are a bunch of signs like this, you know, 50 years old, 45 years old, I don't think we need to go there. I'm sure there's a list of signs that we could come up with that we just call historic signs and they're exempt and they get to stay and everything and you know and to the city attorneys. point and if you're not on that list and you're it's not relevant anymore, it's got to go, but clearly the sign on in Caledonia, you know, the opticians should stay and they're probably another dozen of those. And let's just get that list going pretty simple and Add it to a list of historic signs and be done with it. And if there are signs in the future that need to be added to that list to save them, great, let's do that. No big deal.
01:39:02.49	Nastassya Saad	Sure, thank you, Commissioner Junius. Great idea. And attorney Rudin will just look for some feedback on this for the next round. Um, Okay, with that, detailed discussion. Are there any other points that are glaring that anyone wants to comment on to put in before we wrap up our study session?
01:39:27.59	Jeffery Luxenberg	I just want to reiterate the 60-day thing. I really want to see a list of 2025, maybe 2024, of how long it took, you know, simple chart, when the complete application, whatever the language is there, and when our hearing was. Because it's coming up on a lot of things now, and so unless we have a perspective of that that it's hard for us to deal with that so both related to this and anything else and there aren't that many i mean it'll probably take 15 minutes to go through the files or something
01:39:55.57	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:40:03.48	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. measure more.
01:40:05.45	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:40:05.47	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:40:07.48	Fred Moore	I really appreciate the time that staff put in along with the city attorney, obviously the great presentation and it's a lot of effort to go through this and inconsistencies that we say, you know, multiple eyes will find stuff. So please don't take any offense that some people say, Hey, it should have been a C versus a D that was not the intent, but I'm probably going to throw a monkey wrench in this entire thing. I think there needs to be a lot more study. I've had multiple discussions with people who was downtown business owners of downtown district talking about having some consistencies in signs, graphically, size, type of font. And that's omitted from this entire revision to the sign ordinance. I know we were motivated by content oriented in a 2015 Supreme Court case. Here we are many years later and we don't have any litigation over it. so my thought is we need to get more input from the stakeholders the downtown businesses who are relying on signs to bring in business, the aesthetics of the signs throughout the city. In my opinion, we are kind of over-signed. We have signs everywhere, multiple signs, duplicate signs that clever up many spaces and look uglier than sin. So I still think we need to, before we move on with a revised study session, see if we can engage the downtown district, the stakeholders in the science, go back to that group who supposedly has started some process in imaging for science, like a lot of local cities in Marin have. They have a very consistent sign. They have a deer logo, they have a certain sign as color schemes, and I think it's worth considering that we may not wanna go down that road, but at least we should have a discussion. you
01:41:51.62	Unknown	you
01:41:51.87	Fred Moore	know how long that would take to get that information before you come back with a study session, but I throw that out there for consideration.
01:41:51.95	Unknown	No.
01:42:00.22	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much, Commissioner Moore. I know we have a lot of staff asks this round, and we'll ask you to do what you can, hearing what we think that we really do need for our next session. hearing. Commissioner Junio,
01:42:17.64	Andrew Junius	Thank you. Just a final comment. I'll take the other side of Commissioner Moore's point. Um, first off, I, it would have been nice if the business community had showed up today with any comments whatsoever. uh, I totally agree, it's their world Uh, I'm much more flexible on the sign. I think signs are creative. I think signs allow businesses to express themselves. I don't like the idea of trying to force people into, you know, certain types of fonts or colors or designs. I think the whole vibrancy of a commercial district is the individuality of each individual business. I mean, but let's be honest, as you see up here, this is, you know, it's an it's as subjective as you can get. Right. Everybody's got a different opinion about what it should be, how big it should be. what color it should be, where it should be on the building, makes it almost impossible to come to any kind of consensus, which is why, you know, I think the metrics in here are good. I think the businesses should be given more flexibility. The science should be a little bit bigger. There should be a little bit more projection. They should have more flexibility to express themselves. But, you know, You know, we'll see. And I don't know how much more energy we need to put into this, honestly, if the business community doesn't want to come forward with some kind of a unified proposal. I mean, if, you know, the Chamber of Commerce has some comments, but I think we're just kind of all expressing our own individual opinions and we've all got good ones and they're all different. So it makes it really tough to come to a consensus.
01:43:50.55	Nastassya Saad	That's well said. I was surprised there was no business public comment as well. Vice chair, any closing thoughts?
01:43:58.18	David Marlatt	No, no, I think I'm.
01:43:59.97	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:44:00.10	Unknown	Thank you.
01:44:00.24	David Marlatt	Thank you.
01:44:00.31	Unknown	Thank you.
01:44:00.32	David Marlatt	Nicholas Matsakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakisakis
01:44:01.13	Nastassya Saad	I don't either. That was a really robust discussion. So thank you to staff. Thank you, Attorney Rudin. Thank you to everyone for that. And we will look forward to the feedback in our next round when that comes before us. Thank you to the public for waiting. We are now at the public hearing item seven. This is 15 Gordon Street. This is a design review permit with heightened review and an encroachment agreement. We're gonna have our principal planner, Matthew Mandich. We are first gonna go through
01:44:31.84	Andrew Junius	I'm not going to repeat it, but I'm going to repeat it.
01:44:33.18	Nastassya Saad	Okay, yes, we're going to go through ex parte communications. And Andrew, Commissioner Junius, please kick us off with any of your notes.
01:44:41.01	Andrew Junius	Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm over 500 feet, but less than 1000 feet from the site my residence. I don't believe that there's any way that that that proximity would bias me in any way whatsoever with respect to this project. So I'm not going to recuse myself and like to move forward.
01:45:00.50	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. We're happy to have you. Commissioner Luxembourg, any ex parte communications to declare?
01:45:05.81	Jeffery Luxenberg	On Monday, I visited the site, and I also visited the neighbor's property at 804 Spring Street. I did not see anybody at the site when I was there. I did go into the neighbor's house to be able to see the story polls from the living room and kitchen. However, I expressly explained that I could not engage in any ex parte communications, and I just reviewed the project site from that point. So no ex parte communications. Thank you very much.
01:45:32.66	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Vice Chair.
01:45:35.97	David Marlatt	Thank you. I visited 1517 Gordon, did not interact with the property owner or anyone, so nothing else to communicate.
01:45:44.47	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Commissioner Moore.
01:45:47.95	Fred Moore	I also visited the site, did not talk to anybody, didn't get out of the car, no other communications.
01:45:53.42	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. I met with the neighbor, Barbara Gordon, on Monday as well and visited her home. No ex parte communications. I also saw 15 Gordon from the Street View. With that, Matthew, take it away.
01:46:09.90	Attorney Rudin	And Commissioner Chair, just one question for Commissioner Junius, just to clarify one. point. Um, uh, You indicated that you don't believe that your participation and the proximity to your resident would cause you any bias in this matter. Um, Can you state whether you think that it would have any material impact on the value of your property, including development potential? a highest and best use character, such as affecting traffic levels and density of use, parking, privacy, noise levels, or air quality.
01:46:45.36	Andrew Junius	It will have none of those effects on my property.
01:46:47.38	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:46:47.81	Attorney Rudin	Thank you.
01:46:51.23	Matthew Mandich	All right. Thank you, commissioners. Good evening. So the project we have before you tonight is a design review with heightened review, as well as a recommendation on an... accroachment agreement for an addition at a condominium at 15 Gordon Street. Next slide, please. So, Location of the property is in the Spring Valley neighborhood. There's Spring Street right there in both of the images for you. This is a short dead end street Gordon Street, which is up the hill on Spring Street. The subject property is highlighted here in yellow. It sits on a five thousand eight hundred thirty nine square foot parcel. There's two condominiums, 15 Gordon and 17 Gordon and is located in the R2 2.5 two family zoning district. Next slide, please. So just a little bit of background on the house. It was constructed as a single-family dwelling in 1951, later converted to a duplex in 1978, and then converted into two condominiums in 1981 via a CUP process. It was known as and continues to be known as the Shoemaker Condominium, as that was the last name of the owner at the time who went through the conversion process. It was purchased by David and Jennifer Cooper, the current owners, in 2018. Also, here's just a little highlight of the original condo plan from 1981. You see 17 Gordon here and 15 Gordon here, 17, 15. 15 Gordon is a single story 815 square foot living area with a carport while 17 Gordon is much larger. It's a two story 1915 square foot dwelling with two car garage next slide, please So as mentioned, this is a design review permit with heightened review to add 913 square feet second story addition, a 421 square foot exterior elevated deck and a 265 square foot one car garage. These additions will cause the project to exceed the 80% of the permitted floor area ratio and building coverage, hence why it requires heightened review. The encroachment agreement is for existing improvements in the right of way, including a portion of 17 Gordon, in particular, the bay windows, two parking spaces pertaining to 17 Gordon, planters, entry stairs also pertaining to 17 Gordon, and a portion of the deck in front of 15 Gordon. The project seeks to improve the use and value of the existing condominium by adding two new bedrooms, one bathroom, a family room office area, and a living area, and the goal is to create two condos of similar size. Next slide, please. So you've got the existing site plan here on your left, 17 Gordon here, 15 Gordon here, carport, and the proposed site plan on your right. Again, 17 Gordon here remains untouched. The expansion of 15 Gordon over a one-car garage with the elevated deck in the middle separating the two properties. Next slide, please. So here's the elevations. So this is from the street here, looking at the property. See 17 Gordon right here, here are those bay windows I spoke about that are slightly into the right of way. This is 15 Gordon set much further back from 17 Gordon. And this is the proposed addition right here on top, the second floor and the garage right here as opposed to the carport right here, which is open with posts. Next slide, please. Here's another look at the addition from the rear of the property. You can see existing situation here, 17 Gordon, 15 Gordon, Carport. See 17 Gordon here mains untouched and 15 Gordon here carport has now been turned into a garage and the second story additions been added. I will note, as you'll see and we'll discuss later that the addition does not go over the height of the existing building at 17 Gordon and these are very much to a joint structures next slide please. to adjoined dwelling units, condos to form one structure. So again, here's the existing elevation on the left-hand side of the property. Here's the roof of the carport, some posts, 17 Gordon in the rear, and here's the addition, 15 Gordon, Upper floor added right here, garage down here. And then here's just a section of what that addition will look like. One car garage, stair set leading up. bedroom and a, uh, rec room living room area right there. Next slide, please. All right, so yeah, just a quick look at the floor plans here. The bottom floor will remain untouched. It's gonna be exactly the same. They're gonna build over the existing roof. So there'll be no changes to the floor area of the lower unit. The only change will be the filling end of the wall on the side for the carport to create the one car garage. The main addition will be the second floor right here, as you can see, stair set leading up, two bedrooms, a bathroom, kind of rec room, living room area right here. And then the elevated deck right here, dividing the two properties. Next slide. And here are some images of the story polls. I think several of you already went out there and got a look at it from the street as well. So these are two images from the right of way. As you can see, 17 Gordon right here, 15 Gordon set further back. Here are the story polls for the proposed second story edition right here and right here. Next slide, please. So the project does comply with all of our development standards for the R225 zoning district. Just walk through those very quickly. Obviously, parcels not changing. Dwelling units is not changing. The setbacks will be changing. The rear setback is still compliant under 15. The right and the left side, you're probably used to seeing fives there. However, due to the length of the building, they do have increased setbacks. The right-hand side is actually a 711 and it has a 55 right now however that's on the 17 gordon side there'll be no change and no work to that condominium so that's pre-existing legal non-conforming on the left side you have an 8.4 setback it's currently a non-conforming four foot 10 inch setback and the average setback will be 8.5 which complies with our code as i'll discuss in a little bit Maximum height 32. The building currently is at 22.4 and it will not exceed that. So there is no change. Building coverage, it will be go from 41 to 47%. Floor area will go from 0.51 to 0.63. So this is why we're in height and review here. and previous surface going from 60 to 66. The two spaces for each unit will remain no changes there. And there's also two additional guest parking spaces in the right of way that will be considered in the encouragement agreement today. Next slide. So to touch on the zoning consistency here again, the proposed project does comply with all the objective zoning development standards for the R225 zoning district proposed far building coverage and pervious surfaces all comply. As we just saw the side yard setback is also compliant. And I know that this is a little bit of a, a difficult thing for people to understand in our code, this setbacks are a bit tricky in Sausalito. So we do have this thing called the 40 foot world, or at least that's how staff refers to it. It's for increased setbacks when you have a building wall of over 40 feet. The building wall right here is actually 47, 40 feet, seven inches rather, not 47 feet, excuse me. However, due to a council decision several years ago, it's been determined that extending decks are structures that are attached to the building and therefore are counted in the overall building length. So we're required to add five feet for every, excuse me, one foot per setback for every five feet. The building exceeds 40 feet. So if we were just going off the building, we'd only be adding a couple inches to the five foot setback. However, with this deck combined with the building, we're actually required to add three and a half feet here. So it's actually three feet, four inches. So this is the required setback. I've got this in blue. Hopefully you guys can see this. I know it's a little bit... A little messy in there, but you can see this is the required setback right here, 8.4. This is the setback that was achieved, 8.5. The averages between the two setbacks is we got 10 up here and 6 down there. Averages out that the average depth is equal to the 8.5 if less than 50% of the building wall, which it does, encroaches into the required setback. So this is 100% compliant with Sausalito's setback and the zoning ordinance. The existing setback I will note of the carport right now is at four feet, 10 inches. Next slide, please.
01:55:07.63	Matthew Mandich	Thank you. The height as well has been accurately measured from average natural grade as this is a unified structure. The proposed height is nine feet below the height limit, as you can see here. We did get some public comment from one of the neighbors arguing that the average natural grade was not correctly calculated and that it should only be calculated from 15 Gordon. Doing those calculations just from 15 Gordon, you actually get a higher height limit because you're actually being docked because 17 Gordon is much lower than 15 Gordon. So if you're going to do the height calculation solely using 15 Gordon, even though that's not how we do it, because it is a unified structure, you would actually have a height limit that is several feet above the 32 foot height limit right here. And as you can see, the maximum height of the structure, absolute height from its lowest to highest point is 24 feet, which is well below our 32 foot height limit. Next slide, please. So, as you probably see in the public comments, there have been a number of neighbor concerns, and I know several of them are here this evening, but all the required findings in SMC 1054, 050, D and E, which is our design review and heightened design review findings, as well as those in 1056 for the encroachment agreement can be made as evidenced in the staff report and the resolution immediate neighbors at 804 Spring Street, which is at the rear. and adjacent 9 Gordon have expressed concerns regarding view impacts and privacy, as well as with the processing of the application. Tried to touch on, you know, some of the issues that were brought up regarding the setback and the height, which are both fully compliant, but I'll talk a little bit more about the more subjective issues of the findings here. So, oh, also there was some discussion about whether or not the site was properly noticed. You can go forward to the next slide, please. Story polls and noticing here. So the project was properly noticed pursuant to SMC 10 82 site was posted 12 days in advance. The municipal code only requires 10 and the mailers were also sent out 12 days in advance. The municipal code only requires 10 story polls were erected and certified by a licensed surveyor March 7th. So well ahead of the 10 day story pull requirement. And here is the licensed surveyor stamp and the form. for the story polls and the story polls are marked in one foot increments. You can see here the black versus the silver, black, silver moving down the line. So next slide, please. So potential view impact. I also visited Barbara Gordon's home at 804 Spring Street and took these photos myself standing on her deck. As you can see in both of these photos, two different orientations. These are the flags of the roof right here. So standing on the deck, there's really no view impact. And that's how the building was designed. The ceiling or actually, sorry, the peak of the roof is one foot above the finished floor level of this building below that we're standing in the deck here, so it was really designed exactly with the finding for in mind to minimize the obstruction of public and private views next slide please. So, Moving back in, so here's the building at 804 Spring Street. Just to point out that it is a noncompliant setback. It is the building face and the deck are only two feet, three inches from the rear property line. I'm 15 Gordon, so we're very close to the rear property line here. This X right here is on the deck where I stood to take the photos. This is a photo of me sitting on the deck, which now I'm looking through a hogwire fence at the water. And you can see that the flags right there are partially blocking a water view. However, this is from a seated position, looking through a hogwire fence, which if this was just a closed railing, you wouldn't see the water anyway. Also, just want to point out that all these trees and all the shrubbery in front here belong to the neighbor at 15 Gordon. So if those were to even grow, that v would be blocked anyway um furthermore i just want to point out how from this x again same x here looking back that again the roof height here is one foot above the finish floor level of the deck and this is from a four and a half feet up looking over so
01:58:42.95	Unknown	Thank you.
01:58:59.69	Matthew Mandich	This has really been designed quite thoughtfully to avoid any impacts of views from the rear neighbor. Next slide, please. There's been also some expressed privacy concerns from 9 Gordon. This was a photo that was sent in by the owner of 9 Gordon. You can see 9 Gordon here. This is that back area right here where that arrow is. As you can see, there's a number of homes that look down into this backyard already. One, two, three. Looking back here, there's also vegetation and things right here that if the owner wanted a bit more privacy, can obviously grow those. There is no scope to plant vegetation along this property line here. It has this all paved driveway that leads up to the existing carport. I'll also point out that this fence right here is built over the property line onto 15 Gordon. So it actually encroaches onto 15 Gordon outside the property line. and that the orientation of this building, while it does look parallel in this photo here, actually moves away from the property as you get deeper into the property line there so just highlighting those for you there for any concerns you have on privacy next slide please So that brings us to recommendation staff recommends the planning commission adopt a resolution approving design review permit with heightened review and recommending approval of an encroachment agreement for the proposed project at 15 Gordon. The proposed project conforms with all the required development standards in the Sausalito Municipal Code for the R225 zoning district. So I like to say right now that staff has reviewed this project thoroughly and that there are no issues with any of the development standards or any noticing issues or anything of that nature. The proposed project, in staff's opinion, is in conformance with all the required findings. And this is where the commission, of course, has discretion on whether or not they believe that those findings can be made or not. And that would be a subjective decision by the commission. The project, of course, if approved tonight, would be subject to any conditions of approval attached to the resolution, as well as any additional conditions added by the planning commission. So that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
02:00:55.23	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much, Matthew. That was a great question. comprehensive presentation. We probably have some questions, so I'll keep you there. Vice chair, any questions for staff? No. Commissioner Luxenberg, questions for staff.
02:01:07.52	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yes, I do. Thank you. First of all, thank you for your presentation. I also want to thank you for replacing the previously revised plans that had a revision date of 1-20-2026 and instead posting ones with the received date of 3-19-2026, which is the drawings. You mentioned the resolution, but we didn't have those drawings, so now we have them, so I appreciate that. First of all, I want to clarify your public notice a second. So you're saying in the resolution, but that we didn't have those drawings. So now we have them, so I appreciate that. First of all, I wanna clarify your public notice section. So you're saying in the slide, you, you, noticed all the neighbors and the story poll I saw. And then you, where did you post this on the site?
02:01:50.87	Matthew Mandich	The public notice was posted at the front of the site on a brick column with the address 15 Gordon written on it right at the right of way.
02:01:59.33	Jeffery Luxenberg	And you did that yourself?
02:02:00.62	Matthew Mandich	I did.
02:02:01.81	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay. So did you post it on the City Hall website?
02:02:05.81	Matthew Mandich	What?
02:02:06.14	Jeffery Luxenberg	the,
02:02:06.53	Matthew Mandich	you
02:02:06.55	Jeffery Luxenberg	notice.
02:02:06.72	Matthew Mandich	notice. The notice, uh, that is not something that I typically do. That's typically something that's performed by administrative staff.
02:02:13.97	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay. Did you post it in City Hall anywhere or whatever?
02:02:21.38	Matthew Mandich	The notice?
02:02:22.06	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yes.
02:02:22.63	Matthew Mandich	No, I did not.
02:02:23.66	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay, I went out to the site twice, and the second time I saw it, the only notice was on a truck across the street from the project. There was nothing on the site at all. That's just...
02:02:39.03	Matthew Mandich	I certainly did not post a notice on a truck, but, uh,
02:02:42.34	Jeffery Luxenberg	You posted it, so many movies.
02:02:44.52	Matthew Mandich	I have photos of the notice that I posted, by the way.
02:02:46.27	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay, somebody moved it, so it was not posted as a Monday on the BRIC column for some reason. I don't know why. We will leave you, but we do want to know. We'll ask that question to the applicant. Yeah. I do have a question for the city attorney. Attorney Rudin, if you're there.
02:02:52.69	Matthew Mandich	Thank you. We'll-
02:02:53.97	Michael LaMasana	that you managed to go
02:02:57.43	Fred Moore	I'm sorry.
02:02:57.51	Unknown	Thank you.
02:03:05.91	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
02:03:05.93	Fred Moore	Yeah, go ahead.
02:03:07.01	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay, so my understanding of 1082-020-A4B says that a notice has to be published in one newspaper, a general circulation in the City Hall 10 days before, or it has to be provided in three places within the boundaries of the city, including one public place in an area affected by the proceeding. Typically, we post this on the website for the City Hall, and I checked that 10 days before and it was not there, and I checked it two days before this hearing, it was not there. We have to do beyond just one question whether it was posted on site, but we have to do beyond just posting on the site. Isn't that correct?
02:03:51.02	Attorney Rudin	Yes.
02:03:52.30	Jeffery Luxenberg	And so therefore do we have to re-notice this hearing and have it again? Um,
02:04:02.65	Attorney Rudin	Yeah, potentially.
02:04:04.45	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay, thank you. Next question. Are the encroachment requests for 17 Gordon, is that all existing? This is just to legally do something that's already been built, so there's no changes whatsoever?
02:04:21.53	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, that's correct. All those improvements are existing.
02:04:23.98	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay. And I did not see a landscape plan. Isn't that part of our standard submittal requirements?
02:04:29.38	Matthew Mandich	There's no landscaping added to the project.
02:04:32.05	Jeffery Luxenberg	But there's no landscape plan. Isn't that a requirement of our application?
02:04:37.01	Matthew Mandich	not if the planner deems it unnecessary because no landscaping is being planted. The existing landscaping is shown on the site plan.
02:04:43.44	Jeffery Luxenberg	As I'll get in and I'll ask the applicant, I'm having trouble understanding where the landscaping is and how it affects privacy. So a landscape plan would have helped with that, but I'll ask those questions. So I'll hold the other questions regarding the landscaping for the applicant. I'll go back to the chair.
02:05:03.53	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Before we continue, let me just see if we can understand if we're going to continue with this hearing. From Attorney Rudin, if you have a moment to advise. Otherwise, we'll continue with our questions.
02:05:23.65	Matthew Mandich	So I'm, bit interested, I guess note somebody's here is, was not properly noticed and they didn't know the hearing was occurring.
02:05:32.09	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Say that one more time, Beth.
02:05:34.70	Matthew Mandich	were people not properly noticed and they didn't know the hearing was occurring? Because I think there are several people- Matthew, did we mail notice
02:05:34.73	Nastassya Saad	We were-
02:05:39.19	Attorney Rudin	Matthew, did we mail notice to
02:05:41.70	Matthew Mandich	the
02:05:41.98	Attorney Rudin	property owners within 300 feet.
02:05:44.54	Matthew Mandich	Yes.
02:05:46.53	Attorney Rudin	Okay, so the only issue is that notice was not properly posted.
02:05:51.74	Matthew Mandich	Where on site or city hall? What are we talking about?
02:05:54.36	Attorney Rudin	City Hall and three other places. Was notice published?
02:05:59.98	Matthew Mandich	The notice was sent out 300 feet mailers and posted on the site.
02:06:05.67	Attorney Rudin	Okay, but it was not published in a newspaper of general circulation, or was it published in three other locations?
02:06:11.47	Matthew Mandich	It was not. That is not typically been the practice. for design review projects. I mean, I just...
02:06:18.83	Jeffery Luxenberg	just other projects are at least put on the city website. Under the Community Development Party, you have the public notice section of the Community Development Department website.
02:06:29.70	Matthew Mandich	Yes, and the planners do not post on that website.
02:06:33.68	Nastassya Saad	So it's okay. It's okay. Let's give Attorney Roode in a moment because if we're not going to continue this hearing, then there's no point in engaging in a discussion. And I think this is just a note This needs to happen before the hearing. So next time anybody notices an issue with noticing, no pun intended, this is not the place to have the discussion.
02:06:56.61	Matthew Mandich	Thank you, Chair. Thank you.
02:06:57.14	Nastassya Saad	So let's give Attorney Roode in the time he needs. In fact, let's just take a two-minute recess
02:07:04.17	Andrew Junius	Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Before we move to the recess, to the city attorney,
02:07:05.03	Nastassya Saad	All right. Sure.
02:07:08.66	Andrew Junius	There isn't there is a government code section or is it a civil code section? There's a there's a state law that basically says, you know, irregularities in notice don't necessarily taint the decision, yeah.
02:07:20.88	Attorney Rudin	Yeah, it's 65093. The failure of any person or any to receive notice given pursuant to this title or pursuant to the procedure established by a charter of city shall not constitute grounds in any court to invalidate the action of a local agency for which notice was given. We have a similar provision as well in our city code. But yeah, let me, Let me look.
02:07:43.80	Nastassya Saad	It's 8.40. Let's take a five minute recess and I'm sorry to the public but let's just hang tight before we continue engaging in any discussion.
02:07:53.57	Attorney Rudin	Thank you.
02:12:54.87	Nastassya Saad	but our city staff is not present. So we're just going to give it a few more minutes and we'll await Attorney Rudin's meeting. final call here.
02:13:19.10	Attorney Rudin	Yeah, having looked into this, I think the conservative action taken here would be to Take public comment because this is on your agenda today. and then to re-notice this hearing and conduct it at the next planning commission meeting.
02:13:36.11	Nastassya Saad	Okay.
02:13:39.89	Nastassya Saad	We're going to give it just one minute. Assistant City Manager is about to walk in. Thank you. Just to catch you up, Assistant City Manager, to take the conservative approach, according to Attorney Rudin. We'll go ahead and take public comment, and then this hearing will be re-noticed. Thank you. With that, Thank you. I'd like to apologize to the public and to the applicant and to the neighbors on behalf of city staff and the planning commission. We're going to open it up for public comment. You're here and you waited so everybody will have Thank you. We'll give four minutes for public comment per person in the interest of being equitable, just would give like slightly longer public comment. We do, we have received written comment. I counted four, I believe staff has posted all the written public comment to the agenda already, but we'll go ahead and I'll have Assistant City Manager help facilitate and we can start with everybody that's in the room, which at this point, Attorney Rudin, does the applicant get to participate in public comment? as public comment or is there a restriction there because they are the applicant?
02:14:57.69	Attorney Rudin	Yeah, no, to be clear, what we are doing is we are going to re notice this hearing, we're not going to take any further action on this. The only reason we're taking public comment is that the brown act separately requires us to take public comment on the agenda.
02:15:11.02	Nastassya Saad	Correct. Correct.
02:15:11.96	Attorney Rudin	Correct.
02:15:12.70	Nastassya Saad	But does that include, we have the applicant in the room, I'm imagining, are they able to participate in the public portion public comment portion that we are going to have right now for the Brown Act.
02:15:24.99	Attorney Rudin	Sure, they can give their four minutes of public comment.
02:15:28.16	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Okay. With that, Assistant City Manager, can you help facilitate public comment here?
02:15:34.79	Assistant City Manager	Absolutely. I have no received speaker cards. Thank you. So I will call on folks based on raised hands. Any interested speakers, please raise your hand.
02:15:45.76	Nastassya Saad	This is going to be a time for anyone who would like to come to the podium.
02:15:47.97	Michael LaMasana	Thank you.
02:15:48.70	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Could you please state your name and address for the record? You'll have four minutes to speak.
02:15:53.36	Michael LaMasana	Thank you. Sure. Michael LaMasana from 20 Gordon Street. And contrary to the size, I was actually stepping up today to actually show support for the project proposed. I was fortunate enough to be involved along with some of the planning process along the way. I was well informed. I think the story polls themselves are pretty indicative of the process, but it sounds like you guys have some red tape to sift through. . I like the project. I live directly across the street. So looking at the project, I like that the massing stayed with basically what seemed to be a flat roof. I also like the deck portion of it not just being stacked up protruding out. They've incorporated that. I also like having there not being a carport anymore that's now a garage so I think it was very thoughtfully done I know these projects take a lot of money I'm a builder myself on the peninsula so I know how these processes go and i just felt compelled to um speak up today because i was a part of the project i felt a part of the project so there's no surprises to me and i liked everything they've done in curating something. I think it really suits to the neighborhood. It's not overbuilt at all in my opinion, but you guys are the rules enforcers, but as the neighbor directly across the street, I just felt very much a part of the project as well as liking all the things that were curated for me to look at basically every day, so. Um, That's it. Thank you.
02:17:32.26	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much.
02:17:32.97	Michael LaMasana	Thank you.
02:17:33.09	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:17:34.22	Assistant City Manager	Thank you very much for your comments. Looking to additional raised hands. Yes, sir. Gentlemen in the blue, button up. Oh, I was saying the light blue button up, but dark blue button up, you can go as well. Okay. Apologies. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have four minutes.
02:17:53.30	David Cooper	Thank you. We have two blue button ups, David Cooper, 17 Gordon Street. on the applicant. So thank you for your time tonight. I know it's been a long one and it looks like we have some technicalities to work through. I'm sure we will. My wife, Jennifer is here tonight. We've lived on Gordon Street for eight years. and we're committed members of this community. I serve as board chair on the Sausalito Sustainability Commission and my wife runs a medical practice at Schumacher Marina. Sausalito is not where we live, it's who we are. This project is about our future here. A personal context, we currently have a tenant at... 15 Gordon. We're at a point in our lives where we're making decisions about our future. We're either expanding this home to accommodate our tenants, growing family. They were recently married on Sunday. They're young. They love Sausalito. They've lived there for almost five years. we intend to occupy ourselves. and age in place here in Sausalito. the community we love and have invested in for eight years. Either way, it's about providing a real home for real people in this neighborhood. We've reached out to our neighbors before this hearing. I personally posted all the neighbors' doors with a note requesting them to call me, email me, come by, have a coffee. Let's talk about the project.
02:19:16.18	David Cooper	We've been transparent about this for the last eight months. We continue to be good neighbors because this street, this neighborhood, and this community matter deeply to us. I want the commission to understand that we gave up a lot in this design to be good neighbors and consider neighbors we chose a flat roof specifically to minimize the height to protect the views A pitch roof would have been easier, would have been less expensive. We sacrificed vaulted ceilings to keep the profiles low as possible. We did not propose an upper deck, which would have added to outdoor living space for our family. We wanted to keep the presence quiet. and compatible to our neighbors. Every one of these decisions was conscious sacrifice made out of genuine respect for the people around us. That is not the approach of someone who doesn't care about their neighborhood or their community. The roof line is below the grade at 804 Spring Street. Staff confirmed this. The flat roof was specifically designed not to rise above the lowest finished floor of that property. The bay view above the roof line remains open and intact. The code standard is to minimize obstruction, and we've done everything in our power to honor that standard. I serve this city. My wife serves this community through her practice every day. We've been on the street eight years, and we intend to be there for many more years to come. Whether this home is for our growing family of our tenants or whether it's for us to age in place, every development standard has been met. No variances are requested. Staff recommends approval after careful review. And we've made every reasonable decision as a concession to protect our neighbors. We are simply asking the same opportunity for every Sausalito homeowner to improve our home within the rules so our family can thrive in the community we love. We respectfully act the commission to approve this project. Thank you.
02:21:09.24	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much.
02:21:10.03	Assistant City Manager	Thank you.
02:21:10.15	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:21:10.17	Assistant City Manager	Thank you. Thank you very much. Looking for additional raised hands.
02:21:16.19	Assistant City Manager	Yes, sir.
02:21:21.58	Michael Kalish	Good evening, Commissioners. I prepared something on behalf of my mother who... It is in 804 Spring Street, Department A. Excuse me. That's the downstairs one. My name is Michael Kalish. I'm appearing tonight on behalf of my mother, Barbara Gordon, who's 80 years old and resides at 804 Spring Street, Unit A, the property immediately uphill and directly behind the proposed addition. She was unable to be here tonight in person. My mother's lived in Ada 4 Spring Street for over 10 years. She sits in her... home and loves her view of the bay and the boats in the harbor. At 80 years old, that view is not a luxury. It's her daily life. It's why she chose to spend her years here in Sausalito. We understand that people have a right to improve their homes. That is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether this particular project at this particular height in this location can meet the findings commission is required to make before it can approve it. We believe it cannot, and here's why. Number one. The story polls tell the story. My mother submitted photographs to this commission. Exhibit A, I haven't seen exhibit A shown. I did see the photos that were shared by earlier in the deck. That's very different from the view of an 80-year-old woman sitting in her sofa. where we together enjoy time together. So is there exhibit A or is the commission able to see that? Okay, great. Exhibit A shows the view from inside her first floor living room looking towards the bay. The story pole flags, the applicant's own flags representing the proposed roof line, are sitting directly in the middle of that view. Not at the edge, not partially. The view of the boats in the harbor, the charming characteristic boats that make Sausalito what it is, is completely blocked. Most afternoons I make my mother a copy a cup of coffee. And we sit together on that couch and we look at up the harbor. That photograph was taken from where we sit. And that is what the approval of this project looks like. It's not an abstract view corridor. but a window that two people looked through together. I live in the unit directly above my mother, and from upstairs, I can still see the water and the boats. From my mother's unit ground floor, the story pole is Um, Story pole flags blocked the harbor entirely. This is not a coincidence. It's just a precise illustration of where the roof line lands relative to a living space. All right, and second, my mother had 10 days to respond to eight months of professional preparation. The applicant first submitted these plans in July, 2025 and resubmitted in January, 2026. that professional architects, architectural support throughout. The polls went up March 7th. My mother was dealing with medical condition and contacted the commission as soon as she was able to, March 17th. She was grateful that the city's project manager was able to visit her home. though that visit took place yesterday, the day before this hearing. This applicant had, I'm almost done here, the applicant had eight months of professional preparation. My mother had 10 days. This is not a fair starting point for an 80-year-old resident whose home is directly in the path of the project, and we asked the commission to weigh that when considering the record before it. Sausalito is defined by the relationship with the Bay. People come here, people stay here, because of the bay and the boats in the harbor. The design review code exists precisely to protect that character. It requires you to find, affirmatively, that this project minimizes obstruction of primary views, provides adequate light, narrative adjacent properties, and does not overwhelm neighboring structures. The support signatures and attachment seven come from 20 Gordon Street, 21 Gordon Street, 38 Gordon Street, 727 Spring Street, 807 Spring Street. None of these properties. are directly behind the additions. Some are quite a distance way and not in some, not in line of sight of the addition. We respectfully submit these findings. cannot be made on this record. We're asking you to deny this application. And my mother, she's looked out at the harbor for over 10 years. She's lost some of her hearing, but she still has her eyesight. And we sit together and watch the votes. And we're asking you to help make sure that we can keep doing that over coffee.
02:25:09.12	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much.
02:25:11.45	Assistant City Manager	Thank you. Yes, sir. Please. Please say your name and address for the record. You'll have four minutes.
02:25:18.94	Andre Sedwards	Hi, commissioners, good evening. My name is Andre Sedwards. I live at 802 Spring next to Barbara Gordon, who's at 804. And when the story polls went up, Barbara said, come on over and have a look for yourself. And I did, I went there. and i realized it's not standing it's sitting that matters because you either sit in her dining room or you sit in the living room And the story pools do block some of the view, some of the water as well from that position. And I noticed that I also noticed that the story poles didn't seem to be level. It was really strange the way they put them up. It seemed like the Um, The ones that are closest to the water were a little higher than the ones closer to the building behind Barbara's building. And I was a little confused by that, so it's hard to tell. When the story pools went up, I went to my unit and to the bottom floor to see what kind of impact that would have. And it's minimal. It's mostly when you look left towards that way and there's trees. And then in the carport, it's a bigger issue, but it's the carport. It's just you can see a little bit to the left, but there's also trees there. Um, I will say when I look at the plans, I'm not an architect, but I noticed that the Second floor, unless I'm mistaken, had a nine foot ceiling. And I realized, you know, most buildings are eight feet. And I was curious as to why that was nine feet even higher, because if it was a little bit lower, it would have less of an impact on the on the building behind and Barbara Gordon's building. So I I just mentioned that as a possibility to to modify if it does go through at all. But I I I actually will, you know, I support Barbara Gordon's position on this. That's it. Thank you.
02:27:03.99	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much.
02:27:09.42	Nastassya Saad	Would anyone else in the chamber like to speak this evening? Assistant city manager, my computer is dead. Can you look to Zoom for me to see if we have anybody for public comment?
02:27:21.91	Assistant City Manager	Absolutely. I have one raised hand. We have Joe Slamovich. Joe, welcome. Four minutes to speak. Thank you.
02:27:27.17	Joe Slamovich	Thank you.
02:27:27.20	Nastassya Saad	Yeah.
02:27:27.46	Joe Slamovich	you Thank you. Can you hear me?
02:27:29.77	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:27:29.79	Joe Slamovich	Okay.
02:27:29.85	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:27:29.91	Joe Slamovich	Yeah.
02:27:30.07	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Yes, we can hear you.
02:27:31.83	Joe Slamovich	Great, great, great. Yeah, my email to Matthew outlines the most pressing concerns I have for this project. In the interest of time, I won't go over them, but I'm hopeful that during the next hearing, every concern I've raised in the email will be directly is addressed. You know, I looked over all the documentation and communications in the project file. And from what I could see a significant. effort was made to address the project's impacts on, for example, 17 Gordon, the proponent's other home. However, there appears to be little to no effort to mitigate or really even assess the impacts on 9 Gordon, our property, and I'm hoping the next hearing will fully address the issues I've raised. as well as those of others, um, Also, I think it's great the commissioners that came out to the site, but I kind of doubt that they walked up the steep driveway on the side of my house, entered the gate and was able to appreciate that story polls, which I agree with the other comments or the story polls do tell the whole story. So I invite you to do that if possible and I can easily allow access to that. for that effort. Finally, I just have to say, it's a little cavalier of staff to say that, You know, it really... Doesn't matter that another building is going to be, I'm paraphrasing, but invading our privacy because there's other buildings nearby that are above looking over potentially our property. The matter at hand is the building that's in front of us now and not existing properties around us. Um, Just as a matter of order, maybe a couple of hearings aren't in place to ask questions, I would hope there'd be an opportunity at the next hearing for comments from concern citizens. Is that the case. you. Can't answer that.
02:29:38.27	Nastassya Saad	There will be public comment at the next hearing as well.
02:29:41.63	Joe Slamovich	Okay, great. And I'll look forward to the next hearing. Thank you.
02:29:46.69	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much.
02:29:47.25	Assistant City Manager	out.
02:29:47.45	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:29:47.50	Assistant City Manager	you Anybody else? Looking to additional raised hands in the Zoom application chair. thing then.
02:29:55.62	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. So we'll close the public comment. Quite frankly, the next step is to close a public hearing. But I wanted to just say, we did receive the public comment. We have all read it. Just one general point. We were invited definitely by 804 Spring, Barbara Gordon, for the next hearing. If there are any invitations, we do try to make a practice to come visit. So we will look for those. Thank you very much for being here this evening. And I'm sorry for the hiccups, so we will look forward to seeing this later. Commissioner? Junius. Uh,
02:30:32.59	Andrew Junius	Yes, thank you. We do need a move to continue. What let's talk about dates.
02:30:38.20	Nastassya Saad	City, so staff, I'll have to look to you to see, I'm assuming you were ready to go this evening. I'm not sure if there'll be further changes, but assistant city manager, are you privy to a potential concept for our next hearing, which is on the 8th of April? And if that would be amenable for the applicant as well. Is that a discussion that we can have just to set a date ideally? for a date certain.
02:31:10.60	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, I think you'll need to discuss that with the applicant. I'm comfortable with any date.
02:31:14.06	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Okay, just for the record, the applicant is comfortable with our next hearing, which is April 8th. So we will move to approve with a date starting of April 8th. Okay. Is there a second? Thank you.
02:31:25.63	Assistant City Manager	and I think it's a good thing.
02:31:26.21	Nastassya Saad	Okay, let's make sure our microphones are on. Assistant City Manager, can you take roll for that please?
02:31:30.98	Assistant City Manager	Absolutely. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Merlot.
02:31:34.88	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:31:36.82	Jeffery Luxenberg	you
02:31:36.91	Assistant City Manager	you
02:31:36.97	Jeffery Luxenberg	you
02:31:37.02	Assistant City Manager	you
02:31:37.06	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yes.
02:31:37.88	Assistant City Manager	Commissioner Luxenberg. Cheers, Saad. Thank you.
02:31:40.60	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
02:31:40.89	Assistant City Manager	Thank you. Motion passes.
02:31:42.68	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. With that, we will adjourn.
02:31:58.79	Unknown	you

City Council Meeting - March 25, 2026

Meeting Summary

Meeting Transcript