Sausalito City Council Meeting

Meeting Transcript

Time	Speaker	Text
00:00:08.00	Nastassya Saad	I'd like to call to order the scheduled meeting for April 22nd of the Sausalito Planning Commission. Assistant City Manager.
00:00:17.16	Assistant City Manager	Thank you, Chair Saad, and good evening to you, Vice Chair Merlot, Commissioners, staff, members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. With that, I will call roll Commissioner Junius.
00:00:33.81	Andrew Junius	present.
00:00:34.17	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:00:34.52	Assistant City Manager	Commissioner Moore.
00:00:35.55	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
00:00:35.59	Jeffery Luxenberg	here.
00:00:36.33	Assistant City Manager	Commissioner Luxembourg.
00:00:37.76	Jeffery Luxenberg	Here.
00:00:38.20	Assistant City Manager	Thank you. Vice-Chair Merlot.
00:00:39.97	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:00:40.02	Assistant City Manager	and chair soft.
00:00:41.61	Nastassya Saad	Here.
00:00:42.32	Assistant City Manager	We have full quorum. I'll give it back to you, Cher.
00:00:44.51	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Item number two is the approval of the agenda.
00:00:48.98	Assistant City Manager	Thank you.
00:00:49.12	Jeffery Luxenberg	and we're going to have a
00:00:49.29	Assistant City Manager	So, Thank you. Bye.
00:00:50.72	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:00:50.76	Assistant City Manager	Thank you.
00:00:50.84	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:00:52.38	Assistant City Manager	Commissioner Juniance. Yes. Commissioner Moore.
00:00:55.04	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:00:55.06	Fred Moore	Yes.
00:00:55.89	Assistant City Manager	Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice Chair Merlot. Yes. Chair Saad? Yes. Motion passes.
00:01:02.64	Nastassya Saad	Item number three are for public comments on items that are not on this agenda. Assistant City Manager.
00:01:09.56	Assistant City Manager	Yes, this is the time for the commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker unless modified by the chair. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues, Mr. Matthew Mandich, this evening to my right. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you'll be called upon when it is your turn. And to raise your hand, if you're joining us from a phone, go ahead and press star nine. And of course, each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed. Thank you.
00:01:30.55	Jeffery Luxenberg	hand.
00:01:43.04	Assistant City Manager	Okay, Chair, so look into the chamber. I am seeing none in the chamber. Looking to the Zoom application, looking at Principal Planner Manage for the clarifications, seeing none from Principal Planner Manage. Back to you, Chair.
00:01:58.58	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. I assume I'm just going to open and close the... public comment for the public comment section. So we're going to move on to item number four. That's the approval of the Planning Commission minutes. We have one. Item 4A, these are from April 8th. Any discussion? Commissioner Luxenberg.
00:02:18.29	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, I wanted to correct the typo on page five, line three. It should read 4-1. It reads 4-0. So if we could correct that typo.
00:02:32.09	Fred Moore	Okay. Let's make that note. One other correction is on page one. It says approval of the agendas, Commissioner Luxembourg moved to Commissioner Luxembourg second the motion. I think it was Commissioner Junius second the motion. Thank you for the catches.
00:02:48.24	Nastassya Saad	Okay, take those down. Any other discussion? Is there a motion?
00:02:53.54	Andrew Junius	so moved with the adjustments just mentioned.
00:02:56.58	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:02:57.93	David Marlatt	and it's not.
00:02:58.47	Nastassya Saad	Assistant City Manager.
00:02:59.73	Assistant City Manager	Commissioner Junius. Yes, Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Vice Chair Merlant. Yes. Cheers, son.
00:03:07.44	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
00:03:08.14	Assistant City Manager	Motion passes.
00:03:09.03	Nastassya Saad	Okay, item number five are communications. I'll turn it over to you for staff communications, please.
00:03:15.61	Assistant City Manager	Thank you very much, Chair. I'm going to pass the mic to Principal Planner Mandich regarding a communication item related to Commissioner Trainings. Good evening, commissioners.
00:03:26.94	Matthew Mandich	Yes, I do have an update for you on the planning commissioner training. Hopefully you guys all got that email I sent out a while ago with Doodle Pool. I've heard from the county, and right now June 1st seems to be the date that is in the lead. They have not given a full confirmation on whether or not there'll be the date yet, but I did hear that that is definitely the one with the most, so I would probably count on that. And then just for a little bit, I have a rough agenda that I just got before the meeting for this. So I'll make sure to pass that on to all commissioners following the meeting, but it will run from about 2pm to 8pm. And there is a dinner provided as well and networking opportunities. And I think it's about six 45 minute sessions on different topics.
00:04:10.59	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. That's very helpful. if it is a recorded set. session as well.
00:04:17.43	Matthew Mandich	I can check on that.
00:04:18.32	Nastassya Saad	That would be great.
00:04:18.96	Matthew Mandich	I Off the top of my head, I don't believe so, but I will get confirmation.
00:04:25.05	Nastassya Saad	Okay, we would appreciate that. We'll take the agenda whenever you have it. Does anyone have any questions for Principal Planner Manage on the mandatory training?
00:04:26.74	Matthew Mandich	Absolutely.
00:04:33.46	David Marlatt	Um, and then, Yeah, the definition of mandatory, because I'll be traveling on that day.
00:04:38.77	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, understood. I'll see if there's a way to get the recorded version or I'll talk to the county about that and see. Yeah.
00:04:44.93	David Marlatt	Thank you very much.
00:04:44.95	Matthew Mandich	Thank you very much. How we deal with anyone with conflicts and things like that.
00:04:47.87	Fred Moore	Perfect. Thank you very much. Commissioner Moore. I forget. I forget the location.
00:04:53.05	Matthew Mandich	That's another one I'll check on. I believe it's the Marine County offices.
00:04:57.88	Nastassya Saad	I believe it's in Santa Fe, but I'm sure the agenda and the email will
00:05:01.50	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, I'll be sent that over to you after the meet or tomorrow, probably. And then I'll ask some questions of our contact there, Jillian Zeiger. She's the county. So she'll have all the information. But thanks for those. But yeah, I believe it is at the county offices in San Rafael.
00:05:01.54	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. We'll be certain.
00:05:14.50	Nastassya Saad	I think so too. Okay, wonderful. Thank you very much. ACM, any other... Updates.
00:05:19.58	Assistant City Manager	Thank you for the opportunity. I do have another communication item this evening. This is related to the implementation of Program 8 and the development of the MLK and Corpyard. We released that RFP with the mandatory pre-proposal meeting for that RFP occurring on 4-20, so this Monday. I am pleased to report that we had 19 attendees at that pre-proposal meeting, consisting of architects, developers, affordable housing experts, and the like, other industry members. So we are moving forward. It was possible if nobody attended that meeting, we would have known right then that we would have needed to go back to the drawing board with the RFP. So happy to report positive attendance at that meeting. And we will continue to respond to questions received from that group and any others, which we will be posting to that web page on May 16th, the RFP web page. And that will also be shown as an addendum to the RFP. So that's my update. We're moving forward. and as we're talking about, posting to that webpage on May 16th, the RFP webpage that will also be shown as an addendum to the RFP. So that's my update. We're moving forward. And as a reminder, the RFP submittal period closes at the end of May. Thank you.
00:06:37.03	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Does anybody from the commission, Commissioner Luxembourg, any communication items?
00:06:44.07	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, I just want to note that it's the time of year for review of the capital improvement program. We do that yearly. I'd like to ask the chair to work with the staff to agendize that for a planning commission review in May. This presentation should provide an update of the current year plan and project descriptions and lists for this coming year's plan. So the planning Commission can determine consistency with the general plan. Given the complexity of the CIP, it would be helpful to get the project descriptions and the CIP list maybe a little ahead of Thursday before a Wednesday meeting, maybe a week in advance, if staff could do that. So if we could make that happen, that would be great.
00:07:24.45	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much for this suggestion. And I believe we will have Kevin McGowan, DPW director, here in May. But we can confirm with assistant city manager.
00:07:34.58	Assistant City Manager	Thank you, Chair. As a completely separate communication item, the City Council approved via a receive and file the draft CIP. It was brought forward by Director Kevin McGowan. What I would direct the Planning Commission to do if they have an interest in reviewing substance related to the CIP is to check out that Council agenda item that was shown to the Council yesterday evening. And I really appreciate the comment from Commissioner Luxenberg. We do look forward to bringing that item forward. We have discussed... agenda item that was shown to the council yesterday evening. And I really appreciate the comment from Commissioner Luxenberg. We do look forward to bringing that item forward. I have discussed this with Director McGowan, and I'll work with chair and vice chair as to specific dates.
00:08:11.19	Jeffery Luxenberg	Excellent. Thank you. Can I just ask attorney Rudin, isn't that a little backwards pursuant to state statute? Shouldn't we be reviewing that before the council?
00:08:22.23	Assistant City Manager	It was just a receive and file commissioner.
00:08:24.64	Unknown	Look.
00:08:25.30	Assistant City Manager	Yeah, the formal approval of the CIP will come following the discussion before the Planning Commission. And apologies, Attorney Rudin, if I spoke before you.
00:08:39.85	Mary Wagner	I'm having some issues with my camera, but, um, Yeah, the short of it is that annually the planning commission is supposed to review and determine consistency of the CIP with the general plan. That's a requirement under state planning and zoning law. I don't see any reason why the council can't shape what the projects are that are going before the Planning Commission as part of the CIP.
00:09:08.60	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:09:10.11	Nastassya Saad	Okay, that makes sense. Thank you, ACM. Are there any other communications? I have none either. Okay, we will open communications up for public comment. And unless there's anyone on the Zoom application, okay, gonna close that for public comment. We're now gonna move on to our study session. This is item six. Study session this evening on the draft ordinance amendments to our municipal code 10.52, 10.5458, and 60. We have principal planner Matthew Manich, who has, here to help us out with the work from the working group. Thank you.
00:10:04.61	Matthew Mandich	Good to go. All right. Thank you very much. Yeah. So this is just a brief presentation kind of outlining what was in the staff report, some key points from the red lines just to get us started here. And then I think, you know, it'll be hopefully a productive conversation amongst commissioners and staff about how we can continue to keep the ball rolling on these and get some feedback on, you know, what we want to keep augment or perhaps toss. So next slide, please.
00:10:06.37	Jeffery Luxenberg	Sure.
00:10:35.14	Matthew Mandich	So yeah, request tonight is that, you know, the planning commission receive and file a presentation on proposed ordinance amendments. These are to use chapters 1052, which is zoning permits, chapters 1054, design review procedures, 1058, minor use permits, and 1060, conditional use permits. Review of the draft ordinance amendments prepared by staff and members of the planning commission. We'd like your feedback on those and, you know, some feedback on next steps as well. Next slide, please. So the PC working group formed in January of this year, 2026, to work with staff on updating the municipal code to accomplish the following goals. And this is just directly from the staff report here. So to streamline and clarify development procedures. So the city would like to replace outdated, unclear and or contradictory sections of the municipal code with predictable and transparent processes known by both staff and the applicant to reduce timelines and costs associated with development applications and use permits. We'd like to align the municipal code with new state laws. As you're all very aware, we've had a number of new state housing laws and our municipal code should reference and comply with those. We need to update our code to align with new state laws and housing mandates to mitigate legal risks and ensure the municipal code remains enforceable and consistent with broader statutory requirements. Finally, we believe that these amendments will also help improve economic development opportunities in the city can foster a more business friendly environment that attracts new private investment, real estate development and businesses to the city. In turn, this can create new jobs, increase tax revenues and allow the city to improve its overall fiscal resiliency. So next slide, please. Um, study sessions we've already had, we had one preliminary study session, March 11th on kind of this approach that we're bringing forward. We also had this diet, the sign ordinance study session as well, but that's kind of a separate, um, thing. That's not really what the PC working group is working on. We're more looking with. this group to attack specific parts of the code, specifically starting with division four, which is the permit procedures, which is where all these sections came from today and where we'd like to continue working on until moving into division three. And then also looking at ordinances outside of title 10, such as the trees ordinance in 11, 12, the undergrounding ordinance and some other things in the right of way and such in 17. So yeah, there's a number of things we want to look at and we want to get planning, um, commission, you know, review and ultimately recommendation of the city council. However, today we're just going to really be. doing a study session, talking about the different red lines that have been proposed. Um, hopefully doing a follow on study session with some additional, um, chapters from this division four, and then ultimately moving that forward to a PC recommendation to the council. Next slide, please. So some of the proposed changes we'll be talking about today, specifically the zoning permit section, 1052. We really want to update the applicability section, as this is really vague and very difficult right now for especially new staff members and applicants to understand when a zoning permit is required, what work requires a zoning permit. There's a proposed list that I've added in to the ordinance amendment. This was taken from an internal CDD memo that staff have kind of been working off of for the last several years. However, this list can definitely be edited, refined, you know, taken down, expanded, a number of different things that we can do is just kind of a starting point to, you know, give you guys a little bit of oversight over, you know, the internal list that we have for when when zoning permits are generally required this will provide much needed clarity for both applicant and staff as already mentioned and the additional addition to this section was our requirements for the posting of an approved zoning permit and the appeal process for that approved zoning permit as well these were previously found in our appeals section so now they've been moved um to 1052. um does that review permits this will will probably be the one that we spend the most time discussing tonight i would imagine um the application And so now they've been moved to 1052. Design review permits. This will probably be the one that we spend the most time discussing tonight, I would imagine. The applicability section, again, needs to be updated to comply with state law. We need to address the sites in the housing element, other streamlined approvals related to SB9 and ministerial approvals, SB35. We also want to look at a number of the administrative design review and design review triggers that are in the code and perhaps revise or remove some of those triggers or put them or downgrade them to potentially being a zoning permit. And then one of the big issues that we are going to discuss tonight is the potential removal of heightened design review and the deletion of some of those duplicative findings. For the use permits, pretty simple, minor use permits and conditional use permits. The chapters read almost identically. They all have the same findings. But something that staff is looking at in particular is to extend the expiration of these permits before the activation of use. So for example, right now, if you don't get a building permit prior to one year after receiving a conditional use permit or minor use permit, that original approval expires. So we'd like that to maybe move out to potentially two years, like we have for design review also in 1050, which is a separate section of our land use procedures. These permits lapse a minor use permit and a conditional conditional use permit once the use is deactivated for six months. That's something else we'd like to extend and put in these sections because right now, if you have, for example, let's just use Divino as an example here. That restaurant recently went out of business. Within six months, if no one comes in with a specific permit or TIs or something like that and picks up that use, that use will expire. And if someone else wants to put a restaurant in there, they don't have to go all the way back through the conditional use permit process again. Whereas typically these uses, these conditional use permits will run with the land and have a longer period before they lap. So that's something we wanted to discuss and happy to get city attorney's feedback on that when that comes up as well too. Next slide, please. Yeah, so I think we covered these a little bit already. I mean, next steps, we'd like to bring additional chapters from Division 4 forward to kind of wrap up a total omnibus code zoning amendment with Division 4, which is our permit procedures. So in addition, that would include 1050, our land use permit procedures, 1056 encroachment agreements, 1062 non-conforming uses and structures, 1064 lot line adjustments, and 1068 variances. All of these chapters have a number of... let's say things that we want to look at refine update edit clarify etc um so i think the ultimate goal is here to have a study session on those in the upcoming uh weeks and months here and then bring forward a full-on um division four omnibus code amendment for pc recommendation to the city council and of course we'd also like to continue working with the working group on these other chapters specifically trees, undergrounding, a number of other things that we've talked about a little bit in our first study session on March 11th. So I think there's obviously a lot of ground to till here with the municipal code. And I think starting in Division 4 is a great place because this is our permit procedures. This is what affects staff's life and applicants life on a daily basis. These are things we deal with constantly. I think moving on to division three, which deals more with our general development standards, those can also be a little bit more difficult, a little bit more political. So I think we'll save that for, you know, a next cut and next round. But this division four one, I think it have a really direct impact on helping applicants and staff and the city process permits quicker, uh, with more clarity and more transparency and something that we can act upon, I think in a relatively, um, efficient and expedient manner. So, um, that wraps up my presentation. I think at this point, since I, we're going to probably have more of a discussion, there's gonna be discussion on the dais. I'm just going to go take a seat over there, have the red lines in front of me, and then we can hopefully have a productive conversation and have it answer any questions you might have right in this minute. Um, but if not, we can just save it for. when we have a longer discussion.
00:18:26.49	Nastassya Saad	Sure. Are there any high level questions? Any high level questions? Happy to take those.
00:18:28.41	Matthew Mandich	Any high level questions? Once we're getting the nitty gritty, I think it's better to have the red lines. Absolutely.
00:18:32.89	Nastassya Saad	Absolutely. OK, I think you can.
00:18:34.93	Matthew Mandich	Is that fine? Do you guys have any? High level big questions about the presentation next steps. Okay.
00:18:40.09	Nastassya Saad	I don't think so. Thank you very much. Thank you, Matthew. We appreciate it. And a big, big thank you to the working group because this is a, it's a big undertaking. And I know it's a lot of tedious work. So I just want to say thank you very, very much to both of you, Commissioner Junius and Vice Chair. I think it makes most sense to go ahead and just take these in order of the attachments. I just want to note, we did have one public comment that is on the record from Safiya Collier, and so that is available and posted to the agenda. But otherwise... Sorry? No? Okay. So the first one will be chapter 5.2 for the zoning permits. At this point, we have red line versions. I suppose I might lean on our working group members to maybe go ahead and, vice chair, if you would like to kick us off. with some of the thought process and any of the specific red lines. This one isn't too heavy, so if you want to take your time to just, we can go through them and have general discussion. I'll go ahead and take some notes.
00:19:46.34	David Marlatt	Oh, sure. Thank you, Chair. And I always say that for the zoning permit section, The lion's share of the work was really Matthew. and responding to, you know, the, as you've been saying, interaction with the public and the staff and clarity. So a lot of this is really just about clarity, not actually changing anything from the way it should be, but making it clearer. Saying a zoning permit is a prerequisite to a building permit and not a permit to build seems obvious. It's not always. So just kind of get it out there. The comments in blue were Matthew's contributions, which I generally agree to as a couple, as we get into the discussion a couple, David Myers, You know, wordsmithing suggestions I have, but, but I think most of this was just about clarity and avoiding, you know, confusion and sometimes even conflict with applicants when they don't understand when a zoning permit is required.
00:20:44.17	Nastassya Saad	So maybe we can also... do this a little bit how we did our former study session of like warm, hot, cold, if there's anything that stands out where there's a major disagreement. But looking at that first page between 10.52.010, are there any immediate comments around changing the... um, update for the purpose or any of the applicability, Commissioner Luxembourg.
00:21:16.29	Jeffery Luxenberg	I have a question on applicability. I guess this is for Attorney Rudin.
00:21:16.64	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:21:21.59	Jeffery Luxenberg	So on the first page, on the first page there, on the bottom right, the last sentence says, significant demolition of interior walls require planning review to determine if demolition is substantial. It seems like a circular statement, and I'm not sure the difference between significant or substantial. And Attorney Rudin, should we reword that? That doesn't quite seem to make sense.
00:21:48.37	Mary Wagner	Yes, you probably should. I'll just note initially that these red lines were not provided to my office for legal review prior to going before the Planning Commission, so I have not had an opportunity to weigh in on any of these proposed revisions or discuss them with staff.
00:22:07.50	Nastassya Saad	That's okay. That's,
00:22:07.74	Mary Wagner	Okay.
00:22:11.60	Nastassya Saad	Well, then we'll have to do this here. I mean, you know what, then? As it is a study session, Attorney Rudin will go ahead and take any notes. that we're discussing at least stands out to you. If you could kindly flag it to us.
00:22:28.88	Mary Wagner	Yeah, and I will raise some concerns about some of the provisions dealing with Chapter 1054. I'm not seeing any major legal concerns other than questions about ambiguity, as I've been noted by Uh, the commissioner just now, and which will need to be addressed during drafting of the actual ordinance. But at this point, I don't have any concerns about The city clarifying situations where zoning permit is required or not required, and I don't have any issues with additional additional language stating that a zoning permit is a prerequisite to issuance of a building permit and not a substitute for it. That actually is something that has come up for the city and certainly I think would be a helpful change in the zoning code.
00:23:21.75	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Thank you for the feedback. So we can just note then at least the comment from Commissioner Luxembourg between Um, Thank you.
00:23:34.88	Andrew Junius	Make a comment.
00:23:35.37	Nastassya Saad	Absolutely.
00:23:35.39	Andrew Junius	I'm sorry. So that's a very interesting issue that you just pointed out, Commissioner Luxembourg. And I'm I'm curious. I probably should know the answer to this question because I faced it many times, but I've never never quite understood the policy. What is the policy behind regulating the gutting of a home and crossing a threshold where Somehow the building is still standing, but now it's a demolition. I've never understood why any city would care what somebody does from a planning standpoint on the inside of their home in terms of location, a wall, sizes of rooms, numbers of bathrooms. Is there any policy? I mean. Yeah.
00:24:16.41	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
00:24:16.43	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
00:24:16.53	Matthew Mandich	Bye.
00:24:16.56	Andrew Junius	I'll just joke.
00:24:17.02	Matthew Mandich	Absolutely.
00:24:17.07	Andrew Junius	I appreciate that.
00:24:17.73	Matthew Mandich	Again, as I mentioned before, this list is an internal CDD memo that I copied and pasted into here. This is a list that staff has been working off that's been circulated since 2020, I believe, is when it was created. So I didn't want to take a lot of liberties in starting to delete. The whole point was to have a discussion about some of these things. And I personally, you know, and from a planning perspective, don't think that all of
00:24:17.74	Andrew Junius	I'm not.
00:24:42.85	Matthew Mandich	these things are needed that a zoning permit should be triggering these things i believe that the zoning permit should really be reserved for when a zoning check is required by a planner so anything that's interior for example is not going to require you know a zoning permit whether that be you know bathroom remodels kitchen remodels i mean these are pretty standard almost practically over-the-counter building permits so they should not require planning commission or planning excuse me um and i think you know certain things for example um installation of new electrical panels like does that require a zone do we need planning review on that potentially i mean that's a question for us to discuss like maybe just to check to see if it's but we can we can also planning reviews building permits you know so if we see the electrical panels being installed over a property line or in a right-of-way or something like that, then we would flag that as part of the building permit review. I'm not necessarily sure that we need an additional level of review for a zoning permit to then be approved, posted on the property, subject to appeal for an electrical or a generator. However, when those come in as a building permit, planning can absolutely review those and see, is a generator located setback okay well that's an issue you know what i mean so at that point yes i think other things that come up on here you know i don't have a problem with having zoning permits for new windows or skylights or new new openings in a structure i think that those do sometimes cause you know friction between property owners and if there's an issue of privacy or something that comes up, that can then the zoning permit process allows for an appeal or for engagement on those things. So I think when we're cutting new holes and things like that into a structure, those should require a zoning permit. However, when we're doing things like changing siding, changing a railing from wood to glass, I mean, what zoning are we looking at here to make that decision? You know, I mean, that's, that's just an approval. And, you know, all we're doing with the zoning permit process at that point is opening that approval for an appeal. And if that appeal goes to the planning...
00:26:41.20	Unknown	Thank you.
00:26:41.65	Matthew Mandich	commission what are the planning commission going to hang their hat on for whether they decide this railing should be wood or glass you know so i mean i think those are types of things that can be done with building permits that have a planning review on them but that don't necessarily require the extra step of having a zoning permit the city's practice has been to require zoning permits for what you see on this list and that's something that we've been carrying forward we have been requiring zoning permits for new siding and things like that Do I think that's something we should be doing? Not necessarily. And that's something I want to get feedback from the commission on too, to see if they agree. And if we all agree on what does require a zoning permit and what doesn't, I'd love to get that codified so we can then point to applicants like, these are the things that are going to require a zoning permit. These are things that are not going to require a zoning permit. Just go directly to building. Right now, it's very much a gray area. It's very much at the discretion of planners. And it makes it makes it hard for both applicants and especially new staff to understand when is a donning permit required? When do I have to go through this process? There's an additional fee. There's an additional review process that occurs, plan sets that need to be produced. So, you know, it adds additional cost and time onto small projects, which we would love to streamline. So very keen. I have not married to any of these things on this list. In fact, I would love to make this list shorter and very much more in line with what requires a zoning check. You know, where are we looking for things that we could look to the code and say we're adding coverage, we're adding impervious surface, we're adding, you know, four square feet of floor area. You know, those are things that are going to require a zoning permit. Does a re-roof require a zoning permit? No, it shouldn't. I mean, but right now, if you're changing the material from, let's say, you know, shingle to terracotta or whatever, that's going to require a zoning permit. However, if we leave it the same, it doesn't. So that's just in the internal memo and you can see some of that there. Again, open to discussion on these. Would love to get feedback from the commissioners, too, on their views and then, you know, bring something forward that we all are on the same page on.
00:28:43.81	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, that's really helpful, Matthew. Thank you. Did you kind of follow on? No, I,
00:28:49.38	Andrew Junius	No, I'm so supportive of staff on this. The list should frankly be as short as possible. Again, the part that Planner Mandich mentioned I think gets lost in the weeds here is every time you have a permit process that the applicant has to fill out forms, provide plans. It's just, we just have to do a better job in getting to the real issues. I mean, for me, it could be a really short list, right? Is the building getting any bigger? Is the use changing? But after that, the issues become so nuanced and strange, in my opinion, things like impervious surfaces and, you know, my God. But, you know, the zoning code itself should be pretty straightforward. You trip into it when you change the use or you make the building bigger. I don't know. After that, it starts to get a little too crazy for me.
00:29:38.00	Mary Wagner	And if I may interject here slightly, I think part of this discussion may be guided a little bit by the process for approval for a zoning permit. If you look at 1050-2040, which is not being proposed for change, it provides the CDD is going to evaluate the proposed use and check for compliance with all applicable provisions of this title and other applicable ordinances and laws. If the proposal complies with all applicable provisions of this title and all applicable regulations, then CDD shall issue the permit. So this is not a discretionary decision. It is solely to determine whether or not other permit requirements are triggered and whether the proposed use or proposed project violates a provision of the municipal contract. of. So with regards to the list of projects that are being proposed by staff, Had they consulted with the legal department over their proposed list of projects, they may have gotten a slightly different answer, more in alignment with 1052.040.
00:30:46.22	Andrew Junius	I appreciate that. But I also think the staff's approach here is fine with me for a study session. I love the idea that we are looking at the internal staff. and trying to make sense of it and trying to give guidance going forward and we'll get the legalities right. But you know, the city attorney's comment about ministerial approvals and that that's kind of the essence of a ministerial approval. We hear about that a lot with, you know, big housing projects now, but this is the basic essence. If you can check all the boxes on a simple building permit, you have an absolute legal right to get it. And the staff really has no discretion to say no. It is kind of interesting though, but I do, I'm curious from the staff's perspective, So, you know, I was being a little cheeky there about use and building size. But once you pass that, I think the only thing that really starts to, you know, complicate things would be there's so many structures in town that are nonconforming, right? So the minute you try to decide whether the, you know, what's what's happening there is conforms with the code. Then you get into that nonconforming kind of gray area, which is a totally different chapter of the, you know. So anyway, it just gets more complicated by the minute. But simplifying this is certainly a goal we should be after.
00:31:56.17	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Commissioner Moore, did you have any comments on that section or any feedback?
00:32:01.33	Fred Moore	Sure, I definitely appreciate Planner Manja's idea of simplifying this. And I agree with your analysis. I always consider a zoning permit when you're dealing with setbacks, lock coverage, parking, you know, change of use, et cetera. And then I'm So a lot of these things that are right now zoning premier pride, I would be jettisoning them right out of the right out of the table right away. But I'm trying to. kind of put this in the context of 105020 for the, for zoning applications. And it says a zoning permit required, a zoning permit shall be required prior to the commencement of a new changed or expanded use and, or prior to the issuance of a building permit consistent with chapter 1052. So it kind of puts us back to 1052. Um, So I think the list of the table I don't know if there was some legal rationale with the memo that you were looking at, but for example, skylights. I'm wondering how skylights would impact zoning unless you say it affects the design or the change of the roof or putting a generator or enlarging the windows that exist or the door openings. I mean, if I read this correctly, it would be if I'm changing my entrance door from 32 inches to a 42 inch door, I need a zoning permit, which seems absurd. third. that that would be an extra step I have to go through because I've now changed my door opening. Same thing with the change of the siding. If I'm going from stucco to siding, unless we're saying that goes back to a design, that we're changing the design of the building, which requires a zoning permit under some other approval. So I'm not sure how we go about installation of new exterior lighting. I can see that. The re-roofing, I agree with you. I don't know why I would have to get a zoning permit to re-roof my project unless we're hanging all these changes on a design change. And if a design change requires a zoning permit, then maybe we need to go back and look at what we classify as a design change so that some of these minor design changes don't go through the whole process of zoning. It just seems like a strange thing for a zoning permit to impact if I have stucco or siding on my house. I'm going to go.
00:34:30.66	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, no, I just to jump in, I fully agree. And I think, There is a long history and practice in the city of issuing zoning permits for any design change in any exterior change. And this has been going on for a very long time, and it doesn't necessarily match with what's in the code. Um, But there's a longstanding practice of it here that basically anytime you change anything exterior in your home, you need a zoning permit, really what that in my understanding, is about is to allow for an appeal process and a neighbor to weigh in on this if they don't like that change. That's kind of the way that I've seen this used in my several years here now in Sausalito. And I don't necessarily think that's the right use of the zoning permit. However, that is historically and practically how it's been used here for many years now. And so that's kind of what we're trying to get at with this change. And, you know, the section that Sergio brought up is very much about a use. It doesn't really have to do with structures or anything like that. So yeah, that can certainly be updated as well. So yeah, whether or not, I think there's a, there's a level of this, the use of this zoning permit to kind of get at things that design review gets at a little bit, which is, you know, the skylight. So putting a hole in a roof, lights going to come out of it. Is this going to affect someone's a blown up the slopes, privacy or light pollution or something like that. So it's like a staff's version of a design review in a way of like, a sense of like, you know, we're going to issue the zoning permit. If people don't like it, then they can appeal it. So it's really not a ministerial permit. It's more of an administrative permit is how it works. It's definitely subject to appeal and it says conspicuously on the the approval that, you know, an appeal must be filed within 10 days and all that. And that's these have been used here habitually in the city for these types of things. So I think now is the time to to, you know, either true up the zoning code with the practice or change the practice to match the zoning code and probably a little bit of both.
00:36:32.62	David Marlatt	Thank you. So I guess what occurs to me, I generally Thank you. sympathize with all the comments up here, but what occurs to me is that these two lists, the permit required and not required, with some wordsmithing and some refinement, are really there mostly as informational lists for the public or maybe the applicants. So as Attorney Rudin And it's mentioned the requirements, the triggers for the zoning permit are pretty clear. and could be minimal. And I'm wondering if these lists don't belong actually in a kind of an information sheet to be published by the department rather than hard-baked. into the law because I understand that the law couldn't be simpler, but in fact, Nobody gets it. Everyone's going to come in. Well, can I do this? Can I do that? Can I put in a skylight? What if my skylight increases the height of my building by two feet? Oh, he didn't say that. So there's all, I mean, there will be exceptions. ...everything. And I'm not sure that we should try to capture that in the code itself. but I'm a big fan, San Francisco does this pretty well, of information sheets ad infinitum. And which could be changed over time and don't require planning commission as per your experience five people came in with generators in their side yard that violate the noise ordinances it on the information sheet, say if you come in with this thing, we're going to give you require a zoning permit. So that's what would be my suggestion. Um, Otherwise, small kind of things. It kind of goes hand in hand with what I just said. that, some language introducing this section. saying that the list shall include but not limited to So it doesn't feel like it's exhaustive. And I'm-
00:38:11.12	Mary Wagner	And I will agree with those comments. I think that those are a very good idea because it is difficult to write laws in a manner that are exhaustive. um,
00:38:21.86	David Marlatt	Yeah, but informational sheets are a service to the public, I think, and to staff as well. The only other small comment I add in there last one on the zoning permit required any project that is less than thresholds identified in administrative design review procedures. requires a zoning permit, then that would also capture everything that doesn't require a zoning permit. because anything that doesn't require a zoning permit meet the threshold. called administrative design. So it's just a wordsmithing thing. But that would be my suggestion is if we think about this as an information sheet.
00:38:52.66	Andrew Junius	Yeah, just that's... agree that they can be helpful. In some respects, now we're starting to go in a circle, right? you know, what we're looking at here is apparently an internal piece of guidance that the staff has been using that's that the public really doesn't see. We can just turn that into an information sheet and accomplish that goal. But I mean, I think the job of the code is to try to, you know, clarify to the extent possible what the real rule is and where the you know kind of on a binary thing what's in and out and the staff's always going to have to interpret there's always going to be some weird situation that comes up or something you know that we decided not to put in that the staff's going to still have to deal with and maybe an information sheet would be great but i i do think that we should there's a lot of them here that we could just be easily cleared cleared up Thank you.
00:39:43.10	David Marlatt	Right. But one example, for example, I've mentioned skylights. Skylights themselves shouldn't necessarily, in my opinion, trigger a zoning permit, but things that changed the height of the building, 2. And depending on where the skylight is, the height of the curve, it may or may not affect Thank you.
00:39:58.10	Unknown	uh,
00:39:58.41	David Marlatt	height of the building. So the section should say anything that affects height of building or these sections. And then staff will be clever enough to put in the information sheet, you know, skylights that affect the height of the building, attention, you know, those who require zoning permits. So people don't come in naively. with things that It's not the skylight itself. It's the potential to impact the height of a building. Because unfortunately, which is another, I know that, yeah, that, that, that, that,
00:40:22.20	Andrew Junius	I know, but that raises a whole other issue. That will be the source of the word.
00:40:25.58	David Marlatt	That'll be the cause of a future study session.
00:40:27.55	Andrew Junius	And like, how could I skylight possibly?
00:40:30.03	Matthew Mandich	raise the height of the building.
00:40:30.81	David Marlatt	That will be for another study session, I can promise. But that's just one example.
00:40:35.21	Matthew Mandich	I mean, there's also a trigger in design review for when you change the height of a building that's going to surpass a zoning permit though. Yeah. I mean, it's an interesting discussion, um, for sure. I mean, I've been back and forth with a number of local architects about the issue of skylights changing the building height and them working very hard to recess skylights more so to not have a box protruding, you know, above a roof line, you know, so, um.
00:40:35.23	David Marlatt	Thank you.
00:40:38.25	David Marlatt	a building that's Yeah. So,
00:41:00.83	Matthew Mandich	And, you know, because they know that that's going to trigger a design review. And they don't want to do that. So, yeah, I mean, that's another discussion, I think, for when we get into the design review chapter about how we want it. Right now, it's like, In just to pause this and talk about that design review, because it was brought up. I mean, it's a change in any building height and we should probably be defining that more of like what that is a structural change in building height perhaps, or, you know, raises the maximum height of the building. You know, so I think there's a discussion to be had there as well. But yeah, I think, you know, we need, we really do need to clarify when is, and make it very clear to the public and to future staff, when is a zoning permit required and when is it not? I think that's really the key. And this was just the conversation starter. And so I think, you know, it's done the job of that and I'd love to get some, yeah, where the feedback is on far as like, how do we, how do we clarify and move it forward? So we have a you know, a code that we're comfortable with and we all understand and that applicants can understand too.
00:41:58.84	Nastassya Saad	Absolutely, Commissioner. Luxembourg, so I'm just taking notes as we go. So I'm hearing a little bit of a split between this table at the moment. Where do you fall on the concept and some of the text that's within there?
00:42:12.04	Jeffery Luxenberg	Well, first of all, per Commissioner Junius' comment, most of the things in the required either are enlarging the building or changing the use. So I have no real issue with the ones on the left. I do question why somebody can't change from wood to stucco. I don't know why that would trigger a zoning permit. But I do think that clarification is helpful to the public. I think that, like Commissioner and Vice Chair Marlotz suggesting that this be an internal document, but in order to formalize it, you could submit it to the Planning Commission and we could just approve it by resolution that that's the ongoing list. I think the more important part of the list, then, if it's just guidance, is what's not required. And then if it's not on the list of what's not required, then you require a zoning permit. I think the zoning permit in Sausalito, given we've seen people build without permits, build without building permits, If any work's going on, it's a trigger for the staff to check to make sure they're complying with the requirements, and then if they don't need anything further, they don't. So I think it's important that we have zoning permits, but I do agree with Vice Chair Marlott. Maybe it does not have to be in the code, because if down the line we find something, we're going to have to amend the code to do that. But I also would like Tony Rudin, after he's had a chance to review all these live on a meeting, to weigh in as well.
00:43:52.23	Unknown	Do you know something more?
00:43:53.97	Fred Moore	When we finish that conversation, I just wanted to go back up to that other paragraph where Planner Manager had a comment, so we haven't really addressed that about the additional language that's trying to capture the 120-foot square foot improvement, which is basically a utility shed or tool shed. So. before we go on, maybe we'll just come back to that and have input about I, opinions on it.
00:44:19.90	David Marlatt	Well, isn't it the case that 120 square foot sheds, and there's a certain height limit associated with that, and it's in the code, don't require it? any building permit at all. So we didn't imply that it doesn't require a zoning permit.
00:44:31.53	Fred Moore	Well, that's what I thought, but it looks like we're trying to add this in order to change that and make you get a zoning permit for it.
00:44:37.94	David Marlatt	I don't think that's currently the practice, is it?
00:44:39.82	Matthew Mandich	Well, yeah, so it's an accessory structure and it's adding building coverage, impervious surface coverage, and potentially depending on the height, probably floor area as well too. The parcel. So, so someone gets a zoning permit, but that would be a situation where you would need to do a zoning check to see if the parcel can support additional impervious surface coverage, building coverage, flora, et cetera. And that's like an accessory structures and a perfect example of when a zoning permit would and should be required. Um, And then we've also had some issues with that in the city is, you know, attorney runes familiar with too, about sheds being built in locations, maybe where they shouldn't be. So, um, and slopes and all that stuff. So I think, you know, when you're building an accessory structure in Sausalito, a zoning permit is a, probably a good thing to have.
00:45:26.14	David Marlatt	even if no building permit. It's required? Correct. Yeah, maybe. A lot of towns do that. Chocolata is not alone. In our practice, we do lots of sheds and it's all over the map. what the requirements are in different jurisdictions. So I think that through.
00:45:45.39	Matthew Mandich	Certainly one to discuss.
00:45:46.99	Fred Moore	Yeah, yeah. Thank you. hot cold would be more cold on adding that because that seems like an you know, you go to Home Depot and you buy a little shed and you gotta go down and get a zoning permit to stick it on your property because it's gonna take 120 square feet. I understand all the comments that, you know, Matthew made, which makes sense, but also it seems... very Strecked. maybe more strict than we want to be. Mr. Eugenius, where did he fall?
00:46:18.68	Andrew Junius	I'm supportive of Commissioner Moore's position on that.
00:46:21.55	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Commissioner Luxenberg, do you, how do you feel about a zoning permit for a
00:46:25.40	Jeffery Luxenberg	I'm supporting both. the concept of that, but maybe the solution is to leave this statement in and say it has to be less than 120 square feet or something. I mean, if someone puts a large, you know, a huge, humongous shed. That's a problem.
00:46:43.04	David Marlatt	That's a good one. That triggers a term.
00:46:45.67	Jeffery Luxenberg	So somehow to make it consistent with I don't know, again, I'll leave it to Attorney Rudin, but I don't know if we need language for it, but it should be consistent with what's required for a building permit. So I agree that we shouldn't be requiring it for a shed that doesn't require a building. I agree that we don't need a zoning permit for a shed that doesn't require a building.
00:47:07.74	Unknown	Thank you.
00:47:07.86	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:47:07.91	Unknown	Thank you.
00:47:08.08	Fred Moore	Right, so currently, right now, the language, if you had a five by five shed, you have to get a zoning permit. If you had a two by two shed, you would need a zoning permit because you're adding coverage and impervious surface. I don't know how the floor area from a shed would comply, but you would clearly be covering with impervious service. And that seems
00:47:28.07	David Marlatt	covering.
00:47:33.85	Fred Moore	Why?
00:47:34.07	David Marlatt	about.
00:47:34.24	Fred Moore	Thank you.
00:47:34.30	David Marlatt	Thank you. Yeah, I think it's reasonable to say in excess of 120 square feet.
00:47:38.77	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. It's just add the, as long as it's less than 120 square feet.
00:47:38.86	David Marlatt	I'm sorry.
00:47:44.07	David Marlatt	And then you have to get clever about it, and I know this from experience, that you have to be, you have to say a total of 120 square feet. Otherwise, someone buys seven five-by-five Home Depot sheds, and they will.
00:47:56.43	Unknown	Yeah.
00:47:57.49	David Marlatt	And so San Francisco has a very clever wording where they say you can have as many accessory structures without a permit as you like, as long as the total are less than 120 square feet. They don't require any planning approval or review for that at all.
00:48:06.91	Nastassya Saad	That's a fair way.
00:48:10.79	Nastassya Saad	That's a very good call out. I am completely in agreement, and thank you for raising that, Commissioner Moore. So I think we are all warm on that concept and have got the note there. I mean, we're still a little bit,
00:48:28.76	Nastassya Saad	We're a little torn on the concept of the table. I mean, my personal opinion, I think the informational sheets make sense. They're easier to maintain and not to belabor the code. So I'd probably lean in that direction in terms of the table. But I do think that simplifying the concept of the zoning permit makes complete sense. sense across the board. Any other call-outs on the zoning permit discussion? That was a good discussion.
00:48:59.32	Jeffery Luxenberg	Well, are we going on to the, I want to talk about 1052.30. Absolutely. Go ahead. Okay. So I think it's extremely important that we have a set of submittal requirements for all four of these things we're discussing this evening. And that list, I like the list that's in the design review requirements. At the end of that, it allows the community development director to waive them if they're not needed. So I and I know that the staff will get a project. Six months later, we get it. We don't have a landscape plan or we don't have a view of the project. And then but it was issued complete. So not having information in the code, I think in this case, should not be on an informational sheet. And if we could, Matthew, can you bring up 1050, 050, please? which is what's referred to here, or Attorney Rudin can do it, I'm sure.
00:50:01.89	David Marlatt	and I'll just intervene, although it's not on the agenda tonight, where the task force was also proposing changes to 1050.050. But...
00:50:11.80	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, we'll actually need that's kind of like part of this whole division four is 1050. Oh five or 1050 in general kind of governs division four from the beginning. So there's issues with the zoning permit that are in 1050 that also they need to, you know, everything needs to match and align. So that that's why we're going to bring that forward in a subsequent study session. So, yeah, we definitely need to. work on this as well.
00:50:34.90	Jeffery Luxenberg	So there was a discussion that it was redundant, and I agree that there's redundancy, but what I'm recommending is for all four of these, if we're going to refer to 1050-050, there's nothing in here that lists anything that's required to be submitted in the year at all. So it does ask for additional information asked by the city engineer. But I would suggest in item C that we have that complete list that's in the design review now, and we'll get to that when we get to the red lines for that. And then at the end of that, it allows the community development director to waive any of them. If somebody comes in and says, well, I don't really need these things, the CD director can waive them. But at least they have an idea that, yes, they need a site plan, they need a topography plan, they need elevations. And so I don't know why we wouldn't want that. But I'm happy putting it into 1050-05.
00:51:34.57	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Yeah, I think that is definitely going to be part of our discussion at some point. Commissioner, Vice Chair, did you want to weigh in?
00:51:42.82	David Marlatt	Yeah. So, like I said, we didn't get this on the agenda for tonight in 1050. But, and this might be a philosophical point for discussion. My feeling is that these lists change and they're subject to change. And I know that staff supports that. New technology comes in. So many years ago, it wouldn't have been a PDF. Or then the next, you know, 3D SKP file comes in, or some other thing, and having to go back to the commission and change the law when the needs change, as, you know, as they will, and they do, or new, various reasons come up from experience,
00:51:57.84	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:51:57.86	Unknown	And,
00:52:21.38	David Marlatt	We also have different submittal requirements and we should for a minor use permit, a conditional use permit, a design review or variance and so forth. Again, my philosophy is take all of that, don't hardwire any of that into the code itself, but have the CDD, publish, make a publication of, depending what you want, these are the requirements. And that's something they can update annually or as needed. They shouldn't let it go stale. But I don't think it should be hardwired into the code itself because I don't think changing from an Excel format to an XLS format should require a resolution from city council. But...
00:52:51.35	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:52:51.37	Assistant City Manager	you know,
00:52:56.65	Assistant City Manager	Vice chair, if I may, I just want to thank you for those comments and just state for the commission that I don't believe that I can count the number of times that we've amended our forms in the past couple of years as far as applicability and elements that are required for completeness. So a recommendation from staff as far as commissions feedback here or approach is to ensure that we can be streamlined in that process of updating our forms as appropriate. I think staff's preference would be to not come forward to the commission every time that's needed, as it would delay potentially our own ability to be compliant with new state laws.
00:53:33.76	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:53:33.77	Unknown	Thank you.
00:53:41.64	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. So, I mean, that's a great suggestion. I think it makes good sense. This is not agendized 10.50, so I don't know if we can have a further discussion.
00:53:54.14	Jeffery Luxenberg	Well, it is because it's in every single one. I mean, it's referred to. So it's technically part of the agenda. My first comment on this originally when I first read this was I want to see what's in the application form. And so if the application form had all these things clearly identified, then I'd have a different thought. But the fact that we had a project without a landscape plan, that clearly we needed to understand the landscape, gives me pause because we're missing pieces. And I agree with Vice Chair Marlott that technologies change and you now have 3D models and all sorts of other things that would be helpful and a running list that might have to change. But quite honestly the the list that i'm talking about you know it's a site plan it's elevations it doesn't we don't have to define the format of those but maybe it's as simple as you must describe the building and have generally of these things there's something that at least we're not sitting there wondering why we won't have a landscape plan when the landscape plan possibly blocks the view. And so therefore, the building is fine because it's in the landscape and when we don't have it. So anyways, I'm not adverse to having it like we did on the first thing, having it somewhere else. But we don't see the somewhere else. So we need to see the somewhere else.
00:53:55.71	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. We'll be right back.
00:53:58.02	Unknown	I mean, it's true. Yeah.
00:54:08.30	Matthew Mandich	Yeah.
00:55:18.41	Nastassya Saad	Okay, well said. I'm going to just stick with you for a second, Commissioner Luxembourg, on that topic. Anything, any further comments on, 10.52030.
00:55:29.13	Jeffery Luxenberg	Now, I do have a comment on 10.52050, if we're still on zoning permit.
00:55:35.14	Nastassya Saad	We're still on zoning parks. Let me just see. Commissioner Moore, did you have any feedback on that?
00:55:39.34	Fred Moore	Yeah, I agree with the comments. And the question is now, how do you implement this? Because I think there should be some flexibility with the community development director waiving some of the requirements, which was mentioned. And the issue, I can pull up the section on the municipal code currently. But there are a lot of items here that are not identified that you've mentioned should be a part of the application. because right now the items are a completed application form, permission from the subject owner about authorizing this, other information maps required for particular application type so that's obviously pretty broad there what that is a floodplain information applicable to the site etc etc a few other items so i think eventually since everything does tie back to this old site, we need to identify a better list for the projects, but make it in a way that it is kind of an all-inclusive list, but doesn't apply to everything. And that the planning department or the community development director are going to be able to help you go through the process of what you need. So maybe it goes back to the application. Not all the boxes are checked for every use because like, for example, if I was building something, why would I need a flood map information? It seems like a very odd...
00:56:54.05	David Marlatt	And I... So,
00:56:55.94	David Marlatt	Depends where your building is.
00:56:57.10	Fred Moore	No, I say, well, my property, my property wouldn't need a flood map. Someone else may need a flood map. But to me, go through the extra expense of doing a flood map. I'd shoot myself in the head saying, why is that?
00:57:07.49	David Marlatt	Well, it's only where applicable, but yeah. But we mention floodplains, but we don't mention seismic hazard zones. We don't mention landslide zones. There's all sorts of zones which may or may not. relevant. And that's where I feel like if we get this outside, if we treat this more as policy than hardwired code, then the staff can can have a checkbox on the forum or this. things can be added articulated without coming back to the council. I'll just mention, because again, I know this wasn't on the agenda, but in our internal red line we're discussing, the proposal that we would in the future come back would say, Permits for, application permits required by this title shall be accompanied by information specified in guidelines published by the Community Development Director, Department, and updated at least annually. The Community Development Director may waive or modify specific submittal requirements where they are not applicable. That's full stop.
00:58:02.47	Fred Moore	I like that. That's not part of this, right? That's, I think, a red line.
00:58:02.61	David Marlatt	Thank you.
00:58:02.63	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. That's, I think, a red line. Yeah, it's a preview to come. But that is very, yes, yes.
00:58:12.67	Jeffery Luxenberg	That's a preview. Just in background. 050? Yes.
00:58:13.66	Nastassya Saad	you
00:58:13.68	Unknown	Thank you.
00:58:13.80	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:58:13.90	Unknown	So,
00:58:13.95	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:58:16.97	Mary Wagner	of,
00:58:17.19	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:58:17.32	Nastassya Saad	I'm sorry, Attorney Rudin, what did you just say?
00:58:20.51	Mary Wagner	Yeah, just for background, the city's application requirements with regards to all of the different permit application types, including zoning permits, design reviews, CUPs, what have you, They're all governed by restrictions in the Permit Streamlining Act and the Permit Streamlining Act requires that the city has to, for every kind of development project, have a list or lists of what the application requirements are. And so once the developer proposes or provides what's on the city's checklist, which has to be available to the public, the application is reviewed for completeness. And so typically with most jurisdictions, they do not bake in to their zoning code exactly what the application requirements are, in part because you will have different application requirements for each different kind of permit. And, Once the applicant provides those application requirements, the application is complete and has to be reviewed. You are not allowed to ask for additional information that is not listed in your publicly available list. or, you know, in your application form. So even if we stick additional requirements in our Zoning code, we do need to make sure that they're also reflected in our application.
00:59:38.58	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. I think it makes just good sense to keep it separate. I think we're all warm on that one. Overall? Okay, great. Thank you for bringing that up, Commissioner Luxembourg. Let's go on to your next comment. Commissioner Luxembourg, was it 10.525? Thank you.
00:59:54.66	Jeffery Luxenberg	050.
00:59:54.93	Nastassya Saad	So, over the years. 050, public notice.
00:59:57.17	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay, so I want to make sure I understand how this works because of previous problems. So it's an administrative decision, and that administrative decision is potentially without a hearing, if I understand this correctly. And is it done in writing? Like, here's my questions. One, is it done in writing? And then you hand it to the applicant, and do you also give them a placard to put on the site uh because uh i think i agree with the 24 hours i've act i would actually highly recommend um given there's probably not that many of these but uh that the staff mount them on the site so and take a photograph so we know that they've been putting, so somebody next door can't say that it didn't get up or did get up or whatever. But I'm a little worried because how does the applicant know when the clock starts for 24 hours? I guess that's my first question.
01:00:17.42	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:00:58.85	Assistant City Manager	I would just say When we provide our notice of decision on an item, we generally provide that in writing and the provision of that item generally has a time and date tied to it. So it's a matter of addition of hours to the date when that decision is provided. It's a little math problem.
01:01:23.08	Jeffery Luxenberg	We can get an example of that. Let me just ask you, make a decision, and that's not the time they get the decision.
01:01:23.20	Assistant City Manager	You can get an example of it.
01:01:30.73	Jeffery Luxenberg	And they have 24 hours, so if you don't get them the, how do you, one, how do you get them the decision? And do you give them something to post?
01:01:40.14	Matthew Mandich	So we give them a notice of an approved zoning permit, and it has the decision date on it, which is the date that the permit is issued. There's another one for date permit posted. We usually put that as the next day following the decision date. And then there's a period date of effective, which is 10 days following the posting date.
01:01:59.28	Jeffery Luxenberg	How do they get this? You mail it to them? Yeah, we send it to them, yeah. by mail.
01:02:05.20	Jeffery Luxenberg	No.
01:02:05.41	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:02:05.80	Jeffery Luxenberg	No. It's a PDF.
01:02:06.98	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:02:07.01	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. You send them electronically. Yes. And then you want them to print this out and put it on the site.
01:02:13.39	Matthew Mandich	They print it and post it and send us photos of it. Yes. So, Commissioner, this piece of writing that you're seeing right here in 1052.050 is directly copy and pasted from another section of our code. I did not write this. This is already in the code.
01:02:25.89	Assistant City Manager	Yeah. That's a good one. That's right. This process has appeared or does appear in multiple sections of our code. So that's why you're seeing it as more of a regurgitation here. I think that... this particular approach has not been without its own challenges in some cases. So I think Staff are open to commissions. feedback this evening as to how we may optimize this language.
01:02:56.08	David Marlatt	And,
01:02:56.15	Unknown	And...
01:02:56.20	David Marlatt	Thank you. Just for information, Matthew, does the city also then provide guidelines for the posting, like between four and six feet tall, between five feet from the property line, are there guidelines better? where the posting shall be made.
01:03:08.40	Matthew Mandich	Um, it's on the zoning permit itself. And we can get an example of one of these up for you, but it says Shelby composed posted in a conspicuous location on the front property line, something like that, like it's on the zoning permit itself on the approval.
01:03:22.12	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:03:22.19	Matthew Mandich	All right.
01:03:22.31	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. So not on a van. Thank you.
01:03:24.48	Matthew Mandich	and then,
01:03:24.55	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:03:24.64	David Marlatt	Thank you.
01:03:24.82	Nastassya Saad	Yeah.
01:03:24.91	David Marlatt	Thank you.
01:03:25.04	Matthew Mandich	Yeah.
01:03:25.12	Nastassya Saad	I was like,
01:03:25.87	Unknown	Thank you.
01:03:25.97	David Marlatt	and then,
01:03:26.14	Nastassya Saad	That's a callback to our last
01:03:27.39	Matthew Mandich	Yeah.
01:03:27.62	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:03:27.71	Unknown	Yeah, that's right.
01:03:28.70	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:03:29.51	Unknown	With roots or foundations. Yes. That's a good question though.
01:03:33.53	Matthew Mandich	I've received just to give you an example, I've received images from people posting zoning permits in obscure locations. And I've told them that doesn't cut it, repost it, send me your decision date is changed and I'll reissue them a new zoning permit with a new posting date on it. Right. Cause you know, they'll post it in like some bizarre place, like very high up where you can't see it at all from the street or somewhere very close to their door that you have to walk all the way up the stairs to see that you would never see from the right of way. So I'll just tell them, no, that's not going to work. You have to repost it and restart the 10 day clock.
01:04:08.73	Fred Moore	So is there language in that that basically advises them that if they don't comply, with the standards that you provide them, that it's denied?
01:04:19.99	Matthew Mandich	No, well, the permit wouldn't be denied. The permit's already approved. What they're posting is the approved zoning permit. They're opening up the appeal period.
01:04:22.62	Fred Moore	already.
01:04:26.24	Fred Moore	Well, I understand that, but if they don't do it correctly,
01:04:28.68	Matthew Mandich	They just restart the clock.
01:04:29.18	Fred Moore	They just restart the 10 day clock.
01:04:31.34	Unknown	Thank you.
01:04:31.56	Matthew Mandich	Yeah. And so this section right here that I've put in is the only piece of code that we have on this process. So obviously we could very much flesh it out more like write what I just said, like conspicuous location. you know, around eye height, seen from the right of way. I mean, these are all things that we could add. All I did was copy and paste the section on this from I believe it's in 10.82 or appeal section and brought it over to this section where it should be.
01:04:56.94	Jeffery Luxenberg	and we're going to have a Hi. Sure. Just... Maybe I encourage staff to do the following. Based on your earlier comments, there are rules for the Planning Commission or whatever. If the staff, after we do this zoning change, the whole collective one, could do a little tiny manual that says zoning permits, application requirements, how postings are done, and get the Planning Commission to review it so you have a public review of a document, and then it becomes your manual. And then when you want to change it, you come back and you ask for a change. You don't have to go through a code process. You don't have to do a whole notice thing. Then everybody, we would be comfortable because we would see that and know that that's what you were doing, and the public would be comfortable, and it might solve some of these problems that we have down the road. So I agree that, I mean, if this works, but I do think we need some additional understandings, because it's not the people that do it right, it's the people that don't do it right, and then we get a lawsuit because they didn't post it, I didn't see it, it's not within 10 days. We've had those. I know we've had those. So, you know, I mean, you know, I would, I mean, I realized there are a bunch of these and having staff go out and do it is probably extra work. But if you end up doing a whole thing with lawsuits, maybe it's not a lot of extra work. And the staff would get to see parts of the town uh while when they're coming back from that one place to look at something else so i mean it might be a good thing for a you know assistant planner to do but uh but if it doesn't work for you uh a manual how to do it would suffice My thought.
01:06:39.29	Matthew Mandich	I couldn't agree more, actually. And I'm just relying on the processes that we have in the code right now. And. I think that it would make sense for the planner to post these. And I think that if we limit the amount of triggers that we have for a zoning permit right now, we would have less zoning permits. And I think it would be more feasible for staff to go out and post those. Because right now we have so many coming through all the time because there's so many projects. I mean, as you saw, siding change, re-roof, different. I mean, we're currently requiring zoning permits for those because that's been the inherited practice. So I'd love to get something codified that would probably, you know, limit the amount of zoning permits we're required to issue. Um, and, you know, move forward with a different process that we could then codify that just like the public notice that we have for discretionary projects where staff's required to post the site, uh, physically and, you know, post three different places, you know, we went over this, um, you know, this this is something that we could require too that the staff goes out and post the site and the zoning permit and and then staff has the photographs and all that but You know, right now we it is a transfer of labor on to the applicant. And, you know, without the photographs from near and far and without them sending and posting them, you know, we will continue to hold the zoning permit and not have it be active until it's posted for 10 days. So, you know, it does put some of the work on the applicant and they're usually pretty good about it. But I do understand that it's probably a better process for staff to be doing this. And that's something that I think if we're going to do that, that should be written in.
01:08:09.35	Jeffery Luxenberg	Well, can I just make one additional comment? These are actually, in some respects, more important than the design review ones, because there is a hearing for the design review ones. This is the only trigger for somebody that thinks something is happening that they want to review, and they only have 10 days to do it. There's no public notices. There's no anything. This is it. So I do think this should get the same. I think a staff person should do it, ideally. But also, rules on how it's done and whatever would be helpful. But it doesn't have to be in the code.
01:08:44.90	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Thank you. There was a lot of good notes. Just going to look one more time quickly, because we still have some other attachments to get through. Okay. Anything else from staff on 10.52?
01:08:57.70	Fred Moore	No, great. Why don't we go on to the- Before we go to 10.5, 2.07 or 06, the expiration. Item B, it wasn't part of the red line, but how do you deal with a project where they've gotten the permit, it's one year that's going to expire unless one of these things happen. One of them is they start the work and they start diligently completing it for about two weeks. Then they fall off the radar and a year goes by. They've already started it, so technically it hasn't expired, but realistically we would want it to expire because they diligently started, but then they stopped. Or do you interpret that as you have to diligently continue on until completion? Because that's normally the language I would see, that you have to diligently continue pursue it toward the completion, maybe that's sufficient. Is that what you rely on, that's enough?
01:09:56.02	Matthew Mandich	Well, no, because that's just the entitlement. So, I mean, once they get the building permit, activate that, that entitlement phase is over and now they have a building permit. And if they were to leave the building permit for a year, the building permit would expire. So it's dealing with a different type of permit at that point. Yeah.
01:10:06.14	Fred Moore	Yeah. I see you regardless. Okay.
01:10:11.66	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:10:11.68	Matthew Mandich	Thanks.
01:10:13.95	Nastassya Saad	That was a good point of clarification. Okay, great. Why don't we move on to... 10.54, these are the design review procedures. Vice Chair, I'm gonna have you and Commissioner Junius go ahead and lead us through this one. This one might be a little bit of a robust conversation.
01:10:34.59	David Marlatt	Yeah. Thank you. You're very well. Well, I'll just sort of
01:10:36.92	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:10:37.01	Unknown	Well,
01:10:39.22	David Marlatt	prefaces by the spirit of what we're proposing, is coming off of the last study session where We felt there was some consensus forming around the idea that a heightened design review as a separate permit that you pay for is not necessary. but, the heightened design findings are valuable. So the idea is to consolidate the findings. There's definitely some redundancy in some of the heightened design review findings in the regular findings. So there's, I think, three heightened design findings. And just with some simple language that says, I think it's finding 12 or 13, that says, you know, if the project is within 80% or greater of the FAR, then these additional findings shall be made. So trying to find a middle ground where people who want heightened design review for the denser projects have the discretion to have that kind of review. but not making it a kind of a kind of a gotcha, you know, oh, we've evaluated your project and now you owe us $1,800 more dollars and we're going to do this other thing. So that was that. And then the other thing, portion of the work here. was really more about wordsmithing and trying to unapplicability sections. And I'm really wide open for improvements and comments, but trying to make it just simpler to understand. There's a whole lot of things in there that if you're ever trying to apply for a permit in the city, you just scratch your head and go, I'm not sure quite what they mean by that. So that was just mostly... Obviously wordsmithing, excuse me. I'll stop talking.
01:12:15.29	Andrew Junius	Yeah.
01:12:15.35	David Marlatt	Yeah.
01:12:15.74	Andrew Junius	And first off, I do want to thank Vice Chair Marlott for taking the lead on this one. He did most of the work here, so I'm just drafting off of his excellent work, and I agree with the basic premise of this, which he just described. So I'm curious what other commissioners, once they've seen the red lines, are going to say, but I do have, you know, There's a lot of subjectivity here, which I think has always been an issue for me for the last 35 years as a land use lawyer. I'm curious, though, if I'm just I'm going to zero in on one thing that is kind of, I think, a fun philosophical question here. If we're all go to page two, And I completely agree with the suggestion of now I'm looking at 10 54030. There's A, the architectural controls. There's A, B, C. Their suggestion is to remove C with that good architecture thing. But the next one I think is kind of fascinating.
01:13:07.38	Unknown	her.
01:13:12.17	Andrew Junius	The one that is now renumbered C says one of the purposes of this code is to ensure that The relationship of a building to its surroundings is of greater importance than the quality of the design of the individual structure. So if we kind of, drill down on that, we're basically saying, Sausalito would much prefer a smaller, uglier building than a bigger, beautiful building. And I think that's just Very, very.
01:13:44.52	David Marlatt	That presupposes that the existing buildings are small and ugly.
01:13:47.66	Unknown	Yeah, I don't know if I would interpret it that way.
01:13:52.40	David Marlatt	But what it does say, and the wording could be better, I totally agree, is it says that contextualism is more important than heroics.
01:13:59.25	Nastassya Saad	I don't know. Yes, that's how I read it.
01:14:01.07	David Marlatt	That's a discussion. As an architect, I guess the lively discussion you
01:14:04.08	Nastassya Saad	Bye.
01:14:04.15	David Marlatt	You know, star architects, like star architects aren't welcome here. It's kind of what star architects
01:14:09.85	Andrew Junius	That's definitely what it says. Design is not important.
01:14:10.39	David Marlatt	Bye. And it's worked very well because they're not here. So, so far, we're 100%.
01:14:18.88	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, I read that as it has to be within... It is more important if it basically fits into its surroundings. Thank you.
01:14:27.20	David Marlatt	than what it is in Shelby County. Exactly. Which we have not been doing.
01:14:27.65	Nastassya Saad	than what it is. Which we have not been doing in this town. So I'm not really sure if it's entirely relevant anymore. It's constantly ignored.
01:14:37.10	Andrew Junius	Well, I mean, I'm not sure I agree with that. I, the, the, the you know we live in a very small scale town right there aren't very many big buildings and so everything in my opinion is small and that's why we squish anything new into the smallness and force people to make small buildings which you know apparently the size of the building is much more important than the aesthetic of the building just
01:15:00.24	Nastassya Saad	Are you taking, so you're reading this in relation to size more than just even design. I'm talking about more in the relation of if you have a, I don't know. Okay, for example, I was the sole no vote, even though they were lovely architects and people. Down at the end of town, when you're turning to go towards 2nd Street, it looks a little bit more, it's going to look more like a castle. I just thought it had nothing to do with its relation to the surroundings. So that's how I'm interpreting this, more about the look, less about size. But I suppose it's open for debate. It could probably be either in this regard. What's your proposal? Is it just. Well, I wouldn't strike it. I mean, it's. Take it out. Yeah.
01:15:38.34	Andrew Junius	I would strike it. I mean, it seems very just confusing and obviously we seem to have read it completely differently. Yeah, exactly. So that's the point. To me, the environment we live in in Sausalito is a small scale environment. And it's basically saying it's important for us to keep the small scale of this city, irrespective of how ugly the buildings are. The more critical thing is the structure of the scale of the buildings first. And we don't really care what they look like. And that's that's what this says.
01:15:46.68	Unknown	Thank you.
01:15:46.70	Unknown	Yeah, exactly.
01:16:06.44	David Marlatt	So, Yeah, I don't.
01:16:08.77	Unknown	Yeah, it's interesting. It is interesting. It is interesting. It's interesting everyone interprets things differently. You make it for Mr. Smitty. Yeah, I know. Exactly. Commissioner Luxembourg, how do you take that line?
01:16:10.78	David Marlatt	Thank you. Thank you.
01:16:14.32	David Marlatt	Thank you for this to Smitty.
01:16:19.60	Andrew Junius	So I got a feeling nobody's.
01:16:20.78	Jeffery Luxenberg	I understand Commissioner Junius' reading of this language, and again, it wasn't proposed for change, but we obviously can change it because it's here before us this evening. I read this, I mean, I understand how we can read it that way, but I read it in combination with the beginning part, which says, in carrying out the purpose of this chapter with respect to the external design of buildings, We'll follow the following principles. What we're saying is the purview primarily of, you know, of the staff and the Planning Commission is how the building impacts the neighbors and the environment, not how it, not the design of the building, which we've always said we don't want to design from the dais. So basically, this is just, in my mind, reiterating that we're not doing design up here, that we're trying to make sure that the building is not too close to this neighbor or could be moved this way or that way, or those are the issues. But I do see how one could read it the way it's suggested.
01:17:25.79	Nastassya Saad	I can see how you can take it. It could be height, it could be looks, it could be a whole lot of things. It's open to interpretation.
01:17:33.60	Andrew Junius	I mean, it literally, sorry, it just literally says there's something else that is greater importance than the quality of the design. I mean, that to me, I can't. How can we have that in our code? It just seems. Quality design. Yeah, that's.
01:17:45.70	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:17:45.73	Unknown	Yeah, that's it. I appreciate it.
01:17:47.10	Andrew Junius	It just seems strange.
01:17:47.13	Unknown	Yeah.
01:17:49.26	Jeffery Luxenberg	It's from a code point of view, it's more important. It's not saying that architectural is not important.
01:17:52.41	Andrew Junius	Is that-
01:17:55.13	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, because it does have to debate. I understand what you're saying, Commissioner Junior.
01:17:55.16	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, I'm like, Thank you. Thank you.
01:17:59.96	David Marlatt	I don't see quality in that sense. Well, that's interesting. I saw it more as a characteristic, like something can have a quality without talking about the quality of something. Yeah. And I read it.
01:18:10.08	Nastassya Saad	We're not French. It's like a too existential up here, but the point is.
01:18:13.04	David Marlatt	Bye. Bye.
01:18:13.68	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:18:13.71	David Marlatt	Oh. What it does say is Frank Gehry is not welcome. He's dead.
01:18:16.70	Andrew Junius	It says Frank Urie is never going to come to South Korea.
01:18:20.29	David Marlatt	I- I-
01:18:20.97	Unknown	there, he's not around anymore.
01:18:22.50	David Marlatt	Thank you.
01:18:22.52	Unknown	Why don't we flag this one as a question mark? I'm not going to.
01:18:24.51	Andrew Junius	I'm not going to die on this. So, you know, I just think it's it's it should be removed. But if it doesn't get removed.
01:18:27.21	Unknown	Yeah.
01:18:29.59	Nastassya Saad	It does. Okay, hold on. Why don't we just feel that one out? Commissioner Moore, where do you land on this one? Cold, cold, hot, warm. Ice cold. I'm lukewarm. You're lukewarm. Lukewarm on removing. on it remaining or leaving?
01:18:49.45	Andrew Junius	I'd like to take it out, so I'm boiling hot about taking it out. We we. So if anybody wants to join me, we got water here.
01:18:50.65	Nastassya Saad	Yes, I think. We, we, We got that.
01:18:54.97	Unknown	and I think that's what I'm saying.
01:18:55.26	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, yeah. Are you lukewarm on taking it out? What do you think about that?
01:19:00.98	Unknown	We should.
01:19:01.23	Jeffery Luxenberg	I WANTED TO BE ABLE
01:19:02.02	Unknown	Thank you.
01:19:02.06	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
01:19:02.09	Unknown	Thank you.
01:19:02.38	Jeffery Luxenberg	I'm warm on rewriting it so that it does what it's intended to do.
01:19:09.10	Nastassya Saad	One reward. I'm warm on rewriting it too. And so is Vice Chair. Were you warm?
01:19:18.44	Fred Moore	I can be warm on reading that.
01:19:20.67	Nastassya Saad	I'm rewriting. Okay. All right. Well, I think we can find a nice little compromise here. Um, listen, we can either do that one now or maybe get to the bigger meat. But if we want to take a, take a quick stab, I mean, listen, the quality of the design, it's, it's a weird way to word what I think its intention is, but again, its intention is already up for debate. Do you have a suggestion commissioner? Um, Vice Chair.
01:19:43.84	David Marlatt	Well, you could say then the design, not the quality of the design, but the design.
01:19:48.40	Nastassya Saad	Exactly.
01:19:48.46	David Marlatt	What it's saying is that a streetscape is more important than the buildings that create the switch, any individual building. That's my interpretation.
01:19:53.58	Nastassya Saad	That's my interpretation. Yes.
01:19:55.69	David Marlatt	Thank you. which is a value statement, but it almost has to come from the city council. Yeah, those are values in the town.
01:20:04.11	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
01:20:04.14	David Marlatt	THANK YOU.
01:20:04.18	Andrew Junius	But why are we having to weigh these things against each other? I mean, it just seems like it creates a strange tension between things that are already in tension and now you're just highlighting it.
01:20:15.01	David Marlatt	I think it sets expectations. I think it says, this is what you're looking for, you know, and it's not literal, but it sets expectations. But okay, if I want to pass planning commission, this is,
01:20:16.38	Nastassya Saad	I think it says.
01:20:24.12	David Marlatt	this is what they're looking for. I think we should communicate our intentions.
01:20:27.21	Andrew Junius	We should move on.
01:20:28.41	David Marlatt	I'm not, I'm just,
01:20:29.62	Fred Moore	What's the sense of just the relationship of the building to its surrounding is important?
01:20:29.82	David Marlatt	Thank you.
01:20:33.55	Fred Moore	the
01:20:33.79	Nastassya Saad	Yeah.
01:20:33.81	Fred Moore	Yeah.
01:20:34.03	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:20:34.06	Fred Moore	Bye.
01:20:34.13	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
01:20:34.19	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:20:34.48	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
01:20:35.04	Andrew Junius	Yeah, clearly to me says the the the the character of the neighborhood is much more important than whether what you're approving is of any quality design whatsoever. That is a secondary issue. That's what it says.
01:20:44.62	Mary Wagner	Thank you.
01:20:47.26	Andrew Junius	I mean, in the word, anyway, can we just, I mean, I'm going to, I'm going to. It's a.
01:20:51.73	Nastassya Saad	It's okay. It's a study session. We can just note it down and we can always come back.
01:20:54.31	Andrew Junius	Yeah. Yeah. I have one question I'd like to have the city attorney weigh in on.
01:20:57.16	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Yeah.
01:21:01.31	Andrew Junius	in the, in the The section before I'm looking at now 1054.020, the applicability section. with that there aren't there's some changes in D, but I'm looking actually at the language of C And
01:21:16.55	Unknown	Sorry, what page are...
01:21:17.43	Andrew Junius	I'm I'm on the page two still same page just above it thank you so this is the section that talks about the um the applicability of the design review okay so this is an important section because it this is the section that has the list of all of our new uh housing element sites the overlay districts
01:21:19.20	Unknown	Same page, just above it.
01:21:34.07	Andrew Junius	which is good and we need that in there and it references the government code I'm just curious about this language that says, Um, on sites designated in the housing element pursuant to California government code, et cetera, that accommodate very low and low-income households, comma... and includes at least 20% of the units affordable to lower income households as located in the following. It's only district. I mean, if that's language that's required by state law, I think it's very confusing. If it's in our housing element, I'm also confused. But it seems to me that, you're either accommodating the first set The first phrase seems to indicate a low-income project, and the second one indicates a market rate project with inclusion area of 20%. What is it both? Is it neither? I'm just confused about what that says. And I'm curious if the city attorney can clarify.
01:22:29.37	Mary Wagner	Um... Yes, I can clarify. This section that is referred to in state law, requires that the city's program of rezoning shall accommodate 100% of the need for housing for lower income households, Uh, for which site capacity has not been identified in the inventory of sites, i.e. in plain English, If we include, if we don't have adequate capacity for low income housing based on our existing zoning, are... Program of rezoning has to accommodate 100% of the a shortfall for lower income housing on sites that are zoned to permit owner occupied and rental multifamily residential as a use by right for developments in which at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households. So basically, if we identify a site in the housing element as being planned or serving the need for lower income housing, and a project applicant proposes to make at least 20% of the units in that project affordable to lower income households, the city has to approve it as a use by right, which means without any discretionary review or permitting that triggers CEQA.
01:23:55.33	Fred Moore	I heard all those words, but could you break down how that, how that complies with this sentence?
01:24:00.63	Andrew Junius	Yeah, is there, yeah, or stated a different way, Is there a different way to say this that separates out the idea of Yeah, it just I think I understood what you said, but I also Anyway, maybe this is not that important, but I just it just confusing. I'm concerned that It doesn't make sense to the average person trying to, you know, sort this out. Any language suggestions, Sergio?
01:24:30.14	Mary Wagner	I think we can wordsmith this. The problem is that the original statute that we're trying to summarize in a succinct manner is itself very convoluted and confusing.
01:24:39.96	Andrew Junius	And that's what you're referring to as the 65583.2 age.
01:24:40.06	Mary Wagner	And that's that.
01:24:44.20	Mary Wagner	Thank you.
01:24:44.22	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:24:44.32	Mary Wagner	guest.
01:24:44.64	Andrew Junius	Okay. All right. Well, let's just move. Let's just put a pin in that one. Yeah.
01:24:47.37	Matthew Mandich	Well, can I jump in? I think really quick, just because I wanted some clarification on this too. And I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, please, Sergio. But basically, this is saying that any project in one of these housing element overlay sites that provides 20% low income for total project will be approved ministerially. Is that correct?
01:25:05.24	Mary Wagner	Yes. Thank you.
01:25:06.05	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:25:06.14	Mary Wagner	Okay. Yeah.
01:25:08.58	Matthew Mandich	that's it.
01:25:08.75	Mary Wagner	Thank you.
01:25:11.27	Andrew Junius	I mean, full stop, that's clear enough. Yeah, I get that, yeah.
01:25:13.06	Mary Wagner	Right. Yeah. And really the function of why it's in this chapter is it carves it out from discussion or design review. Exactly. Yep. Thank you.
01:25:22.64	Andrew Junius	Okay.
01:25:22.71	Mary Wagner	him.
01:25:22.98	Andrew Junius	I've got what I needed.
01:25:25.22	Mary Wagner	I don't think necessarily D needs to be in this because that is SB9 projects and we have a separate provision of the city zoning code for those projects.
01:25:35.16	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Maybe there's a potential that we can just strike out of there.
01:25:37.84	Andrew Junius	So,
01:25:38.05	Mary Wagner	I can't.
01:25:38.59	Andrew Junius	Thank you. Yeah.
01:25:38.86	Nastassya Saad	Okay.
01:25:38.91	Andrew Junius	Okay.
01:25:39.09	Nastassya Saad	Great. D right below.
01:25:39.65	Andrew Junius	I do.
01:25:41.66	Nastassya Saad	Okay.
01:25:42.13	Andrew Junius	And then actually, while we're just staring at all these sections, does any I'm curious if that under E, the term attached housing developments, what is an attached housing development? Is that a multifamily housing development? Is that a question?
01:25:55.97	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:25:58.79	Andrew Junius	Matthew, do you have any idea what an...
01:25:58.92	Nastassya Saad	Matthew, do you have any idea what an... What is an attached, we're looking at E.
01:26:03.12	Andrew Junius	in the same section.
01:26:04.32	Nastassya Saad	matched housing developments.
01:26:05.54	Andrew Junius	Is that a different way to say multi- family. I suppose. Yeah.
01:26:09.99	Nastassya Saad	Attorney Rudin,
01:26:11.32	Andrew Junius	That's...
01:26:12.35	Nastassya Saad	care to wager?
01:26:13.10	Andrew Junius	Is that also, Sergio, just an outgrowth of these government code sections?
01:26:18.01	Mary Wagner	Yes, it's a very specific. For the purposes of this section, attached housing development means a newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated structure. containing Two or more dwelling units and consisting of only residential units, but does not include an ADU or the conversion of a structure to condos.
01:26:37.43	Nastassya Saad	I see. Okay.
01:26:38.21	Matthew Mandich	I would love to define that too, if we could.
01:26:38.22	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:26:38.24	Andrew Junius	I mean, I'm not sure.
01:26:38.41	Nastassya Saad	But-
01:26:38.49	Andrew Junius	Thank you. Well, actually, and that leads me to my final actual question here. I'm really curious, do we is there a city, a clear city definition of a two unit project that's that triggers H.A. Because I still I think everybody's looking at this a little bit differently, whether
01:26:42.15	Matthew Mandich	Sure.
01:26:58.69	Andrew Junius	a single family home that's doing an addition and adding an adu is that a two unit project or does it have to add two adus to have two is it net new is it was do we have a clear definition or not and and maybe and just suggesting we might want to have one because this keeps coming up and it gets kind of at the tiny end of it a five unit project we all know is covered by the HAA. Single-family home that's adding ADUs, it's hard to say. I'd really get some guidance. I'd love some guidance there.
01:27:25.42	Mary Wagner	I will say that one, A project being subject to the HAA does not necessarily exempt the project from discretionary design review, but it does significantly limit what kind of Conditions of approval can be imposed and also the grounds for denial, even though you may still be able to review the design. The Housing Accountability Act says, there's a number of projects And actually I can just pull up the statute. Um, But the The confusion um, is that housing development project for the purposes of HAA means any of the following. The first one is residential units, plural only. So any project consisting of residential units only. There is a court case involving the county which has held that a single family home, because it is only creating one unit is not residential units plural and therefore is not subject to the HAA. HCD has taken the position that a single family home that includes a proposal for a ADU is residential units, plural, and therefore is subject to the HAA. The question of whether or not you need to have net New two units, I think, has not been decided by the courts, but it is, I think, how most practitioners do interpret the law. The purpose of the law is to promote the construction of more units. Plural, so if you have a project that's only creating one new unit, I think the logic of the county case holding that a single family home is not subject to protections under the HA would also apply to that kind of project. I think practitioners assume if there's two or more net new units that the project is subject to protection.
01:29:12.58	Unknown	I think- Fishner.
01:29:18.25	Andrew Junius	I hear you. And it's interesting. I do believe, I think San Francisco is following the you know, less conservative approach, which is a home that's adding an ADU as a two unit project. I'm pretty sure San Francisco is doing that. Interesting. Okay. Thank you for that. But I mean, just to just to clarify, I understand that there still might be some design review process, but once you're in the HAA world and the government code comes in there, it's you you must you you're only applying objective standards to the project at that point. Right.
01:29:51.51	Mary Wagner	Um, You cannot deny the project that is compliant with objective standards. You can impose conditions of approval based on subjective criteria, provided that you don't violate some of the other provisions in the HAA. And that means that for affordable projects, you cannot impose conditions that would render the units unaffordable. And so basically with regards to affordable projects, It's very difficult to impose condition approval that requires significant design changes. With regards to other kinds of projects, market rate projects, I think you have more wiggle room. You're also allowed to impose mitigation under CEQA. The HA expressly says that you can do that. There is some room for design review and for conditions, but depending on the scope of the project, um, you certainly have more leeway with regards to market rate projects than you have with affordable projects.
01:30:49.63	Andrew Junius	I very much appreciate that. So those are all my questions. I mean, that, I don't think we can solve any of these problems today. Our issues are, you know, gray areas, but that, what we just discussed, I think, is, the debate we're going to have in the years ahead on these smaller projects, these smaller market rate projects, because the collision between objective standards and, you know, discretionary design review is a very interesting area. So I appreciate your attention. Thanks.
01:31:13.37	Matthew Mandich	Bye.
01:31:13.40	Unknown	Mm-hmm.
01:31:13.61	Matthew Mandich	Yeah. Can we actually just on that note, can we scroll up a little bit here to see like kind of how this starts? Because we kind of jump past this and then we're moving backwards. So it does lead into this section. If we go down a little bit more, a little bit more right here. So additionally, this chapter shall not apply to projects where discretionary design review is prohibited by applicable state laws and where housing projects qualify as a use by right. And such approval shall be ministerial. So this is an important piece here where we had zoning permit in there. And so I wanted to flag that too, I think, for discussion. And these are the projects that follow. So it's really just highlighting projects that should be approved ministerially. So an HHA project, as Serge already referenced, is still subject to some discretionary review. You want to look for compliance with objective standards. You can have some ideas about design and changing things as long as you're not making the project infeasible or reducing density. So it's not a ministerial project. So the HHA section here, if anything, we could have another section on that or something that clarifies, you know, how those projects are reviewed discretionarily as, but it wouldn't necessarily be as one of these ABCDs that are here because this is this section is leading into what is a ministerial approval rather than a discretionary approval. So I just want to circle back on like where we are in the code and like what, what projects we're talking.
01:32:29.48	Andrew Junius	I really, really appreciate that. And, you know, maybe I'm not sure it's appropriate for this conversation tonight. We've already got a lot on our plate, but that may be something to think about, about how to guide the commission in this gray area, because it is a gray area and it's brand new. And there's a few court cases out there, but I also think there are going to be others. And I think. is another one of these things where there'll be clarity coming in the future. But until then, we're kind of stuck on our own.
01:32:54.40	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, absolutely agree. And, you know, if Attorney Rudin believes that we should have a section here on that, I'll touch base with him on that, see if we can put that in the design review. Or if there's another place in the code within perhaps Division 4 that we can put that to, we'll look for that. Because I do think that it's important to have that somewhere in our code and clarify that. Because, yeah, right now we're operating entirely off state law and the code is silent on this issue. I do want to just highlight one more section. So if we can scroll down here Again, this is about ministerial approval projects. I included D on here because SB9 projects are ministerial approval projects. So I just wanted to clarify that for applicants and for the public that new projects can be built in Sausalito, new homes, new two unit homes without any discretionary review. And I think that's something that the public struggles with. So I think putting that in the code is something that, you know, helps. And we do have a section on two unit developments. However, it's outdated and doesn't align with current state law. We could always direct people to that section as well as part of this. But I do think it's helpful to let People know that these types of projects are ministerial approval projects and have that in the code rather than, you know, just having a section on it that is also currently outdated. So
01:34:08.47	Fred Moore	Yeah.
01:34:08.48	Matthew Mandich	Thank you. I definitely agree. Yeah.
01:34:09.16	Andrew Junius	I'm sorry.
01:34:10.09	Fred Moore	I think that's a good thing.
01:34:10.37	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:34:10.69	Matthew Mandich	Yeah.
01:34:10.96	Andrew Junius	I would agree as long as there's no inconsistencies with other restrictions of the code. I would support you there.
01:34:11.15	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:34:11.16	Fred Moore	Oh, wait.
01:34:11.77	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:34:13.73	Nastassya Saad	Exactly. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Wonderful. Thank you. Just to, Go move along a little bit. Page three had a call out for... There's some potential discussion here around fences specifically. I'm looking at number C, item D. Fences not exceeding 42 inches in height. Yeah, just as a discussion point, I just want to look at... I'm looking at... I'm on... Hold on. I am on page three, which is 10.54040.
01:34:40.68	Unknown	I just wanna look at- Thank you.
01:34:51.97	Unknown	employment.
01:34:52.51	Mary Wagner	five, four. And as the commission is reviewing 10, 5, 4, 0.
01:34:58.92	Nastassya Saad	10.54040.
01:35:02.03	Jeffery Luxenberg	Can we go back to 10.54030 before we do that?
01:35:05.76	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, let's just level set a little bit. I think we're getting into now triggers for administrative design work.
01:35:10.77	Nastassya Saad	And sorry, Attorney Rudin, go ahead, please continue.
01:35:14.75	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:35:14.77	Mary Wagner	Yeah, and as you're reviewing the revisions to this chapter, one of the big constraints on the city is the Housing Crisis Act. The Housing Crisis Act imposes two significant restrictions. in our ability to modify this chapter. One is it provides that with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected city shall not enact a development policy standard or condition that would have any of the following effects. The first one is that you are not allowed to change the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation or zoning to a lot. less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within An existing zoning district, and that means and includes reductions to height density Floria ratio new or increased open space or lot size requirements new or increased setback requirements minimum frontage requirements or maximum lot coverage requirements, I don't think that. any of the proposed changes in these red lines would violate that. The other requirement, however, is that you're prohibited from imposing or enforcing design standards established after January 1st, 2020 that are not objective design standards. And we don't have a lot of clear guidance as to what happens or how it will be treated when you make modifications to subjective design standards. after January 1st, 2020. whether or not that counts as imposing new standards. I think a common sense interpretation of the Housing Crisis Act says that would mean that if you're deleting existing requirements without adding new ones, or you're making clarifications to existing text, but not substantively changing the requirements, you're probably going to be fine. Those actions should be defensible to somebody you know, in a court where a judge is properly briefed and understands exactly what the action is. Um, I... do have some concerns about some of the proposed modifications, 1054, 040, and 050, and I will highlight those where I see them.
01:37:35.99	Nastassya Saad	Okay, thank you very much, Attorney Rudin. And we're going to just go back to 1054.30, and then we'll get to your comments to lead us off.
01:37:44.40	Jeffery Luxenberg	Actually, let me clarify. I meant 105440, but I just want to get on the record corrections because this is somewhat messed up in its formatting. Okay. And I want to get them on the record, and it's before the one on the fences. So that's why I was confused. No problem. Actually.
01:38:00.28	Unknown	Sure.
01:38:00.85	Nastassya Saad	Right. Oh. Actually, then let's go ahead and just see what Attorney Rudin. We'll definitely get to your comments, Commissioner Luxembourg, but just because Attorney Rudin had a note, do you, Attorney Rudin, do you want to, highlight anything that you want to flag to us for 10.54040?
01:38:19.41	Mary Wagner	040 is the Administrative Design Review Permit Triggers. Of course.
01:38:23.66	Unknown	That's right. I'm going to go.
01:38:24.73	Mary Wagner	Yeah. And so one of the issues is if you have fences not exceeding 42 inches in height, for example, is being excluded from design review. If you lower the threshold for which fences are subject to design review, so like, I think it probably wouldn't be problematic to increase the height But if you decrease the height, that may be problematic in terms of HCA issues. I think that it the safest construction of the HCA is that it's intended to be a one-way ratchet in terms of lessening design review standards and lessening public agency discretion.
01:39:01.58	David Marlatt	So if we raise the limit, we're okay. Exactly.
01:39:04.84	Andrew Junius	Yeah, I mean, I think we all kind of get that. It's if we make it harder, we're going to be in trouble. If we make it easier and clearer, we should be fine.
01:39:13.40	Jeffery Luxenberg	I understand the concept. I don't have any issue with the concept, but I do have a question on this particular one, Attorney Rudin. Fences not exceeding 42 inches is the trigger in the state building code for when a building permit is not needed, I think.
01:39:29.70	Mary Wagner	I believe the trigger in the state, actually, I can pull this up. I believe it's seven feet, to be honest, which is...
01:39:29.75	Jeffery Luxenberg	I believe.
01:39:36.52	Matthew Mandich	What is it? Yeah, that's correct. Over six feet, I think, requires a building.
01:39:41.58	Mary Wagner	I'm excited.
01:39:42.84	Jeffery Luxenberg	Over six feet. Okay, then there's something about retaining walls. There's something about 42 inches.
01:39:48.97	David Marlatt	that's more than 48 inches, 48 inches, on top of its footing requires a structural engineer.
01:39:51.41	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
01:39:54.39	David Marlatt	Okay. In the building code.
01:39:55.95	Unknown	Yes.
01:39:57.66	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay, so this is different, and we're saying six feet, so. Is that different than the state code? Is that a problem?
01:40:06.35	Matthew Mandich	Well, this is really about whether or not we're triggering additional discretionary review, not about whether or not there's a building permit. So right now, these are encroachment agreements that you're looking at right here that staff can approve at the administrative level, the administrative design review. We still have to make all the findings for a design review, all 13 findings, and all six findings for the encroachment agreement. Staff has to make these for these admin design review permits. So for example, though, when you have a fence that exceeds 42 inches, Those findings all need to be made by the planning commission now. And so when we're talking about a 42 inch fence, which is not even a four foot fence in the right of way, that's no longer a staff decision. And now it's a planning commission decision. So my comment there is should consider raising this is do we really need to have fences that are knee high coming to the planning commission for review or can staff review these? And where's the limit really? Where do you guys want to see a fence?
01:41:02.88	Assistant City Manager	really.
01:41:06.02	Matthew Mandich	in the right of way. Like at what height would you think that that deserves planning commission discretionary review?
01:41:11.88	Nastassya Saad	Okay, that's really a clear way of putting it. Thank you, Matthew. Thank you. So with that in mind, Michelle Oxenberg.
01:41:18.83	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, I just wanted to go, can I do the typo thing? I know it's going to bother you. The typo thing bothers me, but it affects this. Sure, let's go ahead. The idea is the approaching increments are, and if we did the clean version, it's easier to see, but there's a section called B applicability, and it goes one, two, three, and then the driveways doesn't have a number but just get on the record so that if they go back and look at the tape they can correct this driveways is number four under applicability encroachment agreements is now a separate thing I don't think that was the intent I went back to the current code so the encroachment agreements should be item number five under applicability
01:41:22.35	Nastassya Saad	I know it's going to bother you do that type of thing. Sure.
01:42:04.58	Jeffery Luxenberg	And then when we get down to installation or reconstruction, that's number six. And then construction and renovation is number seven. And then there's a number, and then what now says number four is eight. And then there's a five, that's number nine. Six is number 10. Seven is number 11. So these are all part, and then in number seven there on page 4, where it says in addition, where it says D, D is really part of what's now number 7, which is actually number 11. And then public notice after D, if you scroll up here a little bit, after D, public notice would now be C and is not part of applicability. So I'm just making clear that the fences are part of the applicability section, not a separate section on encroachment agreement.
01:43:00.40	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:43:00.41	Nastassya Saad	Bye.
01:43:00.43	Matthew Mandich	Thank you for flagging.
01:43:01.88	Nastassya Saad	All right. And if staff needs Commissioner Luxembourg to follow up with an email on the specifics, I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige. OK, but that does make sense. Thank you for the catch. So. Real quick, on a conceptual level here on the 42 inches, based on what Matthew has just described as a trigger for planning Do we. Hot, cold, warm, where were we feeling on this 42? Inches, Commissioner or Vice Chair, I'm not sure.
01:43:33.03	David Marlatt	I mean, there was a... It's a little bit arbitrary, but I'd be comfortable with six feet. It's consistent with, you know, six feet of driveway cut fill, six feet of retaining wall, just to take, to ease the burden a little bit on the commission.
01:43:47.09	Nastassya Saad	six feet for a fence in the public right of way. Okay. Commissioner Luxembourg?
01:43:53.96	Jeffery Luxenberg	Well, if we're going to allow a retaining wall to be six feet, But, you know, I think it's a good thing.
01:43:57.69	Nastassya Saad	And...
01:43:57.98	Jeffery Luxenberg	Bye. we should be able to allow a fence to be six feet so i'm okay with that Yeah, six feet.
01:44:05.10	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:44:05.11	Fred Moore	Commissioner Moore? Well, six feet's fine, but the retaining wall could be below grade six feet too. So it's not six feet above grade for the retaining wall. So you're still going to have potentially a six foot wall, but I'm okay with moving it to give staff the ability to look at it.
01:44:21.72	David Marlatt	Actually, it's a very fair point to say that for the fences and retaining wall, that's where each are measured above grade. So you can't have a six-foot fence on top of your six-foot retaining wall.
01:44:31.86	Unknown	Darn it, I was going to do that. No, sorry that happened.
01:44:36.15	David Marlatt	You know, because the street counts more than the heroics of the architect. Yeah. Thank you.
01:44:41.04	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:44:41.06	David Marlatt	This is a great place.
01:44:41.21	Unknown	Yeah.
01:44:41.51	Nastassya Saad	Oh, OK. Commissioner Moore, it's a good point because I just wanted to make sure from where it's being measured. But I'm going to defer. Let's just all be hot on moving the 42 inches to a six feet limit here. Okay. Thank you. Um, staying in this section since there were some edits. Commissioner Luxembourg, did you have any other call outs here?
01:45:04.18	Jeffery Luxenberg	Well, continuing on the typos, obviously, um public notice becomes C, and then you relabel them all the way D, E, F through, well, it's now I comes J. So you just have to relabel them. Really, all the staff has to do is go back to the original code, which I looked at in the ordinance, and it'll be obvious what occurred. It's obviously Word or somebody reformatting, you know, when you push returns and stuff.
01:45:40.61	Nastassya Saad	Okay, so without following your... what you've just changed is I'm looking at the red lines here, but yours is noted and those should be, um, edited, I'm looking at Well, it's current number six. Let's see where we are. We are C6. I'm on page four because there's a flag for discussion possible removal. This is for the... reading it as is applications to construct terrace or multiple retaining walls or slope stabilization projects that retain an aggregate of six feet or more of soil within any 10-foot horizontal interview. So you guys have a flag here for discussion for possible removal. It's a very specific point, but I don't know if they wanted to make any comments here, Vice Chair, or?
01:46:40.26	David Marlatt	Well, it's, I mean, I think I understand the intent of it. Maybe the wording could be improved. His idea that if you can have three foot retaining wall, before having design review, can you have three three foot retaining walls in a series? So I was trying to say that, you know, you get the aggregate of the six feet within any 10 foot horizontal space.
01:47:02.06	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
01:47:02.10	Unknown	Thank you.
01:47:02.22	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
01:47:03.47	David Marlatt	So I get the intent of it. Otherwise, people could just have one wall and then one foot behind that wall have another wall and one foot behind that wall have another wall. And, you know, bypass the intent of the code. So I'm fine with keeping it. Okay. Thank you.
01:47:17.57	Matthew Mandich	and we're going to have some
01:47:17.83	David Marlatt	Thank you.
01:47:17.93	Nastassya Saad	Did staff have any comments on this?
01:47:20.00	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, so that's my comment. And I put it in specifically because it's quite a burden for staff to do an entire administrative design review permit for these types of projects. Can talk to our associate planner, Mr. Blair. He does a number of these. And this was kind of put in at his request as well. So you have to spend a lot of time on these when perhaps maybe a zoning permit could be the way to approve something like this rather than doing it a whole administrative design review, which requires a notice of decision, findings, notice, public noticing. It's quite an involved process for the administrative design reviews. I also believe that he's not gotten, you know, one comment back ever on any of these. So they're mostly in people's backyards and things like that. So it's just it's quite an administrative burden on staff. So that was why it was brought up. So, you know, leave that at the discretion of the commission if if. You know, they want to discuss, keep talk. We're open to it, but this was the reason that it was flagged for potential removal or maybe downgrading from an ADR to a zoning permit.
01:48:31.98	Nastassya Saad	OK, that's good context. I don't really have a problem with downgrading it, especially for slope stabilization. I mean, you don't want to make that a Burgeson project. Um,
01:48:44.77	Andrew Junius	Yeah, I'm totally in favor of the staff position on that. I would just remove it and give the staff discretion to do the right thing.
01:48:51.97	Nastassya Saad	Commissioner Moore, any Any feelings here?
01:48:55.62	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:48:55.63	Fred Moore	I probably follow Commissioner Marlott, you know, I'd probably keep it to avoid the I'm kind of neutral. I can see both sides of it, so I'm kind of lukewarm on it. Sure. Okay. Commissioner Luxembourg?
01:49:08.07	Jeffery Luxenberg	I'm confused. So... We require an administrative review for the encroachment permit for retaining walls exceeding six feet. This one allows for the 10... So I guess How is this related to the encroachment permits, which are obviously in the public way,
01:49:39.44	Matthew Mandich	Oh yeah, it's not. This is on private property entirely. This isn't in the right of way.
01:49:42.87	Jeffery Luxenberg	Um, okay, so, um, If. So, OK, so if if this is in the right of way, I guess an aggregate of six feet or more within the 10-foot, horizontal this one's on private i'm okay with taking it up
01:50:00.59	Nastassya Saad	This one's on private problem. Okay. All right. So, I think we're mostly, mostly...
01:50:06.07	Jeffery Luxenberg	I think putting them together confused me.
01:50:07.51	Nastassya Saad	Right. Sure. Okay. Oh, moving down, Matthew has a comment on Well, what is currently H, this is the notice of decision, I'm at the bottom of page four. We have it up here on the screen as well. Community Development Department shall prepare a written... Notice of decision as the edit, which shall include all findings and applicable conditions of approval. I don't have any issues with staff's comment here.
01:50:39.60	Jeffery Luxenberg	Is that appealable? Yes, it is. And is there a reason we're not using similar languages we have in the other one just to be consistent?
01:50:42.44	Matthew Mandich	it is.
01:50:48.38	Matthew Mandich	for a notice of decision.
01:50:49.57	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. that they have to post it, does it have to be posted?
01:50:52.44	Matthew Mandich	So the way the notice of the decision works is that there's a whole section that kind of outlines the public noticing process for this that this section leads you to. I think it's in 1084. But basically, the way the notice of the decision works is so when you open the ADR process, you send a notice to all property owners within 300 feet and you post the site and you open up a comment period, which lasts for 10 days. So that's the first notice that goes out. If you don't get any comments in that period, or if you do get comments, those are the comments that are meant to influence your decision on the project. If you do get comments, you take those comments to account when you're reviewing the project. Ultimately, you're going to issue a notice of decision, either approving or denying the project. Oftentimes, they're approved. Approving the project, you'll have the findings, you'll have conditions of approval, everything. That notice of decision goes to the property owner owner and it goes to anybody else who commented on the project and that notice decision does is not effective until 10 days after the notice is issued and it says that on the notice of decision there's a decision date there's an effective date so essentially you have a 10-day comment period that the public notice opens and then you have a follow-on 10-day appeal period after the decision is made
01:52:08.43	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. and they don't have to post this at all.
01:52:10.91	Matthew Mandich	So the site is posted with the site posting saying that, you know, the comment period is open. You have 10 days to comment on this project. And the mailer goes out at the same time the site is posted.
01:52:21.81	Jeffery Luxenberg	But once the decision happens, that doesn't have to be posted.
01:52:24.58	Matthew Mandich	Once the decision happens, the notice of decision, and this is in the code already in a different section, the notice of decision is only sent to Thank you. the applicant and anyone who commented during that 10 day comment period.
01:52:34.82	Unknown	Okay.
01:52:35.53	Matthew Mandich	So if someone commented, they didn't like the project, you approved it anyway, you'll send them the notice of decision, letting them know the project's been approved. And then at that point they can decide whether or not they want to appeal.
01:52:45.08	Jeffery Luxenberg	Does what they get say that it's appealable?
01:52:49.07	Nastassya Saad	Oh yeah.
01:52:49.37	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
01:52:49.40	Matthew Mandich	Thank you. Yeah.
01:52:50.82	Nastassya Saad	But it's still appealable, anybody can still appeal.
01:52:53.27	Matthew Mandich	Oh, anyone could still appeal it if they just for the news. It's just not going to be posted publicly on the site. Um,
01:52:55.16	Nastassya Saad	Just for the nudity. I'm not sure. Perfect.
01:53:00.42	Andrew Junius	And I'm just curious about the striking of the resolution. Who was making a resolution? Was that just surplusage that it was just, okay, yeah, this is just cleanup then. Appreciate that. Thank you.
01:53:11.22	Nastassya Saad	Okay, I think we seem generally in Okay. That one's pretty warm across the board. If there are no other comments, because there are no other flags here, but unless anyone has one personally, I think we can pop over to 10.54. 050, which are the design review permits.
01:53:31.74	Jeffery Luxenberg	Can I make just an overall view of this before we get into specifics on this? Sure. I'd like this to be reorganized, which doesn't change the language as much as it changes the logic based on some of the changes. So if we bring up, is this the section here? uh,
01:53:55.13	Nastassya Saad	Are you looking for design review permits, 10.54?
01:53:57.71	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, I'm looking for 10-54-0-50. Okay, that's on page five.
01:54:01.04	Nastassya Saad	Okay, that's on page five.
01:54:03.76	Jeffery Luxenberg	What's that?
01:54:04.56	Nastassya Saad	I'm just telling city staff that's on page five.
01:54:09.05	Assistant City Manager	Oh, apologies. I thought we were moving on to the next section. No. OK. Thank you.
01:54:13.44	Jeffery Luxenberg	You would.
01:54:13.93	Assistant City Manager	Thank you.
01:54:13.96	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
01:54:14.76	Unknown	I said that in my head. Yeah. Uh,
01:54:16.24	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah. Oh, yeah. Thank you.
01:54:24.43	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay, so, Big picture and with one small edit. Number one talks about single family homes. I would leave number one as number one. Number two talks about reconstruction of single and two family or multifamily. That's number two. If we go down to what's now number seven, which is on the next page. I'm going to go back and forth, sorry about this. So number seven is additions or alterations to single families. And I want to make number seven now number three, because I'm going, I'm trying to go single family, multifamily, commercial kind of thing. So So that would be number three. Then on that same page where number seven is, where number five is, I want to add the word multifamily before the word commercial, industrial, or similar structure, and make that number four. So we're going from residential to residential and commercial. And then if you go back to the previous page, we're continuing on with additions to two-family, multifamily, or commercial. So on the previous page, which is, go back to the previous page, what was number four would be number five, because that has multifamily and commercial. And then if we go to the next page, five, no, Stan, oh, I'm sorry, number. No, in the end, number six, that was correct. Where it says number eight, construction, that's now number six. And then you renumber the rest, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11. So I'm just doing single family. But the only change is on that page six for number, again, number five. We would add multifamily there. And then I think the rest of it, the deletions work. So I'm just getting in some logical order and a framework. Yeah.
01:56:33.81	Nastassya Saad	Yeah. I, That was actually not too complicated to follow. That makes sense. And Commissioner Moore?
01:56:39.97	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:56:40.02	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:56:40.03	Fred Moore	What would you add, not my family? Are you adding? So what is that?
01:56:42.53	Nastassya Saad	So what is number five? Yes, so any commercial, industrial, or similar structure proposed for construction?
01:56:50.89	Fred Moore	Putting multifamily in front of that or residential?
01:56:53.03	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:56:53.42	Nastassya Saad	multifamily.
01:56:54.41	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, any multifamily, because there's not a place where we're indicating any, we're saying any new, any single family, any whatever, but there's no place we say multifamily. So that takes care of that, basically. And then the other deletions are fine with related to this concept. We can talk about the substance in a minute.
01:57:18.66	Matthew Mandich	Just want to confirm to you that we've now gone into the design review permit. Correct. Triggers. Yeah. Correct. Yeah.
01:57:22.96	Nastassya Saad	Correct.
01:57:23.67	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah.
01:57:23.98	Nastassya Saad	Correct.
01:57:24.45	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.
01:57:24.97	Nastassya Saad	Yeah.
01:57:25.04	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yep.
01:57:25.26	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
01:57:26.85	Nastassya Saad	OK.
01:57:27.37	Jeffery Luxenberg	So that's just a...
01:57:28.53	Nastassya Saad	That's okay. Not touching substance. All right. We can, um, I wrote that down, but, um, I mean, I don't personally have any issues with the restructuring. No. Everyone's fine with that.
01:57:28.60	Jeffery Luxenberg	That's a good question.
01:57:38.08	David Marlatt	Yeah, I guess, except the multifamily that is not otherwise subject to HAA, you know?
01:57:43.52	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, I mean, if we have to clarify this, but I mean, don't we clarify that somewhere else? I don't know. I'm assuming that, yeah, that would be true of, yeah. If we had to have a thing at the beginning that says, except for projects that are covered elsewhere or something. Okay.
01:57:55.36	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
01:58:03.58	Nastassya Saad	So why don't we get into a little bit more of the details here, since there's some more conceptual ideas with some of these edits. So, under A and B on page five, there are just some sort of basic edits here. with changing under purpose and authority? or applicability, to any of the red lines. Just going to kind of go page by page here. They're pretty straightforward, taking into consideration your changes, Commissioner Luxembourg, on page six. We're now getting into some more strikeouts, so for example, Gold number six, projects for exterior remodeling of any commercial or industrial structure which have any of the following... effects add more than 10% of the total floor area ratio, et cetera. So I'm looking at, thank you, I think we're in the right section. And then down from the bottom, what was number seven under additions or alterations to flag for discussion the increase, this is 7C, original 7C, increase the total floor area more than 600 floors. Square feet, I believe. Yes, square feet. So we've got some flags here that I want to just get into to see. what we think,
01:59:40.38	Andrew Junius	Well, let me, Thank you. to the next episode. uh, start off by, Again, thanking Commissioner Vice Chair Marlott for digging into this stuff. that the issue there, the section you just described, I think we've had a few of these come to us and It seems to me that a design review permit shouldn't be triggered by like, filling out your building. I mean, you know, you've got an envelope and whatever that, there may be floor area issues or whatever, but it, you know, why the design part of it when you when it's you know, you're just filling in something under a deck or there's you know, there's some crawl space that you now are turning into living space. We've had a few of those and it just seems odd that the, You know, the building's not changing. The envelope's not changing. You're just increasing the floor area usable to the homeowner inside their building. And I don't know why that would trigger design review, Commissioner Marlott, Vice Chair Marlott, is that that's part of it. Right. And you've got a couple of places here where that's
02:00:41.97	David Marlatt	Mm-hmm. Yeah, and that's what it does say in 7a, add more than 300 square feet of building coverage. So not a building area, but a building coverage. So that would theoretically cover your comment about
02:00:47.51	Jeffery Luxenberg	All right.
02:00:55.54	David Marlatt	you know, if there's 300 square feet available in a crawl space, then that's not triggering
02:01:01.65	Andrew Junius	But building coverage to me sounds like it's footprint as opposed to the floor area of the building.
02:01:07.59	David Marlatt	Right. So 300 square feet of building coverage. which means if you have 300 square feet within the envelope of your building, or less, then you're not going to
02:01:18.57	Andrew Junius	Okay. I guess that's architect speaking. I don't understand that.
02:01:22.00	Matthew Mandich	Sorry, are we talking about A7A? you know,
02:01:25.56	Andrew Junius	Yeah.
02:01:25.76	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, I also had it.
02:01:26.30	Andrew Junius	Yeah.
02:01:26.32	David Marlatt	Yeah. It expands the envelope.
02:01:29.66	Matthew Mandich	I would just say increases the total building coverage by more than 300 square feet. We're saying increase the total floor area by more than 300 square feet of building coverage.
02:01:38.06	David Marlatt	Yeah, that's fair. That was, I think you might. Clean that up. I think you might, that could be cleaned up because it was just picked as, um,
02:01:44.58	Andrew Junius	Building coverage is not a term I've used. I've seen much coverage. It's either it's either footprints, essentially, like where does the building sit and how what is its area as it touches the ground versus the area of the building? That's right. It's.
02:01:45.30	David Marlatt	to me.
02:01:57.08	Matthew Mandich	No, that's right. So, yeah.
02:01:57.98	David Marlatt	It increases the building coverage by more than $300.
02:01:58.58	Matthew Mandich	Yeah. Building coverage is one of our development standards and it's exactly what you just said it is. It's the footprint.
02:02:05.20	David Marlatt	That could be better. The wording could certainly be better. Yeah.
02:02:08.81	Nastassya Saad	But the intent is to, if you add more than 300 square feet, are we saying to trigger the design review?
02:02:16.18	David Marlatt	If you expand the envelope of your house more than 300 feet, that triggers design review. Okay.
02:02:16.20	Nastassya Saad	Oh, that's pretty cool.
02:02:20.94	Matthew Mandich	Yeah. Adding new building coverage to the structure, I think is what we want to say. Three-hundreds of new building coverage.
02:02:27.00	David Marlatt	It can be rewarded, but... And if you add more than 600 square feet to your building anywhere, including in a basement or whatever, that triggers design review. Okay.
02:02:27.78	Matthew Mandich	And if you add more
02:02:34.70	Andrew Junius	And why would that trigger designer view? I mean, if like, for example, whether it's a, whether it's an unused basement or a, or a attic space, that's not that you're going to make habitable and the envelope of the building stays exactly the same.
02:02:37.07	David Marlatt	whether it's a...
02:02:46.34	David Marlatt	Well, I think that's why Matthew's flung it for discussion. It's a good discussion.
02:02:46.51	Andrew Junius	I think that's why that's it. Yeah.
02:02:49.34	David Marlatt	Thank you.
02:02:49.36	Matthew Mandich	Yeah. So I think I want to discuss. And then the other thing about it is you're thinking of a basement. However, you can add 600 square feet of an addition on a rooftop, right? Ample.
02:02:49.83	David Marlatt	So I think it would
02:02:57.41	Nastassya Saad	rooftop for example plus windows right
02:02:59.67	Matthew Mandich	But that would also trigger the exchange in height. So do you really need it at that point? So then we're circling back to what is the 600 square feet accomplishing if it's not changing building coverage? Cause there are other triggers that would cover it as an addition on height. Right. So it is an interest. It's one to discuss. I don't, you know, I don't know where we land on that, but worth talking about.
02:03:19.19	Nastassya Saad	But if you're triggering, if you're making a change, you're within the envelope, but you're creating a new room, like, for example, in that project that we just had, right, with new windows facing directly into a neighbor's yard, for example. I mean, I feel like that would be the trigger point to want to have some kind of design review. personally, but obviously open for discussion.
02:03:39.65	Andrew Junius	But what if there's a house that has a massive attic that is not habitable and somebody it's a thousand square feet of attic that the building will look exactly the same. They want to improve their home. And would this trigger as I interview it's a thousand square feet of new floor area in an existing structure that nobody would ever know. We're not putting in dormers or anything. You're just going to, you know, you're just going to. Yeah.
02:04:00.22	David Marlatt	I'd currently written the answer is yes, it would.
02:04:00.56	Andrew Junius	Yeah.
02:04:02.46	David Marlatt	Yeah.
02:04:02.66	Andrew Junius	And I don't think that's right. I just think that's like another like, wow, why in the world would that be designer vehicle?
02:04:09.90	Fred Moore	Ooh.
02:04:10.14	Nastassya Saad	Are you thinking about interior? I'm sorry, Commissioner Moore. Are you thinking strictly like the interior is not changing and therefore it has no impact to anyone?
02:04:10.24	Fred Moore	I think they should speak to it.
02:04:18.83	Andrew Junius	Yeah.
02:04:19.39	Nastassya Saad	I think.
02:04:19.78	Andrew Junius	It's not the public's, you know, these things see it. They don't even see it.
02:04:24.43	Fred Moore	I think to Commissioner Chairs, point. like we just had, you had the 600 square feet to your attic, now you're gonna add windows. And so now you're gonna create issues with the design and privacy, et cetera, that are gonna come up. So if you added 600 square feet and didn't change, the exterior of the building and all, I would agree with you 100%. Like if you just think somehow you're, I don't know how you can improve the attic without windows, but for some storage area, I agree that you should not have to come in here. if you didn't change the exterior of one iota.
02:04:56.46	Nastassya Saad	I think that's where, yeah, I completely agree if you don't change the exterior. But I think if anything on the exterior is changing, it could be impactful. Commissioner Luxembourg.
02:05:05.39	Jeffery Luxenberg	aren't we allowing them to add 300 square feet to the exterior of their building in A? So therefore, I mean, there's going to be issues regarding they have to comply with setbacks and all these other things, but then there's going to be privacy issues. So 300 square feet is not insignificant. 1,000 square feet, I think, is significant to get inside, to get, no, in a typical... A lot of hostilio homes are barely a thousand square feet of themselves. Most, I would think there are, I'm sure there are examples, but there are very few cases of empty, not used thousand square feet inside an existing structure. So I think that the 600 is actually pretty reasonable for, you know, that's even that's a substantial amount. And they're likely to change windows, affect privacy and all that. So I'm I think this is right now it's they can't do 300, it automatically triggers it, right?
02:06:14.86	Matthew Mandich	Yeah. So yeah, it's an interesting one because, you know, right now the standard trigger for design review is really, you know, an increase of 300 square feet of new floor area and new building coverage kind of combined. That's like really how anything over that's going to trigger design review. It's an addition of more than 300 square feet, right? So when you're adding 600 square feet without any, any building coverage, you're doing pretty much one of two things. You're either... Going up. In which case you would be caught by a trigger for increasing the building height. or you're going down. in which case everything's underground. there's like you said, there's not a lot of spaces in Sausalito where you're going to be able to expand, you know, 600 square feet in an attic or an existing basement, you know? So, I mean, does it make sense to have this additional trigger? I mean, when is, when does this happen? You know, it's probably going to be caught by another trigger anyway. Is so it's kind of just another redundant trigger. So if you want to keep it, I don't, I don't like. have any personal opinion on it really. I just think it's redundant.
02:07:11.80	Jeffery Luxenberg	Right now, if you had a 400 square feet, if you have 400 square feet that you're adding on your building. That would trigger design review. Correct.
02:07:23.21	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
02:07:23.92	Jeffery Luxenberg	Now we're allowing it to go to 600, which means you take that 300 building coverage and you stack it. to a building that's already two and a half stories. And you took you put a 600 square foot two floor box on the back of it. We're allowing that, which right now, without design review, right now there would...
02:07:42.83	Matthew Mandich	Yes. So I believe, let me read it again, but I believe this is not where building coverage is being added currently.
02:07:49.52	Jeffery Luxenberg	Oh.
02:07:50.02	Matthew Mandich	So, I mean, if you were going to do an addition, you're definitely going to be adding building coverage.
02:07:53.97	Unknown	Thank you.
02:07:53.99	Jeffery Luxenberg	So I think
02:07:54.19	Matthew Mandich	I think this is just adding 600 square feet of floor area without adding additional building coverage.
02:08:00.25	Jeffery Luxenberg	No, it's all crossed out.
02:08:02.27	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, I know. I know it's hard, but
02:08:05.29	Jeffery Luxenberg	It says you can increase the building coverage by 300 square feet. And then it says C, you can increase the total area by 600 square feet. Total four area. So you take a 300-foot.
02:08:13.34	Unknown	Total four.
02:08:16.06	Jeffery Luxenberg	uh building coverage and you stack it and we're that's what we're allowing which right now requires design review and under this and i'm not saying i'm not okay with this but under this we would be allowing that without design review that's what it says Am I missing some?
02:08:35.21	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, I'm going more off what's in the code right now based on what the red line reads. And yeah, the red line is more, increase the floor area by more than 600 square feet. So yeah, I mean, again, I think that, This section has been chopped up a lot, and I don't really know what we're getting at with it right now. So maybe it needs further review. Refinement.
02:08:58.60	Jeffery Luxenberg	Well, it sounds like we're allowing a, right now the code allows for a 300 foot addition without design review.
02:09:05.88	Matthew Mandich	Yes. Once you get to 300 square feet, that's the trigger.
02:09:08.96	Jeffery Luxenberg	That's the trigger. So this is going to allow one twice that size. as it's written.
02:09:15.17	Matthew Mandich	Well, yeah, I mean, there's a trigger below that that would already catch it. So again, we're just, I don't know what, what we're doing with it.
02:09:20.14	Jeffery Luxenberg	I think I understand the redundancy. Now I'm getting two and a half story building, two story additions.
02:09:20.81	Fred Moore	No,
02:09:21.03	David Marlatt	And the redundant. See you.
02:09:25.38	Jeffery Luxenberg	So it doesn't increase building.
02:09:28.39	David Marlatt	Well, maybe that's okay.
02:09:28.51	Jeffery Luxenberg	Well, I'm not sure.
02:09:30.61	David Marlatt	I mean,
02:09:31.12	Jeffery Luxenberg	and maybe that's okay but i'm just saying what's what's right if it doesn't increase suggesting that if you put a one-story addition on it increases the building height of
02:09:33.70	David Marlatt	It doesn't increase population.
02:09:39.91	Jeffery Luxenberg	Let me make sure we're on that. When it says increase the building height, it's the overall building height, right?
02:09:45.55	Matthew Mandich	Well, that's something that I think we should discuss as well, because I don't think that's necessarily clear in the code as it's written.
02:09:51.64	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay. Well, I'm just going on what the language says. I'm not giving an opinion one way or another.
02:09:58.85	Assistant City Manager	As far as just if I may add, there is an additional trigger for potential to impact view as a designer view trigger. So in your case study or thought experiment, Commissioner, I would... I would think that we would pull the trigger of potential to impact view if a designer view wasn't triggered by any of these other elements.
02:10:19.53	Jeffery Luxenberg	um,
02:10:22.35	David Marlatt	Yeah, I think maybe my position is I think maybe it's OK. If you increase the building height, and the building height should be the maximum building height,
02:10:22.91	Jeffery Luxenberg	It's, it's, it's, it's,
02:10:31.47	David Marlatt	And so if you stay under that height limit and you don't impair any possible view, whatever that configuration is, and you get two stories of 300 square feet each, then Sure. I mean you're not really.
02:10:43.43	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, but where's the view impact?
02:10:46.59	David Marlatt	Well, the view impact is judgmental because that depends on view sync. No, that depends on the staff going out. That's always been somewhat subjective.
02:10:48.71	Nastassya Saad	Exactly.
02:10:56.03	Nastassya Saad	So I think that's, yeah.
02:10:58.23	Assistant City Manager	Yeah, I will state just to kind of color that a little bit, that staff tend to be fairly conservative with potential to impact view. The reason for which is because we've had cases that have gone forward that were purported to not impact view, which were then discovered to have impacted view. and in those cases we end up having to walk back in some cases like a zoning permit decision where in fact a zoning permit decision where in fact that zoning permit ought to have been a design review. So we've, I would like to say that we're, we're conservative based on risk management for the city. Uh, we tend to have a, a broad range or a broad interpretation of potential to impact view.
02:11:42.86	Fred Moore	Well, in that vein, and based on Sergio's comment, we've added here in a couple of places or public vistas, which weren't before. So that seems like an impediment to development.
02:11:57.98	Mary Wagner	And I am concerned about that addition in light of the Housing Crisis Act.
02:12:04.19	Fred Moore	That comes up in a couple locations, so I would think we would have to reconsider that or possibly not add it.
02:12:14.32	Mary Wagner	Yeah, and in terms of the revisions that are being made here, as I'm looking at them for the most part, I would feel comfortable representing in the case of litigation that they are substantially equivalent to requirements that were presently there but are just clarifications. But if we are expanding the classes of projects, which may be caught up in design review permitting, That would be particularly difficult to address under the Housing Crisis Act.
02:12:44.26	Nastassya Saad	Okay. um,
02:12:49.47	Jeffery Luxenberg	I just want to ask, where's the view trigger language?
02:12:54.41	Assistant City Manager	immediately below the text that's currently highlighted.
02:12:56.62	Jeffery Luxenberg	The, wait, where? I would call
02:13:00.03	Unknown	Thank you.
02:13:00.05	David Marlatt	Thank you.
02:13:00.07	Unknown	I would call that.
02:13:00.91	Jeffery Luxenberg	D.
02:13:01.67	Unknown	Thank you.
02:13:01.70	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. Yeah.
02:13:03.04	David Marlatt	potentially potentially to impair primary views from other properties oh yeah i see it okay
02:13:07.58	Unknown	Oh, I see it.
02:13:09.69	David Marlatt	And so we added all our public vistas. Because elsewhere that's included in certain other sections. But yeah, fair point that may be.
02:13:18.36	Fred Moore	Well, actually, I didn't find public vistas in the code. I found public views, but I searched for it.
02:13:18.60	David Marlatt	I did. Well, I probably should say public views. You're right.
02:13:24.92	Assistant City Manager	I'm not. Yeah, I'm not sure that we should retain that language as it may be interpreted as an additional trait. Then this is per per.
02:13:33.66	Andrew Junius	city attorney. Yep. I definitely think we should be taking out all the things that we added for public vistas for the reasons that the city attorney just described.
02:13:41.68	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:13:41.70	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:13:42.34	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:13:42.37	Nastassya Saad	I would agree.
02:13:42.81	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:13:44.80	Nastassya Saad	Um, All right. So you know what? Let's just put a pin in this discussion, because I don't think we've landed anywhere. 100% across the board, but there's just a little bit more here. So we can come back to page six.
02:14:01.51	Matthew Mandich	Can we, could we talk about the increase the building height? Cause that's definitely one I should have flagged too, for discussion as far as like, when we're talking about increasing building heart, are we talking about an increase of the maximum building height? Cause I think that's kind of how we've been interpreting it, but it doesn't say that. And it'd be great if we could just, you know.
02:14:07.79	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
02:14:16.63	David Marlatt	if we could just- It almost has to say that. Maybe it does need to be beefed up. Because otherwise, by definition, any increase in the building, if you have a 10-foot tall addition, you're not increasing the building height by 10 feet.
02:14:28.02	Assistant City Manager	And just to say that has been our interpretation, Max buildings.
02:14:30.90	David Marlatt	Yeah.
02:14:30.92	Assistant City Manager	Yeah. Okay.
02:14:31.56	Unknown	Thank you.
02:14:31.58	David Marlatt	Okay.
02:14:32.02	Unknown	Thank you.
02:14:32.07	David Marlatt	We have a great day.
02:14:32.14	Unknown	Thank you.
02:14:32.17	Matthew Mandich	But yeah, it'd be great to get it codified so we can be clear with applicants as well that it's, you know, as long as we're not going above, you know, the peak of the roof, et cetera. So, for example, the situation of like dormers oftentimes do not increase the overall building height. In some cases, they would still trigger design review if they have the potential to impair views.
02:14:35.23	Unknown	Yeah.
02:14:51.91	Matthew Mandich	but they won always. You know, there are certain cases where if you're on a, you know, What's behind you hillside. Yeah, you're you're fine. So. Thank you.
02:15:00.64	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah.
02:15:00.76	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
02:15:00.79	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
02:15:00.91	Matthew Mandich	That's amazing.
02:15:00.98	Jeffery Luxenberg	You may want to clarify, because the intro to this says, existing single-family resident or construction expansion of an accessory structure, which has the following effects. So if you have two buildings, you're increasing the building height of the accessory structure You want to be clear that it's the overall building. It's the height of the property, not any one building, because there could be multiple buildings.
02:15:25.46	David Marlatt	I'm not sure I would agree with that. I think because if you've got separate buildings and a larger piece of property, which is rare in Sausalito, and you've got a barn or something, and you're doing an addition to that barn that's increasing the building height of that barn,
02:15:27.35	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
02:15:37.14	David Marlatt	you've increased the building height the building that you're adding to.
02:15:41.69	Jeffery Luxenberg	You've increased the height of the borrowing, you mean?
02:15:43.55	David Marlatt	Yeah, if that's where the addition is or alteration.
02:15:45.56	Jeffery Luxenberg	Right. But are you saying you don't want to allow that? So I'm saying we just need to clarify the language
02:15:50.74	Matthew Mandich	Thank you. Yes. And just to clarify too, that, um, commissioner Marla is correct in the fact that that has been applied for accessory structures such as detached garages and things like that. Cause right now it's written as increase the height of, of any building.
02:16:09.19	Unknown	Yeah, of any building, though, the building to use being things, I think there
02:16:10.03	Matthew Mandich	any building. You've seen things. I think there was a garage on San Carlos or something that was brought to you. I mean, there may have been other triggers in there too. I don't remember all of it, but one of them was that it was increasing the height of that accessory structure, which was, you know, one of the reasons it was qualifying for design review. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, I'd be... Very much.
02:16:29.64	David Marlatt	Yeah.
02:16:30.14	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, I mean, you could say, you know, increase, you know, the maximum building height of the primary residence or something like that.
02:16:36.08	David Marlatt	Or of the building to which you're making the addition. Yeah.
02:16:40.91	Jeffery Luxenberg	But we could just go back to the language that was there, which is increase the height of any building. If we don't change it, then it's $1 billion.
02:16:49.11	David Marlatt	Well, not any building on the property. Like, if you've got two buildings on the property, it's increased the building height of that building which you're adding on to.
02:16:52.77	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah.
02:16:57.13	Fred Moore	I thought the concept was if you have two buildings and you increase one of them, but it's not, above the height of the whole project, all the buildings on the project, you're okay, unless it triggers the impairment of a view. Then you would come back and have it designed to be.
02:17:11.54	David Marlatt	And have it designed to be. That's how it's been practiced. I think that you're adding to an existing building or accessory structure. So the measure of increasing the height is relative to that structure to which you're adding, not to another structure on the property elsewhere. So,
02:17:27.01	Fred Moore	So then you don't want the maximize, you want the old language, increase building height, period, any building.
02:17:33.44	Jeffery Luxenberg	Many billions. You want to leave the language as it was written previously. Or the building to which the addition is being made. Yes.
02:17:40.24	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:17:40.26	Fred Moore	Yeah, yeah. Yes. He won't.
02:17:41.42	Jeffery Luxenberg	You want to. you're going to be a little bit
02:17:42.55	Nastassya Saad	Yeah. Yeah.
02:17:42.92	Jeffery Luxenberg	You want to leave the language that was there before the red line.
02:17:47.78	Nastassya Saad	He wants to edit it ever so slightly, but the intent is the same as Marcy.
02:17:50.15	David Marlatt	But it... It's not the height of any building which is on the property. It's the height of that building to which you're adding. Thank you.
02:17:58.74	Nastassya Saad	He wants clarification, yes. Contrary to what you just said.
02:17:58.75	David Marlatt	Oh, my God.
02:17:59.08	Fred Moore	He wants clarification, yeah.
02:18:01.17	David Marlatt	you're going to be a
02:18:01.24	Fred Moore	Yeah.
02:18:01.25	David Marlatt	THE END OF which means-
02:18:02.77	Fred Moore	to what Matthew's been doing as well.
02:18:05.77	David Marlatt	So when you have an accessory building, you take the building height of, say, detached primary residence as the building height, even though the addition might be to a garage or an accessory building.
02:18:16.44	Matthew Mandich	No. Thank you.
02:18:17.23	David Marlatt	Thank you.
02:18:17.33	Matthew Mandich	Yeah.
02:18:17.75	David Marlatt	that you do it for virtual.
02:18:17.96	Matthew Mandich	Like for accessory structures that are being modified, for example, garages that every storage area is added or going down slopes or whatever, adding new roofs, raising the roof, those have been subject to design review.
02:18:29.67	David Marlatt	Right, because it's specific to buildings.
02:18:30.99	Matthew Mandich	because it's changing the height of any bill
02:18:34.92	David Marlatt	Yeah. It's that building.
02:18:35.32	Matthew Mandich	Yes. So that's a building on the property that is being augmented in height. Yeah. And that would, that has triggered design review in the past.
02:18:39.61	David Marlatt	in height. I think we're saying the same thing.
02:18:44.62	Matthew Mandich	Yes, I think so.
02:18:45.50	David Marlatt	Thank you.
02:18:46.71	Jeffery Luxenberg	If I'm hearing what you're saying, you want to go back to the original language because it says increase the height of any building, meaning if there's an addition and there's two buildings, any building that increases the height, it triggers design review. If it's an addition on the back, which is shorter than the main building, it doesn't trigger design review.
02:19:01.82	Matthew Mandich	Absolutely.
02:19:02.03	Unknown	There's design reviews. I do.
02:19:11.05	Unknown	Thank you.
02:19:11.15	David Marlatt	I love it.
02:19:11.40	Unknown	Thank you. No.
02:19:12.06	David Marlatt	But no, it wouldn't. If there's an addition on a building that increases the height of that building, then it triggers design review.
02:19:12.08	Unknown	Thank you.
02:19:12.18	Jeffery Luxenberg	No.
02:19:12.45	Unknown	Well,
02:19:12.75	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
02:19:19.00	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yes, we agree with that. If there's two buildings on the property, and it is shorter than the main building, but it makes it bigger than the existing building. Bigger than, you have a barn, and you're making a two-story barn from a one-story barn, that would trigger
02:19:21.24	David Marlatt	Okay.
02:19:40.21	Unknown	Yes.
02:19:40.54	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yes, that's the way it works right now. That is what they do.
02:19:40.59	Unknown	Yes.
02:19:46.70	Jeffery Luxenberg	But we were talking about because I didn't realize I was only thinking of one building. Now that I think about two buildings, I like the language that currently exists.
02:19:56.49	Nastassya Saad	I... I think we're all saying the same thing. And the barn example is not doing us justice here.
02:20:05.92	Fred Moore	But I think Matthew's comment was, if you take... the building and the barn. And the barn. And you increase the barn by five feet. It's still four feet shorter than the home. and does not impair a view. Thank you. Matthew was saying, why should that trigger design review? And what I'm hearing everybody else say here is that if you increase any building, even if the increase is less than the maximum allowed or less than the adjacent existing building, you still, and does not impact a view, you still want to have design review.
02:20:43.88	Jeffery Luxenberg	I think, yes, that's what we're now saying. And when I first thought of it, I didn't think of two separate buildings. So if there's an addition and it's lower than the building, that the language that was there before was fine, I agree with you. That's what Matthew's raising, is do we want that? I think I'm hearing from Vice Chair Marla, yes, we want design review on a barn that's adding, that's larger than it is now, yes.
02:21:12.92	David Marlatt	it's consistent with the code.
02:21:14.84	Jeffery Luxenberg	And I would agree with that. I'm hearing that you're disagreeing with that, but yeah.
02:21:19.36	Fred Moore	I just think it adds, And it adds extra work where sometimes maybe doesn't need to go through all that work. Again, it's not impairing a view. It's not higher than the adjacent building. It's not higher than the height limit. He's adding two feet. Should he really have to go through height and design review? I don't know.
02:21:36.04	David Marlatt	I don't think so. When you say two feet or ten feet.
02:21:38.32	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:21:38.33	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, exactly. Then it becomes subjective to how many feet. I mean, if you're, we just had that project, they could have gone up to 32 feet and they didn't. They only went up to, I think, one foot below, right, of the, of the neighbor, but they were
02:21:38.36	Fred Moore	Yeah.
02:21:52.34	Nastassya Saad	I think by that standard, they can go up to 32 feet because that's what the code allows and that there's no design reviews at.
02:21:59.38	Fred Moore	No, they would have, in that case, they would have design review because they increased the height of the structure and it was higher than the building. They increased the building. We're talking about two separate buildings where one increase is not higher than the existing building.
02:22:14.50	Jeffery Luxenberg	I think that, especially given the small lot size generally, that if you've got an accessory structure, you're putting a second ADU on the back in a former thing, and you're making it. There are other rules for ADUs, though. But I think potentially, yes, I don't think they should be able to increase the height of the building without design reviewing.
02:22:35.13	Nastassya Saad	I agree. I'm sure, um,
02:22:37.60	Matthew Mandich	just to put it, it gives a perspective of an example here right now. So we, if you do have a garage with a flat roof and you go ahead and put a pitched roof on that, that's going to trigger design review currently. And I think what Commissioner Moore is saying is, do we really want that if there's no view impact? Because the view impact trigger would catch it if there were a view impact. And do we want to have design reviews?
02:22:55.05	Nastassya Saad	Is that happening with staff? Yes. View impact.
02:23:01.36	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, that's a staff decision. That's a staff decision. And as, you know, ACM Phipps already said, that's something that we are pretty conservative on. You know, if there's any kind of potential view impact, we're going to bring it forward to Desire of the-
02:23:02.49	Nastassya Saad	That's a staff decision.
02:23:12.04	David Marlatt	I mean, one of the reasons that that building height is a trigger separate from view impairment is building height affects massing, and that's traditionally the purview of the Planning Commission. Exactly. So it's not just about whether or not there's a primary view. And normally I'm very,
02:23:22.33	Unknown	Thank you.
02:23:26.60	David Marlatt	Not in this camp, normally I'm in the camp that says, you know, less is better. But. You know, it is normally the purview of the Planning Commission about dealing with massing and height, in addition to building coverage, or massing. Yeah.
02:23:37.94	Jeffery Luxenberg	It also is possibly going to affect light and air. And if it affects light and air, but there is not a view, if it's back in a mountain, whatever, but it affects the neighboring properties, I think we should have a designer view.
02:23:38.03	David Marlatt	I can't.
02:23:53.13	Nastassya Saad	So...
02:23:54.02	Fred Moore	I agree. I think we should have design review, but I... So we don't need to change then the maximum height definition, because they're just going to say building height. So that will be satisfactory.
02:24:05.80	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, I think the only tweak would be to, you know, increase the maximum height of any building rather than just the height. Because it's a bit unclear right now, like in a situation. Well, the peak, the roof peak.
02:24:15.27	Fred Moore	What else? I think everybody's saying they don't want to have the maximum height Everybody wants to keep, increase the building height. Period. So if you ask
02:24:25.60	Matthew Mandich	Well, that I mean, so there's the ambiguity there around like putting dormers on, for example, where you're increasing part of the height of the building there.
02:24:31.43	David Marlatt	the height's defined by the ridge. Thank you.
02:24:33.29	Matthew Mandich	But yeah, exactly. Right now, the way the code reads is increase the height of any building.
02:24:33.31	David Marlatt	Thank you. Exactly. So the dorm was below the...
02:24:38.45	Matthew Mandich	It's not super clear about whether or not, for example, the addition of dormers would be considering adding height to that building because you're adding height to a place where there wasn't before. You're increasing the height in that part of the building. You know, and then what about adding an addition on another part on a building? That's a little bit, you know, more like this and you add up to here if the buildings, if it's one building that triggering design review or not, it's a bit unclear, you're, you are changing the height of that building.
02:24:55.68	Unknown	I think.
02:24:58.64	David Marlatt	Back.
02:25:03.67	David Marlatt	Only the-
02:25:03.85	Matthew Mandich	But you're not taking it past the highest point.
02:25:06.22	David Marlatt	Yeah, we should clarify that to say the maximum building height. We should clarify that 100% agree.
02:25:11.60	Jeffery Luxenberg	No, I... No, I think that we don't, if the height limit is 35 feet and somebody has got 22 feet and they're adding a whole nother story, This is not a question whether they're allowed to do it. This question whether it needs to go through design review. I don't think we want anybody adding a full story on a building without design review in a single family zone. And so I think that's the whole idea of design review is we can look at light and air and look at all these things. And if if somebody because basically we're not going to be reviewing multifamily under the new laws. the only thing we are going to be reviewing is single-febris. And if if somebody because basically we're not going to be reviewing multifamily under the new laws. Well, the only thing we are going to be reviewing is single family stuff where there's issues with neighbors and all that other kind of stuff. And if if we allow them to build to the maximum, they're going to design it so that they never have to get design review. There is no point to have design review. They're going to be able to figure out a way. uh to to to to do this if they're adding a full another story on top of the building even if it's just a tower i think it needs to side review i mean that's what so
02:26:19.05	Fred Moore	So we should think of it as the minimum situation, the adding dormers. Right now, staff is saying if you add dormers under the current language, it's going to have design review because you're increasing. So if everybody's okay with that, then we don't need to type that.
02:26:32.19	Jeffery Luxenberg	because- I know.
02:26:33.56	Unknown	I think I did.
02:26:34.52	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
02:26:34.56	Unknown	I'm sorry.
02:26:34.57	Jeffery Luxenberg	Bye.
02:26:34.61	Unknown	Yeah.
02:26:34.69	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. I'm okay with dormers requiring design review because generally it's going to be more than that. It's going to be triggered some other way as well.
02:26:40.55	David Marlatt	I'm not sure. That's great. Dormers don't trigger design review unless somehow, for some configuration, the dormer is above the ridge of the roof, because the definition of the height is the ridge. If the dormer is sticking out and it's below the ridge, it's not changing the height of the pool.
02:26:56.80	Nastassya Saad	And I think that that is the minimum example.
02:26:59.21	David Marlatt	unless it can impact view. Thank you.
02:27:00.68	Nastassya Saad	Unless it can...
02:27:00.73	David Marlatt	Bye.
02:27:00.86	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:27:00.91	David Marlatt	Thank you.
02:27:01.00	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:27:01.05	David Marlatt	Thank you.
02:27:01.10	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:27:01.20	David Marlatt	No, no, yeah, sure, but we were talking about height.
02:27:01.39	Fred Moore	No.
02:27:01.42	Nastassya Saad	Yeah.
02:27:01.44	Fred Moore	Bye.
02:27:02.82	David Marlatt	So,
02:27:02.91	Assistant City Manager	Thank you.
02:27:02.96	Unknown	Sure.
02:27:03.36	Fred Moore	It still goes back to the definition of what's the building height. And Matthew seems to think that is unclear.
02:27:08.32	David Marlatt	And,
02:27:08.41	Matthew Mandich	And his death by F.
02:27:09.20	Fred Moore	Yeah.
02:27:09.32	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
02:27:11.04	Fred Moore	Yeah. Thank you.
02:27:12.03	Unknown	clearly in the code.
02:27:13.03	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:27:13.18	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:27:13.22	Unknown	hype.
02:27:13.55	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:27:13.79	Unknown	Thank you.
02:27:13.84	Unknown	Thank you.
02:27:13.86	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
02:27:13.94	Unknown	Okay.
02:27:14.50	Unknown	Thank you.
02:27:15.04	Matthew Mandich	We're not, we're not talking about the maximum height allowed. We're talking about the maximum height of the existing structure.
02:27:20.00	David Marlatt	Yes, exactly.
02:27:22.50	Jeffery Luxenberg	I mean, the highly existing structure is what it is. And if you have a dormer and it doesn't go above the existing, then it would not require design review. If you make the dormer and lift the roof by changing its construction, you would trigger design review.
02:27:38.68	Unknown	Yeah.
02:27:39.14	Jeffery Luxenberg	And probably, going back to earlier, if it adds a skylight that has some structure to it, it's going to require design review. But most of these projects are going to require other things as well. I mean, so, yeah, I think the language that's there, increase the height of any building, given it's possible one or two buildings or multiple buildings, was fine. I'm not sure why we need to change the language as is. I would just leave it.
02:28:06.05	Nastassya Saad	Okay, we're gonna move on from this point, but I think, this side of the commission has been clear here, but you know, Matthew, we can continue to discuss that, but let's go ahead and leave that one as is. We do have on page seven, Encroachment agreements for garage, top of page seven. This is, it was slashed out, but it was originally number 13. Encroachment.
02:28:29.90	David Marlatt	I don't put eight.
02:28:31.52	Nastassya Saad	I'm sorry?
02:28:32.36	David Marlatt	Right below the design review, we had this map with flag, which I think I would vote to strike.
02:28:39.40	Nastassya Saad	Oh, I'm on the wrong page. Thank you.
02:28:42.60	David Marlatt	It's a quick, this is, this is an anachronism that's in the current code. I'm not sure why it has to do with aesthetics of people downhill, looking up into the underside of floor floors. I don't think we need it.
02:28:54.08	Nastassya Saad	Where are you exactly?
02:28:55.70	David Marlatt	It's currently number eight on page six.
02:28:56.63	Nastassya Saad	and I think that's a great question. Okay. Oh, I see.
02:29:00.58	David Marlatt	I would flag that for removal.
02:29:04.00	Nastassya Saad	I agree.
02:29:05.55	David Marlatt	It's there in the code for whatever reason.
02:29:07.59	Nastassya Saad	Yep, I agree. We also have, let's see, just to fill out the rest of the comments. Down at the bottom 12, sign and awnings, subject to design review. Common is that this is covered under the sign Ordnance.
02:29:26.60	Jeffery Luxenberg	I do have a question. If a project requires design review and there are signs... Do we do review the signs? Yes. Yes, okay.
02:29:36.53	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
02:29:38.98	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay. So maybe this doesn't need to be here yet.
02:29:41.14	Nastassya Saad	Sure, then we can go ahead and omit that for redundancy. Um, okay, so moving on to page seven. Encroachment agreements for garages, fences, buildings, dwelling units, structures, and parking spaces. This is number 13. There's a comment I think from Commissioner Junius, need to check to see if there's a legal requirement that these are reviewed by the PC. Attorney Rudin, do you have any input on On page seven, number 13, top of the page, encroachment agreements for garages, fences, buildings,
02:30:16.14	Mary Wagner	You know, there's no requirement that other than in local law that a planning commission consider encroachment agreements in general.
02:30:24.65	Nastassya Saad	Okay.
02:30:27.02	Jeffery Luxenberg	So this is current practice, right? Because this is not a change, okay.
02:30:32.42	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, this is current code. Um, Okay? I'm gonna pop over to page eight We have some strikeouts here. So page eight, so this is... Thank you. Let's see. This is number 12. Project site is consistent with the guidelines for heightened design review. So we're now moving into the concept, this is This precedes heightened review findings. Maybe just to take a step back to get the temperature. um, of the commission on the concept, because we did have this discussion last time, which I think you guys took some of our direction on, to remove heightened design review as a secondary permit. I think we basically had consensus last time from that, correct?
02:31:25.85	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah, if I understand this, we're going to require
02:31:26.86	Nastassya Saad	Conceptually.
02:31:28.96	Jeffery Luxenberg	we're going to anything that's over 80% will have additional provisions. We just won't have a separate permit.
02:31:35.76	Nastassya Saad	Yes, that's how we read it and that's how it is. Okay, great. So conceptually we're aligned there. um, Does anybody have any comments on how these red lines have been done for number 12 and 13, which are in the... So the project site is consistent with the guidelines for heightened review. And then number 13, the project has been designed to ensure on-site structures do not crowd or overwhelm. Um, the project site is consistent with the guidelines The comment here is that there's already subjectivity and findings to deal with this, so these are subject to removal based on how these red lines are?
02:32:20.81	Andrew Junius	and i'm also just um to kind of uh echo some of commissioner luxembourg's earlier comments about how this is organized So 11 is the last finding, and then 12 is gone, if we agree with that. 13 is gone. And then we remove the beginning of the heightened design review, you know, prologue there, and the language that is left says four residential projects that exceed. Is that number 12?
02:32:47.05	David Marlatt	Yes, that should be number 12. OK, so yes, and then, yeah, OK. I think when the current 12 was crossed out, that should be number 12.
02:32:48.02	Andrew Junius	Okay, so yeah, and then yeah. Thank you.
02:32:50.99	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Great. I do have a comment on number six on the next page.
02:32:58.66	David Marlatt	Go ahead.
02:33:00.57	Jeffery Luxenberg	But it says the site will provide, I mean, the whole point of the 80% is it's constraining the property, which is going to make it less likely that there's adequate parking on site beyond the spaces. So I'm not sure why we want to take a consideration. Throughout Tossolito, there's not enough parking anywhere, and it's a problem everywhere. I think that the site provide adequate guest parking, either on-site or within immediate street footage, is a benefit to have in our review. I mean, maybe it can be waivable, but there are a few single-family areas where this is less of an issue. But most of Sausalito, parking is an issue, and ADUs don't require any parking anymore. So there's cars everywhere.
02:33:53.29	Andrew Junius	And why aren't you satisfied by existing finding number 10? Opposed entrances, exits, insurance circulation, and parking spaces are configured to provide an appropriate level of traffic safety, blah, blah, blah. We've already got that.
02:34:04.46	David Marlatt	No. I've already got that. Plus isn't this covered by the parking section of the, you know, that you've got a guest parking, two spaces
02:34:12.95	Jeffery Luxenberg	10 is the configuration of parking spaces. It doesn't talk about guest parking, and guest parking isn't a requirement. They have to have two spaces for a single family. We're talking about there might be a way to design something so they do the curb cuts in a certain way so the on-street parking is maximized or whatever. I just think it's a criteria that we shouldn't take away, as all I'm suggesting. I don't think it's— And given what Attorney Rudin said, the more we take things away, we can't put them back in the future. So why take it out? I think it's useful.
02:34:47.44	David Marlatt	I could see an argument for it being a general finding. I just don't see what what it is about an 80% or greater That would trigger that, yeah.
02:34:55.24	Unknown	Bye.
02:34:55.25	Andrew Junius	that triggers that, yeah.
02:34:56.92	David Marlatt	Figure that first is just a general kind of the curb cuts should be done in such a way as not to remove, you know, or to minimize removal of, of street parking.
02:34:57.33	Andrew Junius	Yeah.
02:35:04.69	David Marlatt	And that's a reasonable thing to
02:35:07.08	Jeffery Luxenberg	Well, if we want to move it up to not in the height of the 80 percent.
02:35:08.32	David Marlatt	of the...
02:35:11.72	Jeffery Luxenberg	I'm fine, that's a good idea. I'd be happy to move it up.
02:35:14.27	Andrew Junius	We don't I just think we don't think we need two findings related to parking. No, I mean, I think that we.
02:35:18.00	Nastassya Saad	So I think then we could potentially edit number 10, proposed entry visit.
02:35:20.57	Unknown	Number 10, proposed entrance doesn't exist.
02:35:23.03	David Marlatt	Death's work. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
02:35:24.04	Nastassya Saad	Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So essentially,
02:35:29.05	David Marlatt	And guest parking spaces are configured.
02:35:31.26	Nastassya Saad	Right. We can just add and get, yes, and guess...
02:35:31.32	David Marlatt	you
02:35:34.91	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
02:35:34.93	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:35:34.96	Matthew Mandich	Could we talk through potentially how a finding like that could or could not be made?
02:35:44.75	David Marlatt	Thank you. parallel parking on your street front and for two cars and you put your driveway right in the middle so you kill two parking spaces The Commission may have a problem with that
02:35:54.42	Matthew Mandich	Well, there are provisions for that within the parking standards ordinance about. removal of on street parking and all of that. There's there's a maybe it's OK. I'm not familiar. Yeah, no. Yeah, there's there that that is an issue that's addressed by it's in 1040, I believe.
02:36:02.92	Unknown	Maybe it's okay. I'm not familiar.
02:36:04.17	David Marlatt	Yeah.
02:36:09.84	David Marlatt	but maybe it's redundant with, I think it's a good question.
02:36:13.67	Nastassya Saad	I think from the police from Commissioner Luxembourg's position is that we don't want to lose the ability to have the parking. So if that is confidently covered somewhere, I mean, 10 is a little bit different. 10 is, you know, ingress, egress. We want to make sure we can move around properly. That's not what we're after. Yes.
02:36:36.15	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, no, I think that just, you know, we do have the parking requirements within 1040 in our development standards. You know, you need the two parking spaces for a single family home. There are issues there where if you're removing on street parking, you have to make that up on site. Forget all the language exactly in there. But there's a very detailed long section about parking in our development standards section about how it has to be configured, you know, when you're allowed to have tandem parking, when you need conditional use permits for parking, all that. So I think my only question really is about, you know, like, it's a very subjective finding as it reads right now, you know, adequate guest parking, you know, in the immediate vicinity and, you know, what, what does that, you know, really mean? And, and does, you know, putting an addition on your house of more than 300 square feet you know, now mean that you need to have facilitate additional guest parking. It's just an interesting one. I mean, I'm not, you know, just curious.
02:37:26.83	Andrew Junius	Yeah.
02:37:26.89	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
02:37:28.65	Andrew Junius	And there's nothing else in the code that talks about guest parking. This is the only guest parking. There's no requirements.
02:37:33.46	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, that's a really good point. As far as I'm aware, I don't see there's nothing else in the code that talks about guest markets.
02:37:38.57	Andrew Junius	Yeah, I mean, it's just I think it's just a silly requirement. And it's clear we got parking issues in the city. If this is the only time guest parking is ever referenced in the code, it's bizarre. And, you know,
02:37:50.16	Jeffery Luxenberg	I'm going to go back to where I started. That's why it's under the 80%. Because if you're overbuilding a lot and you're trying to get to the maximum FAR, and by doing this, you're taking out parking that was on site, even though they had the number, the two spaces. I mean, part of the problem in Sausalito, I remember when I first joined, we talked about this issue. People build garages, and then they proceed to use the garages as storage space, and then they don't park in the garage. And if there's no parking spaces right outside the garage to park, now there's two more cars on the street. And so with the whole ADU thing, parking is an issue. And so there are ways to do this that you can encourage somebody when they're trying to build the 80%, then they do need the garage that they didn't want to put in or whatever. I don't think we want to take that tool away uh and i would go now i'm going back i would leave it under the 80 percent because um you know i mean it's they're asking for something that they want to build more than is they normally would be building and that's why we have some other provisions there so i i think it's sort of what is good If we take it out, we can't put it back in. And if we want to, we can always waive it as part of design reviews. So I would leave it.
02:39:19.94	Fred Moore	Wish them more. Well, I agree 100%. I think the reason it's here is because you're overbuilding the lot. And one of the considerations to allow overbuilding is that you've accommodated parking. The city has a horrible parking issue. Driving the streets, you get almost smashed into every day because all the cars parked in the street in some areas are so parked, you have to back up 40, 50, 60 yards sometimes to find a driveway to be able to get by. So again, this is in the context of the 80%, exceeding the 80%. Then this is triggered. So I think it needs to stay down where it is, not back up in the other sections.
02:39:58.26	Andrew Junius	Yeah, I don't understand how we can say that getting to 81% of what you're allowed. You're not going to try it. We're not going to 120%. We're still 20% lower than what you're allowed by the law. The law says you can build to 100% of your FAR. But because we're at 81%, this whole parking thing comes up. just seems strange.
02:40:21.41	Fred Moore	Well, you know my feeling on the FAR to begin with. Thank you.
02:40:24.96	Fred Moore	of all kinds.
02:40:25.45	Fred Moore	Okay.
02:40:25.63	Fred Moore	Thank you. Okay, so Vice Chair. based on that.
02:40:32.64	David Marlatt	Yeah, after listening to everybody,
02:40:33.02	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:40:35.28	David Marlatt	I would say we could probably tweak finding 10. Maybe there is something about that, about entrances, automobile entrances, guest parking spaces. And I would strike the heightened design review condition, especially, and I'm not familiar enough, unfortunately, with the parking ordinances, but if they're robust enough to regulate this, particularly with respect to parallel spaces in the street. then I think we should just rely on other sections of the code.
02:41:07.94	Nastassya Saad	I actually agree that we should rely on other sections of the code I was quite convinced by you, Commissioner Luxembourg, practically speaking, You can have somebody, to your other point, you can have them build a certain way, but you can't force anyone to use their garage regardless. So I think based on... I mean, I'm not very familiar, so I'm taking Matthew's word that, you know, we've got this other parking session that is going to cover this, that, um, I'd be OK with taking that out and leaving that in another section of the code. Not touching 10, mind you. 10 is its own separate thing.
02:41:43.24	Andrew Junius	I mean, and I do, I completely agree with Commissioner Luxembourg with the way people use their garages. And I can't stand the fact that every, you know, one lane street is packed with cars that should be in people's garages. It's really, that's a problem that can't be fixed. It just can't be fixed. And so why we're trying to fix it one parking space at a time for a person, I mean, it's just, again, it's like the people that are already here are abused in the system and abusing our right of ways. And yet the new person that comes in and just spent a ton of money to get into this town and wants to increase their house a little 81 percent. We're not even going to go to 100 percent of every hour. You're going to we're going to be fighting with them over a guest parking space when everybody else in town is like not even thinking about guest parking spaces and just parking wherever they want. It just seems unfair. It just seems silly.
02:42:31.05	Jeffery Luxenberg	I think the point of design review is cases are on an individual basis. If everything's going to be ministerial, we wouldn't bother to have design review, but it's a tool in the toolkit to allow us to suggest an alternative to something and come up with a better alternative. If that's what we're here to do, to do design review, then we're allowing ourselves a tool and we can always say uh they don't need it in this area or it's not necessary or whatever uh they're already there for design review it's not triggering design review they're already in design review we just want to have a uh something that allows us to get somebody to address that issue, I think where it is under the 80%, there's a trigger because there are a little bit more. I mean, there are a lot of laws that aren't fair. Prop 13 has people in town paying far more for two identical houses in taxes than their neighbor does, because they have a law that has that. We have ADU laws that say they don't need parking. But in reality, they do need parking, but they don't have to legally provide it. So this is a tool for the ones that come before us. I would leave it in the 80%.
02:43:48.40	Nastassya Saad	When you say to leave it in the 80%, will you still agree conceptually that we shouldn't have a separate permit for heightened design review, but conceptually have an 80% trigger?
02:43:58.26	Jeffery Luxenberg	We're eliminating a permit for design review and replacing it with findings for design review. So we're not really changing that significantly. But what I'm saying is if we add it to the other section, I think Attorney Rudin is going to say it's an additional requirement and then it's going to trigger something else. Yeah, yeah, I agree with that. I think looking at where it is in the code, under 80%, I'm going to call it 80% review, not a heightened design review permit. That's what I'm suggesting.
02:44:16.04	Nastassya Saad	Sure.
02:44:16.11	Unknown	Thank you.
02:44:16.26	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:44:17.17	Unknown	Thank you.
02:44:17.19	Unknown	Yeah, yeah, I agree with that.
02:44:28.16	Fred Moore	Yeah. I think we only have two options. We leave it where it is or take it out. We don't move it to 10. So those are the way up. Yeah, I agree.
02:44:35.45	Unknown	Yeah. And then, you know, the I think that's a good thing.
02:44:35.99	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:44:36.01	Unknown	I agree. Okay. Take it out.
02:44:38.10	David Marlatt	Have we ever, I've been in the commission only two years, has this ever come up? Have we ever, has anyone ever come at a? Guest parking? Discussion of that finding.
02:44:46.96	Andrew Junius	Yeah, we've had a few times where it's been an issue, which again, it's using a parking lever that nobody else has to comply with and hammering the new person to come in with a thing that they basically can't comply with or don't want to comply with because they don't want a parking space. And they might have a good reason for not having a parking space. So I just think it's- And we've waived it.
02:44:48.38	David Marlatt	Yeah, we have.
02:45:07.23	Nastassya Saad	And we've waived it because you can't even on certain streets. Remember up in George Lane, there was a, there was a, I mean, you can't even move on that street. It's a dead end. So we've waived it before. All right. I'm flopping. I'm back with Commissioner Luxembourg. Because you know why? It's true. You can waive it and it's a protection. And, you know, we don't have to do it. And we've waived it before. Um, So, Commissioner Moore, warm on keeping it. I'm probably warm on keeping it. Probably hot.
02:45:40.55	Jeffery Luxenberg	I don't think we've
02:45:41.31	Nastassya Saad	Cold and cold. We got okay. We got a three, two. You guys do what you will with that. Let's keep going.
02:45:41.33	Jeffery Luxenberg	Cold.
02:45:45.89	Nastassya Saad	930. So that is Where are we now? Propose landscaping. So now we're taking out the, I'm on 7D, same page, right? Oh no, no, I'm not on the same page. Hold on.
02:45:59.93	David Marlatt	just because that's redundant.
02:46:01.07	Nastassya Saad	Wait, I've lost my place. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Page nine. So yeah, the redundancy on the proposed plan providing adequate landscaping. Your logic here is that it's already in the original design review findings. I'm okay with that.
02:46:16.18	Unknown	Yeah.
02:46:20.02	Nastassya Saad	Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Junius. All right. So we can go ahead and accept that one. Down here at the bottom, we have some more redundancy. I am gonna jump down to 10.54060. just in the interest of time. So we have a redundant section. In addition to the information,
02:46:37.90	Jeffery Luxenberg	Can we just look at the next page? Sure.
02:46:40.06	Nastassya Saad	Yeah. Yeah, because we have a lot of Thank you.
02:46:43.46	Jeffery Luxenberg	Oh.
02:46:43.73	Nastassya Saad	crossing it.
02:46:44.39	Jeffery Luxenberg	which is part of that section. Yeah. So these are all the things that should be required, whether they're in the staffs thing that we talked about. I just want us to look at these. They're reasonable things. Site plan elevations. These are not. These are not fancy. So and then you'll see at the bottom where that big section there, it says the CD director can waive them. So so anyways, doesn't have to be in the code, but I definitely want to see it in the right.
02:46:46.21	Nastassya Saad	Yeah.
02:47:14.45	Jeffery Luxenberg	Totally agree. So, I think that's a good thing.
02:47:15.58	Nastassya Saad	Okay.
02:47:15.59	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah.
02:47:16.77	Nastassya Saad	That takes us to the end of this section.
02:47:19.78	Jeffery Luxenberg	I have one question on page 11 of the city attorney. Sure. So it says here on the third line, the fire chief, city engineer, building inspector, or any other office of the city or county for reports and recommendations. I want to add after the word county in that third line or any other entities with jurisdiction. And my question for the city attorney is the fire department is no longer part of the city if I understand it. I might be wrong about that. And it's not part of the county. It's a separate jurisdiction, as is the schools. So is there any reason we can't add any other entities with jurisdiction?
02:48:09.81	Mary Wagner	No, there is no reason you can't add that.
02:48:12.97	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay, so I'd suggest adding that because it would cover, I mean, it's fine to say the fire chief, but it will cover the fire department. So.
02:48:21.47	Mary Wagner	And any provisions in the code that refer to the fire department should really refer to the southern run fire protection districts. Because the city no longer has a fire department.
02:48:31.92	Jeffery Luxenberg	So we should say the fire chief of the Southern Marin and add this any other jurisdictions, because there might be a case where the schools get involved.
02:48:39.87	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Okay. I don't think there's any issue with that. Um,
02:48:46.33	Jeffery Luxenberg	That's all I have on that.
02:48:47.19	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Great. Thank you guys for doing, um, That section, we appreciate it. This is a good use of a for a study session. So let's go ahead and move on to 10.58, these are minor use permits. Thank you, ACM. All right, so I think we don't have Let's go ahead and just kick off the first red lines here on 10.58.030. This is for application contents and submittal. Applications for zoning permits shall include all information specified by the Community Development Department per Section 10.50050. That was our. discussion earlier, I don't see any- It applies.
02:49:38.66	Matthew Mandich	This one should read minor use permits. Yeah, minor use permits. That's the only permit.
02:49:40.77	Nastassya Saad	Yeah.
02:49:42.29	Fred Moore	That's the only permits. Yeah, that's the only permits.
02:49:43.15	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, that's a typo. My only use.
02:49:44.04	David Marlatt	All right. Thank you.
02:49:45.17	Nastassya Saad	that that comes up. Oh, yeah. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Oh, my gosh.
02:49:45.88	David Marlatt	Oh, yeah. Thank you. Thank you.
02:49:48.60	Nastassya Saad	Minor use, all right, can make that edit. Minor use, otherwise pretty straightforward. Any other comments on the first page? Thank you. I don't think there are any changes on page two. And on page three, 10.58110, expiration. What is the comment Matthew needs? Further clarification also needs to address permit lapse. So this is, is this similar to what we discussed earlier on the lapse timeframe?
02:50:20.21	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, this is what I brought up in the presentation at the beginning. You're right.
02:50:23.31	Nastassya Saad	Right. Okay. So minor use permits are valid for one year unless a different expiration date is stipulated at the time of approval. Sorry, I can't read my glasses. Um, So based on that discussion earlier, any comments around or any changes for the permit lapse
02:50:47.31	Unknown	Okay.
02:50:47.36	David Marlatt	Um,
02:50:47.73	Unknown	Thank you.
02:50:47.75	David Marlatt	Thank you.
02:50:47.76	Nastassya Saad	Approval shall lapse at the end of the authorized time frame. Yes, Vice Chair.
02:50:47.78	Unknown	Thank you.
02:50:47.81	David Marlatt	Approval?
02:50:51.91	David Marlatt	I would support staff basically. They're the ones in the trenches with these things. And if we want to, I mean, it does say that we can stipulate a different time of approval, but if they want the baseline to be two years, Um, Yeah, I would just support whichever staff's recommendation.
02:51:09.99	Nastassya Saad	So, okay, I mean, I would agree. Use has been... This continued for more than six consecutive months after it was established and or operated. Matthew, help me. What do you want?
02:51:24.25	Matthew Mandich	Okay. So, um, yeah, you guys right on with the first one would prefer, prefer two years. A lot of the time the MEPs or a CUP, CUP has the same, I believe let's double check on that. But a lot of times for the MEPs, they can sometimes be tied to design review projects. Think about, for example, the pocket in the pocket, they have an MEP for outdoor dining. They also have a number of other things going on with that property. By the time they pull the building permits and all that, it's going to be past a year. Right. So now what their minor use permit expires, like, you know, like, what do we like? It doesn't seem to make sense, you know, and so I think, you know, just having that link, they should all just be like two years and coincide with each other rather than having, you know, design reviews too. But this is one, if you don't get it within the one, then it's going to expire. And, you know, I just think it becomes a headache for everyone and the applicants and staff trying to track all that and like keep everyone on timeline. So it'd just be easier for us to have, you know, these be two years. And then as far as the other question, this doesn't appear here, but it probably should. Um, and it's in, in 1050 150, which talks about, you know, once a use is discontinued for more than six months, um, after it was established, you know, then the minor use, the use permit is essentially disappears, right? So you have a restaurant that had to get a CUP to open, you know, for example, I use Davino because it's a great example. It's in the CR, it requires a CUP. It's a great space for a restaurant, but that restaurant's already been gone for several months. So once a few more months pass and there's no interest in that space yet, now whoever wants to open a restaurant there, if they were to, that has a kitchen, it has everything in a bar, all of that. It's a ready-made plug and play space for a restaurant. However, if that six months goes by and someone comes in, I wanna open a restaurant, this vacant restaurant space. Yeah, you gotta go get a CP now, you know?
02:52:35.85	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah.
02:53:08.33	Matthew Mandich	And they're like, what do you mean? Like it was a restaurant for 20 years, you know, and like, but it's only been vacant six months. I want to continue the restaurant use. I think. six months is pretty tight.
02:53:19.10	Nastassya Saad	That makes sense. Is anyone opposed to that?
02:53:22.69	Andrew Junius	No, and what we're talking about is abandonment. And then, you know, the abandonment provisions in other cities are three years. You know, you're I mean, I think it should be three years for an abandonment for that exact reason. It's unexpected. And, you know, it might take a lot of time to figure out who should go into that restaurant space. Absurd that we would force somebody back through a CU provision process, you know, in a short period of time.
02:53:48.85	Nastassya Saad	Yeah. I agree wholeheartedly. So what is staff? So staff is saying.
02:53:52.12	Unknown	Definitely. Thank you. asking for two years.
02:53:53.84	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:53:53.98	Unknown	years.
02:53:54.45	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:53:55.72	Matthew Mandich	i mean yeah i would i'm up for i mean he's a discussion yeah i mean if you know commissioner genius is saying three for abandonment i mean that's that is really what this is getting at you know a discontinuation of the use for 16 so it's an abandonment of the use you know and you know six months is just a really tight window i'm you know up to for feedback from the commission on what they refer two years three years um but yeah i mean six months is just it's it's really tough, to get a turnaround on a space within six months to refill if it required. And, you know, for these spaces, they're often restaurant spaces, right? They require the CPS and, you know, I know we're in the MUP section, but this is the same language from the CP also be great to bring this permit lapse language into these sections. So people know that as well, without having to go to a.
02:54:26.18	Mary Wagner	See you.
02:54:36.79	Unknown	Thank you.
02:54:36.81	Jeffery Luxenberg	Happy birthday.
02:54:38.00	Matthew Mandich	different section that's not even referred to here to find that. That's that's been also troublesome for new staff to be like, well, what do you mean? Like, I didn't see that anywhere in the minor use permit section. They're conditional use. Oh, yeah. It's like hidden deeply in 150 or 1050. So, yeah, I think Just making it easier for these spaces to be repurposed, especially plug and play restaurant spaces where oftentimes another restaurant is going to go in there, it's got a commercial kitchen bar, et cetera. So.
02:55:06.31	Andrew Junius	Yeah, I mean, I think You know, and there is a somewhat of a distinction between the initial like, here's your permit, you just got to get moving. Right. I mean, I think two years is kind of appropriate for that versus the abandonment thing, which is, again, very different. You know, we just talked about that. So I think there is an OK to have a longer period for abandonment. And I completely agree. this 1050.150, you know, maybe should be duplicated here so that you can just see two years after you get your initial, it expires if you don't get moving with your initial minor use permit. And then, oh, by the way, if you've got one, and you abandon it for three years, you lose it. But up until that point, you're still, you're not, yeah. So those would be my suggestions. Okay.
02:55:47.36	Fred Moore	Commissioner Moore. Well, I agree with 99% of that. I guess the only issue is for the abandonment. We have a lot of empty spaces, so the longer time period that the permit continues after abandonment, the less motivated the landlord is to redo it. So I probably would put a shorter time period, maybe 18 months, maybe two years. I mean, it's all subjective. It's there's no rationale behind my thought other than the longer it is. it may sit longer and we don't want it to sit longer.
02:56:20.71	Andrew Junius	Yeah, well, that's a different issue. I mean, it's a real issue. I'm not denying that that's not a problem. I think that that's a problem with respect to ownership and family things. I mean, we have some buildings all over town that are stuck in that situation. And I don't think this is going to make one bit of difference. This is the people that want to do something. And are you trying or you're trying? I don't think anybody's going to anybody, you know, that's You know, it's not going to rent anyway. It's just like, fine. I mean, is it possible that whoever controls that Del Vino space is going to say, oh, thank God they're gone. I just want to let it sit there for 10 years. And maybe, but that's the owner's choice. Right. I mean, it's not like I don't think this would make much difference on that. But I appreciate the comment. And you're right that that's. issues.
02:57:04.78	Nastassya Saad	But wouldn't you just get another Like, for example, Cultivar, that was a gallery for 40, 50 years, and he couldn't get a tenant, so he came when he finally got the restaurant and applied for, what was that, a conditional use permit, minor use permit, so then you could just change it at that time, but at the off chance that somebody wanted to come in with the same use, then they wouldn't have to come back for a permit. Do I have that right?
02:57:29.74	Fred Moore	That's one thing with you saying is that six months, if somebody did want to come back in, they're not going to be able to come back in within the six months. It's going to be considered that it laps and they have to reapply and spend more time and money to go through the city. So the question is, do we pick a time period which allows somebody who wants to come in, utilize the already existing use permit and a time period that they can come in, get it done, and how much time do we need? Three years, 18 months, more than six, I think we all agree more than six months. So the question is between six months and three years, where do we fall?
02:57:30.79	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:58:04.50	Nastassya Saad	I'm good with the two years as staff suggested. I mean, you know.
02:58:07.86	David Marlatt	you're just fine. I mean, I was going to go with And is there a provision without going to the commission for an extension? Maybe that's something to it. It's two years and... They admitted the Community Development Department can grant a one-year extension.
02:58:22.90	Matthew Mandich	So you can get extensions from the initial permit. So if you were like, if you're running up against, for example, this one year issue that we have, you could come in and get an extension on that. But it has to go to the ZA. It's a fee. There's a process. They have to produce a staff report, all these things. Right. So you can do that. But there is no provision to get an extension on the abandonment.
02:58:25.92	David Marlatt	and
02:58:42.12	Matthew Mandich	So who would apply for that? I mean, the tenant's gone.
02:58:45.11	Andrew Junius	Well, but there is, you know, you can just make this stuff as complicated as you want, right? There is the idea that it's like, well, we're trying to lease the space and we just haven't found anybody. And you can try to prove like, hey, we've had ads out here. There's a sign up and the time is ticking. And now we're at two years or three years. We've been busting our butt to try to get at least, please give us more time. I mean, that's, you know, there should be a provision where they get more time in that kind of situation. So, you know, it's like, how many layers do you want to add? Right.
02:58:50.24	Matthew Mandich	it.
02:58:50.47	Jeffery Luxenberg	I'm sorry.
02:59:10.94	Unknown	Yeah.
02:59:12.21	Andrew Junius	That's I think that's actually a legitimate fair one. And maybe we think about that one as well. because we don't really have an abandonment provision, a generalized entitlement abandonment provision, because that's that would be able a place to put all this stuff and make it make it clear.
02:59:26.94	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
02:59:27.02	Unknown	in Luxembourg?
02:59:28.14	Jeffery Luxenberg	I think I agree with Commissioner Moore. The two years, to make it consistent from the one year to two year, I'm fine with. I do think we don't want to create a disincentive to most of the commercial spaces are owned by one person, and then they have tenants. So I think three years is too long. But if you have a restaurant and it's there and we don't want the vacancy, on the other hand, if they're substantially changing it, They have to submit a new CUP. So I would go with two years on that.
03:00:00.88	Nastassya Saad	Yeah. Okay. We're gonna go with two years. Unless, all right, great. Cheers to this. All right, that was 10.58. And I think we have one more conditionally use permits, 10, 0.60.
03:00:18.10	Matthew Mandich	it is pretty much identical. I was gonna say, I think it's,
03:00:19.56	Nastassya Saad	I was going to say, I think it's identical. So, um,
03:00:27.35	Nastassya Saad	The big, let's see, so 10.6003 on page one, application contents, it's same typo, same issue, but applications for zoning permits, we can obviously just change that to, Additionally used permits. Exact same issue. And then, yes, exactly. And then, yes.
03:00:43.92	Jeffery Luxenberg	Right. and
03:00:48.40	Nastassya Saad	Uh...
03:00:49.34	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. Yeah, same thing for the application requirements as well.
03:00:54.40	Nastassya Saad	Um...
03:00:55.19	Jeffery Luxenberg	and type, you know,
03:00:56.82	Nastassya Saad	Yes. There's just conditions of approval with the waterfront area east of Bridgeway. I'm looking at New I under 10.60060. Can I just read that one real quick? The waterfront area east of Bridgeway bounded by El Portal on the south and the north city limits. A maintenance bond to ensure that landscaped areas are maintained for a period of at least
03:01:22.63	Fred Moore	I think they're expanding that so you can use a maintenance bond anywhere, not just in that limitation.
03:01:23.56	Nastassya Saad	One year. Okay. Okay, so this is, okay, thank you. So it's taking out that limited area, got it. Otherwise, as everyone has noted, we're-
03:01:37.42	Fred Moore	Yeah. I had one other question here under E, under 10, 60, 50 for the findings. Item E says the proposed use of facility is properly located relative to the community as a whole into land uses and transportation and service facilities in the area.
03:01:56.70	Nastassya Saad	No, I'm sorry. I lost you. Tell me where you are.
03:01:56.79	Fred Moore	So. Page two under findings.
03:02:00.82	Nastassya Saad	Yeah. Oh, thank you.
03:02:03.54	Fred Moore	And number E, it seems like to make a finding that it's properly located to transportation and service facilities, do we really need to have that as a finding?
03:02:04.40	Nastassya Saad	Yep.
03:02:18.15	Andrew Junius	We do not. Thank you.
03:02:18.93	Nastassya Saad	No, I don't think so. It seems like we should...
03:02:19.33	Andrew Junius	Mm-hmm.
03:02:20.68	Fred Moore	It seems like we should
03:02:21.59	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
03:02:21.63	Fred Moore	Thank you.
03:02:22.17	Nastassya Saad	post use or facility is properly located relative to the community as a whole and to land uses and no what is that is that even legal
03:02:22.51	Andrew Junius	THE END OF
03:02:22.81	Fred Moore	I'm going to post it.
03:02:23.05	Fred Moore	Thank you.
03:02:33.93	Unknown	Thank you.
03:02:33.97	Mary Wagner	If we can't understand what it means, it should not be a good one.
03:02:39.67	Nastassya Saad	Okay. All right, strike it, strike E, and then you guys can appropriately renumber or re-letter.
03:02:47.89	Matthew Mandich	And I believe that's the same set of findings for the MEP. So we could strike you.
03:02:51.21	Nastassya Saad	Can you do the same, please? Yeah, thank you. I thought it would be... Good catch, Commissioner Moore. That makes no sense at all. And we'll stick with the two years. Great. Okay. Final comments, thoughts? Make them brief. Public comments? Yeah. Yes, we will. We will open up. I just want to see anyone have any other... Okay, we've got no other comments.
03:03:06.94	Unknown	We did.
03:03:13.08	Nastassya Saad	Assistant City Manager, can you open this up for public comment, please?
03:03:17.50	Assistant City Manager	Absolutely. Looking to the chamber for raised hands. I am seeing none. I'm going to look to the Zoom application next for raised hands. and the Signan Chair.
03:03:27.90	Nastassya Saad	Okay, I want to thank you guys because this was a really great use. We didn't have a public hearing, and I know you're doing a lot of work, and there's a lot to come, and so this is just indicative of how much we're going to need to get through. So thank you, Commissioner Junius, and thank you, Commissioner, or Vice Chair Marlott, and to Matthew, because I know you guys have been working together, so we appreciate it. And with that, we are adjourned.

City Council Meeting - April 22, 2026

Meeting Summary

Meeting Transcript