| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:03.46 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Hi, good evening. I'd like to call the Wednesday, May 27th Planning Commission meeting to order. The time is 6.31 p.m. Acting City Manager. |
| 00:00:14.36 | Jim Moore | Good evening to you, Chair Saad, Vice Chair Merlot, Planning Commissioners, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. And with that, I will call roll. Commissioner Junius. Present. Commissioner Moore. Here. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:00:34.86 | Andrew Junius | President. here. |
| 00:00:39.27 | Jim Moore | Vice Chairman Merlot. here. And cheers up. |
| 00:00:44.34 | David Marlatt | Here. |
| 00:00:44.65 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:00:45.44 | Jim Moore | We have quorum back to you chair |
| 00:00:48.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Can we give it just half a second to figure out the mic issue for Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:00:59.30 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I'm going to move on to the approval of the agenda for the moment. Item number two, is there a motion? |
| 00:01:08.64 | Andrew Junius | So moved. Second. |
| 00:01:11.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:01:11.94 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:01:11.95 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:13.83 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:01:13.84 | Jim Moore | Commissioner Junius. Yes. |
| 00:01:14.08 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:01:18.23 | Nastassya Saad | I want them. |
| 00:01:18.92 | David Marlatt | you |
| 00:01:18.97 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:01:19.28 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:01:19.29 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:01:19.88 | Jim Moore | Commissioner Luxenberg. I stream a lot. Yes. Sure thought. |
| 00:01:25.17 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:01:25.64 | Jim Moore | Thank you. Motion passes. |
| 00:01:26.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I just want to give one second to make sure that Commissioner Luxembourg has a functioning microphone. |
| 00:01:31.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:01:35.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is it working? |
| 00:01:36.56 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, great, thank you very much. Item number three, open public comments on items that are not on this agenda. |
| 00:01:42.38 | Jim Moore | Yes, thank you, Chair. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker, unless modified by the Chair, of course. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right. And if you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. And if you're joining us from a phone, on the Zoom application, and you want to raise your hand, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when time has elapsed. Gonna look to the council chamber for interested speakers via raised hands, seeing none. Looking to the zoom application for attendees and raised hands. |
| 00:02:25.02 | Jim Moore | Seeing none, sure. Back to you. |
| 00:02:27.38 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Item number four, the approval of the Planning Commission minutes. We have one set of minutes, 4A, which are from May 13th. Any discussions or is there a motion? |
| 00:02:40.55 | Andrew Junius | So moved. |
| 00:02:41.09 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:02:41.64 | David Marlatt | you |
| 00:02:41.84 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:02:41.96 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:02:42.22 | Nastassya Saad | Is there a second? |
| 00:02:42.81 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:02:43.62 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:02:44.00 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:02:45.27 | Jim Moore | Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice Chair Merlot. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:02:53.71 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you. Item five, our communications. Does city staff have any? |
| 00:02:59.90 | Jim Moore | I do have one communication item this evening, Chair. Thank you very much. So as directed by the City Council, and as you've very graciously referred to me this evening, I have assumed the role of interim City Manager for the City of Sausalito, effective May 21, 2026 through July 1, 2026. That transition requires my primary focus at the organizational level, and as a practical matter, I will no longer be serving as the attending CDD staff liaison to this commission in that capacity for that period. effective tonight. Matthew Mandich. Dr. Mandich. principal planner. We'll assume that role. Mr. Mandich has been elevated to serve as acting lead manager of the Community and Economic Development Department, taking on the operational responsibilities of the CDD director under Municipal Code Section 1080.030. He will be attending planning commission meetings, overseeing agenda preparation, staff reports, and providing departmental support to the commission going forward. I want to be clear that this is a well-supported transition. I remain engaged at the city manager level on community development priorities and am available to the commission as appropriate. I appreciate the commission's understanding of the arrangement through July 1, 2026, and I have overflowing confidence that Mr. Mandich, the rest of departmental staff, will continue to serve this commission very well in the interim. So as always, my door remains open, and I look forward to working with the commissioners in the capacity of interim city manager. And with that, I am off to review some budgetary items. So I'm going to pass the mic, pass the torch over to Mr. Mandich and he's going to administer the rest of the meeting. |
| 00:04:50.38 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Brandon, city manager. We appreciate it. It's well deserved and we're very supportive of all the changes. Mr. Mandage, what do we call you this evening? Just call you director. |
| 00:05:05.11 | Matthew Mandich | Sure. Acting director, probably. I'm going to drop the acting. Okay. |
| 00:05:06.79 | Nastassya Saad | going to drop the acting. Okay. Director Mandich. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have a great evening. |
| 00:05:10.13 | Matthew Mandich | That's it. |
| 00:05:13.62 | Nastassya Saad | City manager. All right. So that was from staff. Does anybody have any communication items up here? from. of us. None. Okay. I don't have any either. We are going to move on to the public hearing. I do want to First open it up for ex parte communications. We can do this for the entire hearing. So for 625 locust, 6268 lower crescent, and of course anything to do with the sign ordinance. So I'll just look to Commissioner Moore, do you have anything to declare? |
| 00:05:48.14 | Fred Moore | I do not. |
| 00:05:48.74 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:05:49.26 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:05:49.56 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Junius? |
| 00:05:51.22 | Andrew Junius | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:05:52.03 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, Commissioner Luxemburgo. |
| 00:05:54.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, pursuant to section 18702.2 materiality standard, I hereby disclose that my home is located greater than 500 feet to less than 1,000 feet in the proposed 62 to 68 Lower Crescent Street on the agenda as item 6B this evening. This project would not affect my project's development potential, income producing potential, the highest and best use of my property, and given that the location of my property is off on a side street, would highest and best use of my property, and given that the location of my property is off on a side street, would not change the character of my property by substantially altering traffic levels, intensity of use, parking view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality. Further, it would not affect the market value of my property, thus any decisions regarding these projects are not material, so I will participate in this item. Thank you. |
| 00:06:42.52 | Nastassya Saad | Excellent, thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 00:06:45.72 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair. |
| 00:06:45.74 | David Marlatt | Well, Mm-hmm. you, nothing to declare. |
| 00:06:48.07 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. I... Pursuant to the same code as Commissioner Luxembourg, I am 800 feet, so I'm with greater than 500 but less than 1000 of 625 locusts, but with no materiality issues, I'm going to participate this evening. Commissioner Moore, did you want to declare recusal at the time for 625 Locust from now? |
| 00:07:16.44 | Fred Moore | Sure, I thought I was going to wait, but sure, under the same well-stated code section by Commissioner Luxembourg, the Locust Street is within a thousand feet of my house. Even though there's no materiality or financial benefit or detriment, I will be recusing myself from that decision. |
| 00:07:33.04 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, wonderful. Thank you very much. So we're going to go ahead and start item 6A. This is for 625 Locust Street. So with that, if you wish to recuse at this time, Commissioner Moore and rejoin us, we'll come get you. We have a design review permit with a certificate of appropriateness. Our senior planner, Katie Nelson is here this evening to walk us through. Welcome Katie, whenever you're ready. |
| 00:07:59.99 | Katie Nelson | Thank you, Chair, and good evening, Commissioners, members of the public. I'm Katie Nelson, Senior Planner with the Community Development Department. Tonight I am presenting item 6A and application 2025-00246 for 625 Locust Street. This is a request for a design review permit and a certificate of appropriateness. Next slide. |
| 00:08:24.96 | Katie Nelson | The subject property is located at 625 Locust Street in the Newtown residential area on a 9,076 square foot landlocked parcel accessed via a private easement from Locust Street. The parcel slopes downward at approximately 35% towards Casno Avenue below, and it's zoned R2-2.5, two-family residential. There are neighboring residences abutting the parcel on all sides with a six-foot public pedestrian right-of-way along the southern boundary. Next slide. The application was filed by Michael Rex of Michael Rex Architects on behalf of property owners David and Marnie Wilson. The Wilsons are requesting a design review permit and certificate of appropriateness to expand their primary dwelling unit to better accommodate their four-person family. Their current unit totals under 1,200 square feet with two bedrooms. They would like a larger kitchen and would like each of their daughters to have their own bedrooms. The proposed addition replaces the existing one story kitchen at the southwest corner of the building with a new two story addition that builds downward into the hillside rather than upward. On the main level, there's a larger kitchen. On the lower level, two bedrooms, a shared bathroom, and laundry. The addition adds 942 square feet, bringing the primary unit total to 2,127 square feet. This is well below the 3,900 square foot per unit maximum pursuant to SMC 1044-330. The project also includes a new rear deck, a new covered front entry porch, and entry gate on the west elevation, as well as some interior work to the primary bedroom suites. Importantly, there are no changes proposed to the existing lower unit and the building height does not increase. The addition is entirely at the rear of the property and is largely not visible from Locust Street. A separate ADU permit for conversion of the detached accessory structure was also filed and approved under a different project number. That application is ministerial and not before you tonight. Next slide. The Elderberry Cottage was built circa 1886 for Mrs. Julia E. Bell and is one of the oldest remaining residences in Sausalito's Tourney Street Valley. It is a West Coast stick-style Victorian building, most recognizable for its large central hipped roof and the alternating diagonal and horizontal wood board siding at the upper level, capped by what the 1990 landmark designation called the reverse picket fence freeze. Historical research by the project's preservation architect found that what is now the front of the house, the west facing entry, was originally the rear, with access coming from Casno Avenue below an east side porch. In 1990, the City Council designated Elderberry Cottage a local historic landmark by resolution number 3991. The designation was based on the building's age, its distinctive sighting, and its neighborhood setting. The lot was subsequently divided in 1993, leaving this parcel landlocked. The building has been substantially altered over the decades. Today, the primary intact character defining features are the hipped roof and the upper level siding on the north, south and east elevations. The west elevation, the south kitchen wing and the east side deck additions are all of a later non historic character. And as I'll discuss, the proposed addition is located entirely within those non historic areas. Next slide. Let's talk about the character defining features. This slide identifies the two character defining features that both preservation consultants and the landmark designation agree convey the building's historic significance. The first is the central hipped roof, likely original to the circa 1886 construction, and this is the most prominent visual element of the building as seen from low. Good street. The second is the upper level exterior wall treatment on the north, south, and east elevations, the alternating diagonal and horizontal wood siding, and with the scalloped vertical board freeze below the EVE. Both consultants independently concluded that the west elevation infill, the south kitchen wing, and the east side deck additions are all non-original and without preservation value. The proposed addition is located entirely within these non-original areas, meaning that the character-defining features of the landmark are fully preserved by this project. Next slide. Two independent historic evaluations were prepared for this project. On the left, the applicant's preservation architect, Mark Holbert of Preservation Architecture. prepared both the historical summary and the certificate of appropriateness application. His research concludes that significance is concentrated in the hipped roof and the upper level siding. He characterizes the South Kitchen Wing, the West Enfield, and the East Deck additions as non-historic as discussed. He finds all 10 Secretary of the Interior Rehabilitation Standards to be satisfied. and concludes that material differentiation A simplified siding pattern and slightly wider freeze boards on the addition is the appropriate approach under SOI Standard 9. On the right, the city's independent historic architect, Jerry Holin. reviewed the application materials provided by Mark Holbert and prepared a historic design analysis in January. She confirmed conformance with standards one through eight and standard ten. On standard nine, she did suggest that the new kitchen west wall be offset approximately by one foot eastward. for additional visual differentiation. and noted that the entry lantern should be compatible with that of a Victorian home. Her overall conclusion was that the project conforms and that she recommended COA approval. Both consultants did concur that the project is approvable and the historic preservation commission unanimously agreed at its May 7 hearing next slide. slide shows the existing and proposed site plans you can see the addition spans to the southwest primarily situated behind the existing building mass the site plan confirms the project's compliance with applicable development standards building coverage comment comes in at approximately 39 below the 50 site total maximum and impervious surface coverage is approximately 58% below the 75% maximum. All required setbacks are met, though I'll walk you through a few of the more specific provisions on the zoning table later. Next slide. The four plans show the proposed lower and main levels. The lower level built into the hillside contains the new children's bedrooms, a shared bathroom and laundry. The main level shows the enlarged kitchen replacing the existing small kitchen wing at the south corner. The lower unit of the duplex is completely unchanged and is shown in hatched gray on the upper left side. Next slide. On this slide, you can see the proposed west elevation and the materials board. A few things to note on the materials. The new siding uses a simplified horizontal board pattern It deliberately avoids replicating the alternating diagonal pattern of the original historic walls. The new freeze boards at the top of the addition are specified to be slightly wider than those on the historic freeze, so a close observer can distinguish new construction from original material. Trim, window profiles, and paint colors are compatible with the existing building palette. The entry lantern is covered by a condition of approval from the HPC resolution that the applicant must confirm compatible Victorian area specifications prior to building permit issuance. Next slide. The slide shows the full development standards table and it's quite small. All standards are met, but I want to briefly walk you through a few provisions that required specific analysis for this project. First, because 625 Locust is a landlocked parcel with no street frontage, it's subject to SMC 1040-070-B. which requires one parcel line to be designated as the rear yard and all others treated as side yards. The east parcel line oriented towards Casno has been elected as the rear. All other lines are treated as side yards subject to the five foot minimum with the exception of the west side. Second, the proposed addition extends the west wall to approximately 51 and a half feet, exceeding the 40 foot threshold in SMC 1040-070-D1. That triggers an increased side yard setback, totaling approximately 7.3 feet for the addition only. The proposed setback of more than 10 feet satisfies this requirement comfortably. Furthermore, because the southern boundary adjoins a six foot pedestrian right of way, SMC 1040-080B allows the setback to be measured from the center line of that right of way, rather than the parcel line. So you'll see that noted on the plans. Third, on the per unit standards per SMC 1044, 330, because the parcel exceeds 6,000 square feet, the caps for FAR are 0.45 per unit, building coverage 35% per unit, and impervious surface coverage 67.5% per unit. The primary units FAR is 0.245, so that's well within the 0.45 maximum. On building coverage, because the two units are stacked vertically and share the same footprint, Per unit allocation is not as straightforward. However, A significant portion of the total building coverage for the site over 1200 square feet is attributable to the detached accessory structure, which is a separate building not associated with either dwelling unit. When that footprint is considered separately, the building coverage associated with the primary duplex structure and its units is well within the 35% per unit threshold. Impervious surface coverage at 58% overall is also well within the 67 and a half percent per unit maximum. All other standards height parking and density are satisfied without issue. Next slide. Here we'll summarize the required findings for both the design review permit and the certificate of appropriateness. Staff finds that all required findings can be made. on the design review side the project is consistent with the general plans medium high density residential designation and program CD 6.1.1. It conforms to all R2-2.5 zoning district standards and is consistent with the city's historic design guidelines. The cottage style addition is compatible with the Locust Street neighborhood. It's largely not visible from the street, and produce no objections through the story pole installation and neighbor outreach process. Landscaping, lighting, privacy, circulation, and grading are all well addressed to mitigate any potential negative impacts, and the project does not trigger heightened design review. On the certificate of appropriateness side, Three required findings under SMC 10.46060F can all be made. The SOI standards and applicable guidelines were used to review the project. The character defining features, the hipped roof and the upper level siding, are fully preserved since the addition is sited entirely in non-historic areas. and the project does not adversely affect the historic character or setting of the landmark. The Historic Preservation Commission unanimously concurred on May 7th. And last slide. In conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve application 2025-00246 for 625 Locust Street, and adopt the attached draft resolution authorizing the design review permit and certificate of appropriateness. Staff finds the project is designed appropriately and will not result in a substantial adverse effect on historic resource and that it is in conformance with the required findings under SMC sections 10.54050D, 10.46060F, and with the SOI standards 1 through 10. The conditions of approval carry forward from HPC resolution 2026-01 and will be incorporated into the draft resolution before you. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. |
| 00:20:41.22 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Katie. That was a very thorough report. We appreciate it and appreciate the update as well for that addendum. That was useful. Let me turn it over for questions. Now, questions from Commissioner Junius. Commissioner Luxembourg, do you have questions for Katie? |
| 00:20:47.70 | Katie Nelson | with the kids. |
| 00:20:47.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:47.94 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 00:20:54.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you for doing the update to that. That was very helpful. I do have one question. You had an introduction to that that said you couldn't calculate the building coverage. And maybe that comes up. I can ask them that. did put a number in the chart. |
| 00:21:16.40 | Katie Nelson | Sure. |
| 00:21:16.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. Accurate. |
| 00:21:18.62 | Katie Nelson | Well, I, |
| 00:21:19.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to understand what you were trying to say. |
| 00:21:21.54 | Katie Nelson | Yeah. |
| 00:21:22.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | basically it's the biggest, it's whatever the primary one's largest square footage would be that number, is that- |
| 00:21:29.18 | Katie Nelson | Right. So they, they share the same building coverage. Um, how you divide that up, I think is difficult, um, because there's coverage associated with the upper level. That's all, uh, unit one. And then there's unit two taking up a portion of the bottom along with some of unit one. So, um, |
| 00:21:49.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:21:49.35 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 00:21:49.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:21:50.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the one, the top unit, the primary unit. |
| 00:21:52.77 | Katie Nelson | Yeah. |
| 00:21:53.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. So it's whatever the largest number is for that. |
| 00:21:57.83 | Katie Nelson | I did allocate it all to that unit, but there's, there is no issue with the standard. It's just, how do you want to convey that information? I think is something that we can discuss and refine. |
| 00:22:08.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm saying the number you put in the table is the maximum. |
| 00:22:11.13 | Katie Nelson | Yeah. |
| 00:22:13.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, right. That was all. That's all the questions I have. |
| 00:22:18.45 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. Vice Chair. No, I think I'll have some questions for the applicant. Sure. Very nice presentation. Yeah, thank you. |
| 00:22:24.98 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, thank you. Very thorough. I don't have any questions. Okay, great. Thank you, Katie. |
| 00:22:27.57 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:22:29.51 | Nastassya Saad | We will now bring it up to the applicant. |
| 00:22:36.41 | Nastassya Saad | Mr. Rex, will that be whomever would like to come join us? You'll have 15 minutes. If you could state your name and address for the record, and we will have a clock for you. And if we stop you for any questions, it won't count against you, but you're free to leave some time for rebuttal at the end if you wish. |
| 00:22:53.13 | Marnie Wilson | Hi, I'm Marnie Wilson. I live at 625 Locust. I'm the homeowner along with my husband, David. He could unfortunately not make it tonight. He's taking my daughter to sailing and my other daughter to swimming. It can be difficult to make all that work. I'm not sure. I I'd like to start by thanking you all for being here tonight. My husband and I have lived here for 10 years. When we bought our house, we fell in love with it. We love that it has historic value and that it has charm. It's very unique property. And we've really just tried to make this house a little bit bigger and more livable. I hope you will see through Katie's report that we've really tried to remain true to its historic nature and also be conservative in expanding it. Thank you. I don't have anything else. |
| 00:23:46.39 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:23:46.41 | Nastassya Saad | else? Okay. That's, I think we'll show this presentation. We're going to stop the clock at 14 minutes and eight seconds. Mr. Rex. I could assume. |
| 00:23:58.76 | Michael Rex | I'm Michael Rex, project architect. And I want to thank Katie for all her diligent work in getting us to this point. Quite impressed. You know, the primary unit here is 1,200 square feet. That's a pretty small house for a family of four with two growing children. And it has a really tiny kitchen. So the whole purpose here is to expand the kitchen and give each daughter their own bedroom. Actually have a laundry room. So, We started this design with the Mark Colbert. We wanted immediately to identify the elements that defined its historic value. And the hip roof jumped right out. And so instead of building up, we replaced the little kitchen with an addition that you can barely see from the street. And then he critiqued our design all the way through it, and we tweaked it based on his recommendations. So that was one of our primary goals besides solving the functional needs. But the city, as Katie's pointed out, not only did our architect agree that what we're doing is appropriate for this preserving historic value, but so did the city's independent historic architect. Jerry Lowland. Thank you. And So I just, you know, I could very quickly sum up here that, um, Historic Preservation Commission agreed unanimously with the two historic architects that, in fact, what we're doing is appropriate for this building and consistent with in the Department of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. Um, And, and, uh, We have a project here where no neighbors attack. Uh, we don't want to see that. Okay. Um, but of course we talked to them as we were planning it. So that wasn't just an accident or a surprise. And, um, How am I doing time? Okay, I'll try to make it quick here. Yeah, the... Uh, What's in front of you complies with all the zoning standards. In fact, it's significantly under. We're not subject to heightened review. FAR, we're almost only half of what it could be, just a little over half. So this wasn't about a big project or maxing it out. It was about doing what is minimum needed for the family to stay in this house for many years, raise their kids and keep it the charming cottage and the historic quality that it has. all the findings could be made according to staff. In fact, staff recommends approval. The, um, Uh, I on the conditions of approval. We review those carefully. We accept all eight. The conditions that the planning. Department recommends. We agree with all five conditions that the Department of Public Works has listed and all three of the conditions that the historic preservation commission recommended So there's no issues with that. And, there's a resolution of approval in your packet that we'd like you to use. Tonight, we'd appreciate if we can get your support tonight for this project so we can commence the construction documents and building permit set. So with that, I'm basically here to answer any questions if you have any. |
| 00:27:55.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Mr. Ricks. It's nice to see you again as well. You have 10. minutes and 10 seconds left if you need it after public comment this evening. I think I heard that there are some questions for the applicant, Commissioner Luxembourg. Did you want to start? |
| 00:28:10.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want you to confirm. Katie put into her supplemental report that the building coverage of the primary unit, which is Unit 1, is 2,272 square feet. So is that the right building coverage for Unit 1? |
| 00:28:28.24 | Michael Rex | Yes, this is not the first time this question's come up. How do you allocate coverage when units are stacked? In fact, that policy was set quite a while ago, and it'd be nice if the town would memorialize that in some fashion. but it stands to reason that because the primary unit on top is the one that spreads out the most, that is the coverage unit on top is the one that spreads out the most, that is the coverage that's utilized. And so we concur with that approach and the numbers that are in your packet. |
| 00:29:02.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, because your analysis on the drawings for 10, 330, whatever, 1046, 330, had the calculations for FAR, but it did not have a calculation for building college. And so I just wanted to make sure that you were on board with the 2272, if you need to look at the drawing at some point. |
| 00:29:28.13 | Michael Rex | We are. |
| 00:29:28.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No more questions. Yeah. |
| 00:29:29.39 | Michael Rex | on the |
| 00:29:31.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:29:33.09 | David Marlatt | you |
| 00:29:33.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:29:33.47 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:29:33.49 | Nastassya Saad | chair. |
| 00:29:33.90 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:29:33.93 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:29:33.96 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Michael. By curiosity, I think the project, as you state, is barely visible from the street, doesn't block any views, no neighbors object. It's what the owners obviously want to do. But I am curious, because normally, we associate your firm with a different vocabulary in design. And maybe you could speak in specifics, the, uh, in relation to the, uh, standard nine of the secretary of interior standards, some of the design choices that you made. Um, because I've worked on a number of landmark buildings and my understanding of standard nine is quite different from what has been unanimously, I recognize, unanimously adopted by the Historic Planning Commission. Did you look at alternatives or different treatments |
| 00:30:15.73 | Michael Rex | I don't know. |
| 00:30:15.95 | Marnie Wilson | Thank you. |
| 00:30:24.03 | Michael Rex | Yeah, I have to apologize. I just recently got off a plane and when it landed, the pressure in my ears made it difficult to hear. |
| 00:30:24.05 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 00:30:33.90 | Michael Rex | And in addition, I actually have hearing aids, but they're not fully operative at the moment because of this issue with my ears. So if I could come up closer and if you could speak. |
| 00:30:46.88 | David Marlatt | I want to repeat it. Or if you could speak. |
| 00:30:50.07 | Michael Rex | Oh, open, pass it. Is that a little closer to the mic? |
| 00:30:53.83 | David Marlatt | So I, yeah. |
| 00:30:54.15 | Michael Rex | I'm sorry about that. |
| 00:30:56.26 | David Marlatt | I'll have Commissioner Luxembourg interpret for me. So my question was simply, if you could speak a little bit to some of the design choices you made to bring this house into compliance with standard nine of the Secretary of Interior's standards. So that I was commenting, normally we don't associate your firm with this kind of vocabulary. So I don't know if there are other choices that were made or would have been made. with respect to this design in order to bring it into compliance. |
| 00:31:25.04 | Michael Rex | Yes. As I said earlier, we identified with working with Mark, actually even before Mark, the first time I looked at this, it was clear to me that the hip roof was the essence of the form of this building and very typical of buildings of that era. And so our intent from the beginning was to keep that as a, preserve that as a dominant element. That was element number one. We also, The entry is that the existing entry is not original. According to Mark's analysis, it used to be down below. You entered actually from below the house to get up to it. And, um, The entry that currently exists was... a later addition that is very, very weak and hard to identify. And so we felt it would be appropriate to enhance that entry experience and announce the entry so one can find it, but in a way that it still felt subordinate to the dominant main hip roof. We went with a hip roof over the addition, but with a lower ridge so it wouldn't compete. with the main hip shape. And there was actually some discussion among members of the Um, the three members of the Historic Preservation Commission, about that. whether the addition ridge was too high. And so we discussed that head on. And I actually thought we'd get a two-to-one vote. But after the discussion. the member of the commission who was most concerned finally agreed that of with our staff and us and the two historic preservation architects is that it's appropriate. The third element that we really focused on early on, we identified that the siding what was left of it, which is primarily on the South Side, is really special and unusual, and as well as the freeze, the kind of little pickets that are at the top of the exterior wall where it meets the eve. And we really wanted to honor that siding, not only preserve it, but what we put where we replace non-original siding, or where we need new siding on the bigger edition, would not replicate it because that's a no-no. As you know, you can't make something new look old, so it's confused with what's original and what was added. But we didn't match it, but we echoed it. Even the frieze, we carried all the way around. So the house had design consistency, but we went with different widths of pickets. So in the record, you could see where things were original and where things were new. So it was really those three elements that we focused on that really shaped the design. And the last thing I'll mention is that Uh, generally historic preservation, uh, they don't, um, the standards don't regulate interiors and they don't generally regulate, um, what the public can't see. It's really what the public can see from right away. And, um, So we focused with the exception of the new front porch. I'm The addition is really behind the part of the house you see. And so we didn't want to change the real nature and character of the building from what the public would see from the public right away. Does that answer your question? question or Or was there something in your |
| 00:35:43.44 | David Marlatt | I think so, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the response. Just one last sort of follow-on to that. On the front porch element... You've chosen an open gable with an arch and sort of, I think the report said Victorian, I'd say colonial type of lamp. And that implies a kind of axial relationship to the front door. In your elevations, like you're coming in straight. And yet in the site plan, We come around. the door. And we never really get that view that's in the elevation. Did you consider using a hip roof instead of a gable because you're sort of sliding into the side of the door? |
| 00:36:20.30 | Michael Rex | Hip proof? |
| 00:36:21.18 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:36:21.24 | Michael Rex | over the years. |
| 00:36:21.66 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:36:21.78 | Michael Rex | of the world. |
| 00:36:21.97 | David Marlatt | I'm sorry. |
| 00:36:22.07 | Michael Rex | Actually, We chose the gable roof for a very specific reason and not a hip. And the reason is this. There's a parking pad that was constructed right at the front entry. And the house almost feels like it's down in a hole. And we can't, in the ideal world, we would have got rid of that retaining wall and that parking space. Although it's not just a parking space, it's also a backup room, and it provides some extra guest parking. So that was a dilemma for us of how to enhance this entry when we're stuck behind and buried below a retaining wall, or down below, not buried, but down below. So we wanted, when you're inside the house, we didn't want to look just straight ahead into this retaining wall and there was a guardrail on top of it. So Um, which we're, uh, right now it's a solid fence. Um, we're replacing the fence with a wire fence with a vine on it. So it looks more like a garden and we're planting a vine on the retaining wall. But still, when you look out, from that main living room dining room, you really can't see out much at all. And so what we want to do is go with a gable and we put a transom window above the entry door so we can lift the windows up high enough. And so you can look up to see the sky when you look out towards that part of the room. And if we did a hip roof, the eave would have gone across and we would have lost that view of the sky. We would have lost light coming in from that end of the house. And it would feel more claustrophobic like it does now, stuck down behind that retaining wall and guard rail. It was quite deliberate. |
| 00:38:11.82 | David Marlatt | Okay, all right, well thank you very much. I have no other questions. |
| 00:38:15.25 | Nastassya Saad | Um, I have kind of one general question and I don't know if it came up at the historic preservation, but, um, Have you discussed with your Client about the Mills Act. I don't know in this renovation if there's any preservation because it's a designated historic home, and they might qualify. It's something to take advantage of. It might be pertinent if you have that discussion to their benefit. Did you not hear me? It's fine. The Mills Act is something you definitely want to check out for your historic property. I don't have any questions, Mr. Rex. |
| 00:38:55.45 | Michael Rex | Sorry. |
| 00:38:56.09 | Nastassya Saad | That's totally fine. |
| 00:38:57.25 | Michael Rex | I've been on many planes, this never happened to me before. Um... |
| 00:39:00.71 | Nastassya Saad | It happens. It's totally fine. |
| 00:39:01.54 | Michael Rex | Totally fine. Very bizarre. |
| 00:39:02.80 | Nastassya Saad | It's no problem. |
| 00:39:04.05 | Michael Rex | It's no case. |
| 00:39:04.56 | Nastassya Saad | problem at all. |
| 00:39:05.10 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 00:39:05.23 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:39:05.30 | Michael Rex | That's right. |
| 00:39:05.40 | Nastassya Saad | Um... We'll be right back. |
| 00:39:05.89 | Michael Rex | appreciate it. Thank you. Send me a note on that. No, no problem. Thank you. |
| 00:39:10.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:39:11.36 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 00:39:12.49 | Nastassya Saad | so i think i had 10 minutes and 10 seconds left anyway so we'll go ahead and um Director, will you help me with public comment for this item? |
| 00:39:23.46 | Matthew Mandich | Yes. Oh, can you hear me? Yes. So looking at the chamber, I've not received any speaker cards. Any public comment to the chamber? Seeing none. And Ms. Nelson, can you check online if we have any? Seeing none. |
| 00:39:39.20 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for the assist. Mr. X, and you still have 10 more minutes for the both of you if you have any closing remarks. Okay. Thank you. Seeing the decline, we will go ahead and close that portion of the public hearing and bring it up for discussion. Who wants to kick us off? |
| 00:39:59.62 | Andrew Junius | I'll start. Please. I am kind of curious more about your comment, Commissioner Marlott, about Standard Nine. You know, I don't have a problem with this project at all. I think it's fine, but I do think that standard is kind of interesting and it's kind of the only really interesting standard of all the 10, from my opinion, right? You know, could you talk a little bit more about that and just. I think because this house is so You know, invisible from the street. And so it really doesn't matter in a way. But the the, you know, the distinction between Thank you. you know, historic fabric and new additions and making sure that you can tell the difference, I think, is important. Yeah. |
| 00:40:37.41 | David Marlatt | And thank you, and I'll sort of start with the conclusion as well. I'm not opposed to the project because you know it's what they want to do it can't see from the street doesn't block any view I totally no problem with that. I've done a number of projects where I've been before the San Francisco historic planning Commission and I've had to do you know certificates of appropriateness and standard nine. which is very subjective like all of the standards, seek to differentiate the historic elements or features of a building from what's been added on so that it's readily apparent and then also in a different standard make something that is easily reversible. Now what does easily mean that's very subjective. So I am very surprised I guess to see the sort of repetition of the scalloping as an element that carries over even though it's not direct copy because you know wood has different dimensions that you couldn't even do a direct copy, but it is clearly in my mind, clearly a mimic. And I am surprised that the Historic Planning Commission and two consultants didn't see that. Also, the fact that the hip roof is historic, reading through the reports and so forth, which pretty clearly show that landmarking this building was probably a mistake. But the fact that the hip is an existing original element Probably it is, but actually it's speculation. The only thing that you can be sure is existing was this sort of, you know, funky sighting. Having said that, like I say, you know, so I don't, Had it been me and I had contemplated actually this evening, asking to maybe bifurcate the resolution so that I could not support the certificate of appropriateness, but support the design review. I'm sort of backed off that now. This is a relief for everybody I know. But Yeah, we don't need that. So But In my mind, it doesn't meet standard nine. in my mind, but there are experts in this unanimous resolution of commissions And the project itself is fine. I mean, it's fine. So that's about as enthusiastic, unfortunately, as I'm going to get. Thank you. |
| 00:42:55.14 | Nastassya Saad | May I? I completely agree. And during my time on the Historic Preservation Commission, I would not have made that finding as well. But that being said, I am also completely supportive of this project. Actually, I know this home. I had good friends. I grew up on that street. We used to be in that home. So it's a beautiful place. beautiful design as it is. But I agree it's, it's, it's a mimic, but that being said, I won't let that, Thank you. prevent this from moving forward at least from from my perspective um otherwise i I don't have any issues with anything else, and I think it's an appropriate expansion. It makes good sense, and I can find the rest of the findings for sure for design review. Commissioner Luxenberg, thoughts? |
| 00:43:47.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I concur with the comments that both you and Khrushchev Mahlou made, but I can support this president. |
| 00:43:55.67 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I think we're there. May I look for a motion? |
| 00:44:01.39 | Andrew Junius | Move to approve as presented by staff. |
| 00:44:03.91 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Director Mandich. |
| 00:44:09.17 | Unknown | . |
| 00:44:09.22 | Matthew Mandich | Go ahead and call roll here. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Moore is absent, recused. Commissioner Luxenberg. Vice Chair Marlach. Yes. Chair Saad. |
| 00:44:20.11 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:44:20.86 | Matthew Mandich | Motion passes. |
| 00:44:21.56 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. We are now going to move on to item six. This is 6268 lower Crescent Avenue. It's a design review permit with a tree removal permit and an encroachment permit. We have our principal planner, uh, slash acting director, Matthew manage here to present. this evening. And I forgot about Fred. Can we call back Commissioner Moore? Thank you. |
| 00:44:51.04 | David Marlatt | I killed this. |
| 00:44:52.18 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:44:57.65 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:45:09.03 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you very much. Go ahead at your leisure. |
| 00:45:13.97 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you very much. Yes. So as already stated by the chair, tonight's presentation is on 62 through 68 Lower Crescent Avenue. It is for a design review permit, true removal permit, and an encroachment agreement. Next slide, please. So location of the property here at the corner of Lower Crescent and Crescent Avenue. Anyone who knows this street knows that that Lower Crescent is a very steep and narrow street up in the Hurricane Gulch neighborhood. It's an R2 2.5, two-family zoning district, and the lot is 9,014 square feet. Next slide, please. The site is currently developed with two duplexes, one here and one that you can see partially here from the right of way. There's limited records on file at the city of Sausalito regarding these structures. According to the assessor's office, the original construction date was 1923. However, there was a significant remodel which caused a reassessment in 1980. I did find some documents in our records that indicate the two duplexes existed on the site in the 1970s. And then there were several kind of minor permits that were issued from 1983 to 2019, including re-roof, window redo, kitchen bathroom, and a new driveway, a secondary driveway for the 6264 unit. The property was purchased by new owners in 2025, and hence the application in front of you today. And here's just, again, showing this on the survey. Here's the larger unit, 6264, and this is 6668, the smaller right there. Next slide, please. So a proposed project design review permit for an addition of 319 square feet of new floor area at the rear of 62 through 64 Lower Crescent. Also, there will be conversion of the existing structure from a duplex into a single-family dwelling with an attached ADU. This gets us around the no-net-loss issue. Originally, this project came through as proposing to go down from one duplex to a a single family home, which would have made the density conforming. However, due to the fact state law, no net loss, the ADU was needed to be added. So they had an attached ADU on the lower floor, which still allows for three primary units, which complies with the density for the zoning district, which is one unit per 2,500 square feet. So taking a non-conforming property in that sense to a conforming property um and there is an addition of 540 square feet of building coverage this is also associated with that same floor addition to 62 64 lower crescent at the rear of the building and then they'll be refinishing work on the duplex at 66 through 68 Lower Crescent, which is also partially located in the right of way, hence the encroachment agreement portion, which you'll see here, a portion of 66 through 68 Lower Crescent duplex is located in the public right of way on Lower Crescent. There are also two driveways located in the public right of way, retaining walls and planters, entry stairs and walkways and landscaping. The tree removal slash alteration permit is for the removal of one protected coast live oak, which is failing and in poor health. The other report was attached to the staff report. Alteration of two protected live oak trees, which are in good health. However, several limbs, one from each tree will need to be removed for the proposed expansion. Next slide please. So I wanted to just highlight, use the building coverage slide here to show the existing building coverage here, existing site plan here and proposed. As you can see, pretty much the entire addition is at the rear of the home here. This is to take advantage of the views out to the Bay, Angel Island, San Francisco. You'll see that there's a additional deck being added, an outdoor patio and additional floor area on both the second and first floors and another small little addition right there. Next slide, please. So here's the floor area here. You see existing first floor here, existing or proposed first floor here, again highlighting the area of these new decks. There's a push out going right there and this is where the attached ADU will be located on the lower floor here. Next slide please. Here's the second floor again existing deck here existing deck will remain. They'll be in a deck expansion. So a new wrap around deck here on the upper floor and a small addition in this corner here of floor area to the upper floor. So as you could see the footprint of the structure overall is well maintained. The only really physical expansion of the structure is at their rear side of the building here pushing out again towards the direction of the bay. Next slide please. So just brought in some elevations here to kind of help reiterate that fact. The existing elevations are down below here, proposed above. So you can see, again, the house is very much keeping with the same footprint, same shape, same style. The only difference is that the rear of the house is being expanded, pushed out, new decks being added, and large windows to take advantage of the views coming out of that area here. So next slide, please. Again, some additional elevations showing the existing elevation here and propose with those new decks being added. And here is a rendering right here of the rear of the home in particular, which is where the addition will occur. Next slide, please. This is the other duplex on the site, 66 through 68 Lower Crescent, the smaller one, which is located on the street. You can see here that no real changes, no changes to floor area, no changes to building coverage, just a refinishing of the exterior. The deck will be replaced, as will the stairs. Everything will be replaced in kind in the same location. Next slide, please. So here's the zoning table. This zoning table here represents the overall total site compliance. So this is the total development on the parcel, which relies on the standards from table 1022. And as you can see here, the entire development on the parcel is compliant with all the development standards from the R225 zoning district. Next slide, please. I've also added a slide here at the request of one of our commissioners to further break down the compliance of each individual unit, pursuant to SMC 1044-330C. So when you have a parcel that's over 6,000 square feet, the development standards for each individual unit change. This was discussed a little bit on the last project that we just went through. And as you can see here, each one of those units does comply with each one of those more reduced standards for the individual units and i've just given a little explanation down here so the development standards for each individual unit in the r225 and r3 zoning districts need to comply with these modified standards no single unit may exceed the standard listed above, which you see in this column here. However, the total development of the parcel shall also not exceed those standards from SMC Table 1022-2, which we just discussed previously. Happy to answer any questions on that later. So, Zoning consistency proposed project complies with all objective zoning development standards for the R225 zoning district as well as those standards and SMC 104433 OC. The proposed far building coverage and pervious service coverage all comply the side yard setback on the North side of the property is also compliant. Again, we're dealing with the 40 foot rule here, which requires an increased setback asked this on a project about a month ago that I brought forward to the Commission as well. So the average to comply with the setback requirement in 1040 070 D1, the average depth of the yard must be equal to the minimum required setback. So because the building is 78 feet long, requires an additional setback, which is 12 feet 8 inches, the average setback will be 16.5. So that complies. Also for this compliance to work, less than 50% of the building wall needs to encroach in that required setback. In this case, the total extent of the building wall is 78 feet, four inches, and the encroachment is 36 feet, two inches. So less than 50% and also requires planning commission review, which is getting right now. So next slide, please. Here's just a diagram explaining that setback situation visually. So you can see here, this is the extent of the home. This is the building wall. This is the projection of the building wall, which is less than 50%. And there's a line right here, which I know is very difficult to see on this slide, which represents the required setback for the expanded wall. Next slide, please. So for the tree removal permit, the tree requested for removal right here is tree number seven from the Arborist Report. It sits between the two duplexes on the site. It is in poor health and failing and has significant chance for failure and to cause property damage. As you can see, it's located very close to both of these two duplexes. So whichever way the tree were to fall, it would definitely impact a property. The other two trees that you see down here, these are trees five and six. These are where a limb will be taken off of each one of these trees. However, there is a tree protection plan in place for both of those trees while construction occurs. And this is again to facilitate the addition at the rear of the home. Next slide, please. So just to outline again, here's that tree number seven that was just discussed on the plan. You can see in between the two existing duplexes, here's some of the issues going on with that tree, some of the rot that you can see here, which is more fully discussed in the arborist report. Next slide, please. Here are the other two trees proposed for alteration. You can see the area shaded in green here and here. These are the two limbs that are proposed for removal to facilitate the expansion right here, which would be the rear of the home pushing out to take advantage of those bay views. Next slide, please. Here's a landscape plan as well that I've included to show what the overall landscaping will look like after many of those trees on the property will be maintained. The only tree to be removed is located right around there, tree number seven, and then trees five and six here at the rear of the building. Next slide, please. So encroachment agreement, as we discussed already, a portion of this duplex right here, as you can see, I've tried to outline the property line in red. This red box is just kind of showing the encroachment area along the front of the property. There are the two driveways, one here and one here. Some retaining walls and planters along this area. Entry stairs here and here. Walkway right there, which is outside of the property line and some additional landscaping in this area so that's the encroachment agreement the majority of these improvements are already existing however there will be a new walkway and entry stairs added next slide please So. That concludes the presentation stack recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution approving a design review permit tree removal alteration permit and recommending approval and encroachment agreement to the city council for the proposed project at 62 through 68 lower crescent avenue. The proposed project conforms to all the required development standards in the South Salimunicipal Code for our two to five zoning district as well as those in SMC 1044 330C the proposed project is conformance with all the required findings for design review and for the encroachment agreement. And it also meets... zoning district, as well as those in SMC 1044-330C. The proposed project is conformance with all the required findings for design review and for the encroachment agreement. And it also meets the criteria for a tree removal slash alteration permit. Project is of course subject to any conditions of approval attached and any additional conditions added by the planning commission this evening. Thank you very much. |
| 00:56:48.53 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much for all the detail. Let's start with some questions. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:56:57.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So we need to go through them. First of all, notice is several meetings ago, we indicated that we did not post a project in three locations. And at that time, we set up over the website, one location. And subsequent to that, we said we would make sure that notice there was all this problem done. I went to a website again as I did at that meeting and this project was posted for May 11th, where it was back when Maria Fernandez was doing this. She would post the date of the planning commission meeting and it says the week of May 11th and it lists a bunch of things. Is there a reason why you did not email a thing for this project about the date of the meeting so if somebody's reading that website, they wouldn't show off the week of May 11th. |
| 00:57:57.04 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so first of all, just the noticing issue, the site was posted, a notice was posted at City Hall and another notice was posted down at Dunphy Park. So according to the code, the project was properly noticed in accordance with that section, which I believe is 1082 or 1084 for the noticing. So project was fully noticed compliant to the code. As far as the web page goes, that's not a formal noticing form or anything tied to the code. That's just a courtesy that we provide to the community. The way that our current planner has been advertising notices is he posts notices for the week that the notices are published. So the notice for the hearing prior to us also is listed under the week of May 11th as well. So there's a number of notices that were issued that week for other projects, whether those are administrative projects or discretionary projects, all under that week. So you'll see miscellaneous notices for May 11th. I understand that can be confusing. Take that on board. And I will direct our planner to make those changes on the next go around. |
| 00:58:56.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and say follow up with the third one. Thank you. |
| 00:58:59.21 | Matthew Mandich | next night. |
| 00:59:03.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:59:03.92 | Nastassya Saad | just for the record on that, we appreciate Dunphy Park is the new |
| 00:59:04.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:59:08.35 | Nastassya Saad | site that |
| 00:59:09.77 | Matthew Mandich | A noticing location that was chosen recently, yes, to just clear up any of these discrepancies about noticing, perhaps having a notice outside City Hall and one in City Hall, maybe the same location outside. So we're going to do site, City Hall, Dunphy Park. |
| 00:59:11.24 | Nastassya Saad | in the out of the show. |
| 00:59:25.72 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, that's just good for everybody to know on noticing. |
| 00:59:28.39 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, and they'll be in that little glass box that's by the drinking fountain on the bathroom building. |
| 00:59:32.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:59:32.97 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:59:33.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next question. Thank you. and also the leader of the same idea. You say, although the subject project proposal is currently not in form that the current zoning code will allow in three, one of the existing two-plets that is 63 to 64 lower Crecin being converted into a single family home with an ADU, which would make the unit count inform the current code. The current code for R2.2.5 indicates the following, two-family use is an allowed use. Multi-family use is not an allowed use in this, So it is a non-reformal use and reducing the second duplex to a single family does not instill a multi-family problem. So this project needs a, which maybe we can do tonight, a non-performing permit for the use. You said it meets all the standards for R225. Multifamily use in this zone is not allowed. Duplex is allowed, non-duplex is allowed. Two families allowed, the three families not allowed, the four families not allowed. Since it exists and it's non-conforming, it is being expanded, The Planning Commission is in its discretion to approve. If this improves the neighborhood, we can approve a nonconforming permit. But I do not see how under any circumstance, this is conforming to the R225 district. |
| 01:01:16.33 | Matthew Mandich | So I think you're conflating development standards and use. So as I said already and was in the staff report as well as on the presentation, it complies with every single objective development standard for the R2 2.5 zoning district. |
| 01:01:31.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think you said it complies with all standards. |
| 01:01:34.19 | Matthew Mandich | development standards. |
| 01:01:36.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | whether it was use or way, and it doesn't really matter. |
| 01:01:39.37 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Can you speak closer to the microphone? Because I understand it's a little muffled for the people. Thank you. |
| 01:01:40.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:01:46.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I know. |
| 01:01:46.52 | David Marlatt | I know. Thank you. |
| 01:01:49.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | from Well, I think that's a fatal flaw here. I don't see how we'll do something that doesn't meet the current selling without the additional purpose. Maybe we can get to that one. So the next issue, Katie did an excellent job of adding this to the zoning chart, maybe the supplemental. Two things would address 44.310, 44-330. In your staff reporting, you indicate it's less than, you didn't give numbers, and tonight you put up a slot. The problem, did you post this PowerPoint online with the agenda |
| 01:02:31.48 | Matthew Mandich | No. |
| 01:02:32.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the problem with this is, in Katie's case, the public has a chance to see that information. And down the road, we have had problems with the taping of these things and you can't always get back and get it. But the stuff that's posted with the agenda is part of the record. So hers is now part of the record. We got the same information she did and had plenty of time to include the supplemental report with this information. Why was that not done? |
| 01:03:02.04 | Matthew Mandich | As I explained to you in the email response, the staff report does discuss the compliance of this project with 1044-330C. It also directs readers to the data table, which is on the cover sheet. of the plan set where all of the percentages are broken down. And I also included a slide, as I promised you I would, in tonight's presentation. And I'm happy to include a PDF of the presentation on the agenda. to memorialize that. |
| 01:03:29.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, for the future though. We had about two years ago, three years ago, when a couple of times they forgot to put the zoning table. And the zoning table was intended to make it easy for us to review these information. And that's why we put it all together. We can review the drawings and then, you know, we're gonna review the drawings I don't know why we get a staff report. And the job of the staff report is to collect it and try to make it succinct. The staff, the language in their sense refers to the drawings. We have to go find this one percentage to go and go to F-A-R. When that chart being put tonight, which you could have posted the way Katie did X no job on, So for the future, putting up a PowerPoint is not the best way to accomplish it. Um, Let me see what else I got. There's some other inaccuracies. In the zoning chart, you indicate that the zone requires five parking spaces. That's it. So you're arguing for three units, and you can't have multifamily in this zone. So the objective design standards are two per unit. Where do you get five? |
| 01:04:43.80 | Matthew Mandich | So there'd be two for 64. Correct. ADU does not require a parking space. The two studio apartments are each around 370 square feet, so they only require 1.5. each. That's in the parking table. Tim Forty. |
| 01:05:03.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's a multifamily though, because these are multifamily. You can't have multifamily. |
| 01:05:07.96 | Matthew Mandich | I bet you just said it was multifamily. |
| 01:05:09.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I think it is not. |
| 01:05:11.86 | Matthew Mandich | Oh. address that later the |
| 01:05:16.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | is common. I said that this site only allows two units per site. The intent of 44, three-carriages that the cell and the pen a little bit like it's an R016. So the idea is we can have two units. This has more than that, But that doesn't relieve it of its parking requirements. |
| 01:05:38.39 | Matthew Mandich | So the parking requirement for the proposed project would be five. for the duplex, 66-68. It's in the staff report. |
| 01:05:48.73 | David Marlatt | Let's let, let, let. |
| 01:05:50.03 | Matthew Mandich | been discussed in the staff report, Commissioner. I would just like to reference you to that section where I've discussed it. |
| 01:05:50.64 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:05:57.98 | Matthew Mandich | I don't have it in front of me. |
| 01:06:01.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:01.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:06:01.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:02.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. a go find code section where that's true, that would be done. Yeah. |
| 01:06:05.71 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 01:06:05.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Um, |
| 01:06:11.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Under the construction management plan, we've got a comment from one of the abutters, concerned about trucks, especially on the lower crescent. In that section, it talks about employees, the providing space for employees. Is there any reason you can't add the words and trucks to that section about construction management plan? That's that concern. |
| 01:06:34.58 | Matthew Mandich | weekend at. |
| 01:06:36.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh, for those who are not going to be able to |
| 01:06:41.94 | Nastassya Saad | Just take a note for the trucks. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Moore, do you have any questions for staff? |
| 01:06:54.05 | Fred Moore | I had a question about the five parking spaces as well, but I'll wait to see if that's resolved. |
| 01:06:59.50 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Commissioner Junius. |
| 01:07:04.95 | Andrew Junius | I'm just curious about the tree removal permit. I'm not so concerned about the tree that's going to be removed, but the alterations for the back, it does... I assume those are really to allow for the deck, right? That's correct. Okay. That's all I needed. Thanks. |
| 01:07:22.28 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, Vice Chair. |
| 01:07:24.29 | David Marlatt | Yeah. Thank you very much. I guess these are intertwined with the issue about the conformity permit. So because my initial question first reading the project is if unit that's 62 I believe is the downstairs unit that's being removed. The ADU is fundamentally in the same location as unit 62. but larger with a horizontal extension. it rather than have an ADU rather than go through the bother of a separate permit for an ADU and the cost of that, Why is this not just an expansion of unit 62 as part of the remodel? And I guess you're response to that would be that you needed to reduce the non-permitted use, non-conforming use from four units to three units. |
| 01:08:14.41 | Matthew Mandich | That's correct. One unit per 2,500 square feet. |
| 01:08:18.56 | David Marlatt | So if we conclude that a nonconformity permit is in fact required, and I think I'd wholeheartedly support such a thing, then as a kind of a trade-off, for lack of a better word, an ADU permit is no longer required. |
| 01:08:32.82 | Matthew Mandich | Not necessarily, no. There'd be no benefit. |
| 01:08:35.98 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:08:36.03 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:08:36.13 | David Marlatt | to that. |
| 01:08:36.42 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. So again, in the non-conformity section, 1062, there's non-conforming uses and there's non-conforming structures. |
| 01:08:44.30 | David Marlatt | Right, and we're talking about a non-conforming use, I think, primarily. |
| 01:08:47.17 | Matthew Mandich | Correct. So the applicant also, and the city attorney can chime in on this if he likes, can avail themselves of any process they would like to go forward. If they want to build an attached ADU. We can't prevent them from doing that. |
| 01:09:00.26 | David Marlatt | No, I understand. I understand. But there would be no logic to it. If reducing the property to three units still constituted multifamily, therefore, a nonconforming nonconformity permit is required. |
| 01:09:10.20 | Matthew Mandich | So the three units would comply with density though. So the, It's 2,500 square feet per unit allowed on the R225. So by making it go from four to three, you're complying with the required density of the parcel, which is a development state. But not the use. |
| 01:09:22.59 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:09:23.95 | Matthew Mandich | Which is a development standard, correct? Yeah, if not the use. |
| 01:09:27.45 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:09:27.75 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:09:27.82 | Matthew Mandich | So the way that the use was interpreted by staff, just to clarify, was that a duplex is allowed in the RT25 and a single family home is allowed in the RT25. So that is why. |
| 01:09:28.27 | David Marlatt | Bye. |
| 01:09:28.31 | Unknown | way that |
| 01:09:39.07 | Matthew Mandich | That is the interpretation of that. |
| 01:09:39.36 | City Attorney Rudin | That is the interpretation. THE END OF Thank you. |
| 01:09:41.81 | Matthew Mandich | Please. |
| 01:09:43.53 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah. So I think the issue being raised is that the use table in this zoning district, um, In terms of it's located in 1022, Thank you. Oh 30, I believe it's table 10 dot 22 dash one. And one of the issues is that in the R2 zone, Multiple family dwellings is a prohibited use. and multiple family dwellings in the city zoning code is interpreted to mean three or more dwelling units on a single law. And so, although Duplex isn't allowed use in the use table and it is allowed on this site. And there's no mention of how many duplexes are allowed in the R2 zone, at least |
| 01:10:34.46 | Marnie Wilson | Thank you. |
| 01:10:36.97 | City Attorney Rudin | and single family home is also allowed. The combination of those presumably would violate the plain language of the definition of what constitutes multifamily in the zone. So with regards to the non-conforming structures and uses chapter, Um, you know, if a multifamily use is not a conforming use in the zone. And I think at present, we have no reason to believe that the two duplexes that are built on this site weren't lawfully built. So they're probably legally non-conforming. Um, to substantially alter a existing non-conforming use. You have to either change that use to a permitted use, which I think regardless can't be done here with the proposed project. or you have to issue a non-conformity permit under 1062070. And one of the findings for that is that you are issuing that a substitution of a nonconforming use is allowed to another nonconforming use of a similar or less intensive character. Um, So I think that is, I think the intent here in terms of the structure or sorry, the what the project is that's being proposed. |
| 01:11:53.20 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, and I want to be clear that we do not have a non-conformity permit in front of us this evening. So, would that... |
| 01:12:00.20 | City Attorney Rudin | That is correct. So if the planning commission wants to move forward this evening in terms of giving some approvals to the project, one way you can address this is making them conditional on issuance of a |
| 01:12:00.28 | Nastassya Saad | Thanks. Yeah. |
| 01:12:10.17 | City Attorney Rudin | nonconformity permit as well, which the applicant would likely have to come back for. |
| 01:12:14.63 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, but we can continue general discussion of the tree removal permit and design review if we so wish. Correct. Okay. Okay. Is that clear? Okay. Does that answer the question also, Commissioner Luxenberg and Vice Chair? I think that was quite clear from the stance from legal on where we are with the concept of the nonconformity and the requirement. Okay. Great. Thank you. |
| 01:12:40.02 | David Marlatt | So yes, please, Vice Chair. Yeah, just a quick follow-up. So if the applicants presumably move forward with a non-conformity permit after this hearing, then they might choose, I would think, to simply withdraw the application for an ADU because it serves no, has no benefit for them. |
| 01:12:41.14 | David Marlatt | Sure. |
| 01:12:56.23 | City Attorney Rudin | Well, so... with regards to what the benefit is, is the city can't lawfully allow a project that demolishes an existing residential unit. That's prohibited by the Housing Crisis Act. this is government code 66300.6, notwithstanding any other law and notwithstanding any local density requirements. So regardless of what the density is that, The city allows for this lot. An affected city, which is Sausalito, shall not approve a housing development project that will require demolition of one or more residential units unless the project will create at least as many residential units as will be demolished. |
| 01:13:34.82 | David Marlatt | But as I understand, we're not demolishing anything. There's an existing Unit 62 which actually is going to be expanded, not even contracted. So it's an existing four-unit project on the property that would remain four units. without prevailing itself at the ADU laws. |
| 01:13:53.30 | Matthew Mandich | I think the issue with that again is the density. So that's a development standard, the 2,500 square feet. So the re and I think turn attorney Rudin read the finding about it must be a less intense character. So we're reducing the existing nonconformity from four primary units to three. However, we're not losing a unit. So we're complying with no net loss. So we have an attached ADU. So three primary units, attached ADU complies of the development standard and not losing a unit. |
| 01:14:13.65 | David Marlatt | Three primary units attached to you. I'd argue that we're not reducing anything. There are currently four units. We're actually making unit number four larger. We're not removing it. Therefore, we don't need to substitute an ADU. It's just an extra permit, an extra fee for the application. |
| 01:14:31.43 | City Attorney Rudin | So the question. |
| 01:14:32.19 | David Marlatt | Thank you. That is quote. |
| 01:14:33.91 | City Attorney Rudin | The issue here would be potentially while Keeping the duplex as is, is certainly not going to trigger no net or sorry, the housing crisis act provision that I just read. One of the issues here is that you would still have a non-conforming use, which you are potentially allowing to expand. |
| 01:14:52.12 | David Marlatt | Right, but it's a non-conforming use for three units or non-conforming use for four units. What's the difference? I don't think there's any difference. |
| 01:14:57.61 | Nastassya Saad | Is this subject to the wish of the applicant though, right? This would be the applicant's desire to either keep I think I |
| 01:15:05.77 | David Marlatt | Yeah, I guess, but it's an extra $1,250 in an app with equipment, and they're going to pay for a nonconformity permit. |
| 01:15:06.67 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:15:12.27 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:15:12.68 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:15:12.78 | Nastassya Saad | I think I understand what you're saying. Let's hold on that just because it could be something we discussed with the applicant, Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 01:15:21.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, I'm sorry. I believe there's language in the non-conformal movement. If the improvements improve the neighborhood, that we can improve this. So we have four units that are existing. We have a plan to improve those four units. And we need a non-conformal improvement. I think there's language in the discretion of the planning commission so that the applicant doesn't have to go through all these gyrations and all that other stuff just to approve the project as the four units that are there with the improvements being proposed. And the way we do that is a non-conforming permit. I mean, I think the language of the non-conforming statute allows us the discretion to do that. |
| 01:16:04.45 | Matthew Mandich | you wouldn't be reducing the intensity. |
| 01:16:10.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We don't need to reduce the number of units. And it gets less, more non-conformance. It's existing. There are four units. Understood. There will still be four units. Also, Commissioner. The question is whether this is an expansion. And there's language in there that I believe gives us that discretion. That's what he's looking at. |
| 01:16:17.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:17.93 | Matthew Mandich | Good. Understood. also commissioner. |
| 01:16:33.54 | Matthew Mandich | Also, if the applicant chooses to do an attached ADU, That is their prerogative. And we cannot refuse them doing an ADU. |
| 01:16:41.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're not questioning whether they can do an ADU. We're questioning whether the planning department is making them jump through a bunch of hoops to create an ADU that they don't need because they already have the unit. This is the applicant's |
| 01:16:51.72 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:16:51.73 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:16:51.77 | Matthew Mandich | This is the applicant's choice. |
| 01:16:53.03 | David Marlatt | I'm also not sure the applicant has the right to convert existing condition residential unit into an ADU. Thank you. |
| 01:17:01.28 | Matthew Mandich | an attached ADU. |
| 01:17:03.73 | David Marlatt | so they can take away They can take away a livable unit in order to create an ADU in the same space. |
| 01:17:10.46 | Matthew Mandich | By expanding the footprint. Yes. |
| 01:17:15.14 | David Marlatt | Attorney, Lieutenant. |
| 01:17:16.99 | City Attorney Rudin | So one, I do think that the planning commission needs to focus on the project application before it, rather than wishing that perhaps it was considering a different project application. I think that that, |
| 01:17:27.88 | Marnie Wilson | Thank you. |
| 01:17:30.19 | City Attorney Rudin | is required for us to proceed. With regards to the conversion of existing dwelling space to an ADU that is allowed under ADU law. And again, the ADU is not before the Planning Commission's union. |
| 01:17:45.98 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, you know what, I think let's just take a moment to move forward so we can get to the applicant. I think some of these questions might be better for Mr. Couture if he's gonna be presenting this evening. And then we'll keep you, Director Mandich, and Attorney Rudin close to us in case we need to lean on you further. Thank you. |
| 01:18:06.13 | Michael Rex | Thank you, Chair. |
| 01:18:06.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:18:06.57 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:18:06.62 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so with that, I'm assuming, Mr. Couture, are you going to present this evening, or whomever the applicant might... B and the team. Nice to see you again. |
| 01:18:18.84 | Scott Couture | Good to be back. |
| 01:18:20.01 | Nastassya Saad | If you could state your name for the record, and you'll have 15 minutes if you give us a second just to get your timer up. |
| 01:18:29.32 | Scott Couture | Good evening. My name is Scott Couture on the project architect. Um, And someday I'll bring a nice, simple, clean project for you guys to review. I'm going to kind of bypass my presentation. I think Matthew did a great job explaining the project. You have the plans in front of you and I'll get right to the issue of which everyone was discussion. Um, we have two structures on this property. Um, And, um, So this is 66, 68. This is 62, 64. 62, 64 is the first structure built on the site. The timing of that again is a little wary, some time in the twenties. The second structure is 66, 68, sometime probably in the sixties, we estimate. Um, But what we have here is basically four units on this property. The property is zoned and the development standards to accommodate three units. So currently, The project is nonconforming in the amount of units per, um, the development standards. Also, what we have is a state law that says no net loss. And the state law is very clear. It overrides any of the zoned ordinances that you have in town here. And it basically says we have four units on this property, legal or not legal, permitted, non-permitted. It doesn't matter. when we do a redevelopment of this property, which we're proposing, We have to end up with four units on this property. State laws, nothing anyone can do about it. Not me, not the city, not the owner. Um, The second issue is four units is non-compliant. So if we remodel this structure, We had two units in it. So this structure would then be considered nonconformant under the development standards. We would have to apply for nonconformity permit for the structure, for changes to the structure. What we have done is we found a way to comply with both the development standards of the three units and the state requirements for the four units. Now, under the, uh, sus leader zone in a duplex is two units, a single family house with an ADU is one considered one primary unit and one accessory units. So the total units for the property is three under the zone in standards, So zone and standards don't count the ADU as a primary unit. under the state, no net loss law, the ADU counts as a unit. So then it counts four units. So we're able to keep four units on this property per state, No net loss. were able to convert it into a three unit property under Sausalito's zoning for the R2 2.5 district for a property that is 9,000 square feet. If we, you know, there were some questions about turning The house, you know, getting rid of the ADU, turn it all into a single-family house, we can't do that under the state law. We need to keep two units in that building. It is my read of the use that under the use table, I think it's 1022-1. That duplexes are allowed on this property. Single family homes are allowed on this property. Accessory structures allowed on this property. To me, I don't see that this property is restricted under the use to three units. If the development standard allows for three units, in the R2 district, then the land use table should allow for three units also, unless there's a conflict between these two units, these two sections of the code. |
| 01:22:31.90 | Unknown | it. |
| 01:22:38.55 | Scott Couture | If we look at it, that if this is restricted to three units, or excuse me, two units under the land use, The unit that we are remodeling, which is the 6264 unit currently conforms to the development standards and also conforms with two units as a duplex. To or even as a single family home with an adu also conforms to the land use requirements. The other structure which we were not substantially remodeling, the 6668 structure, currently does not conform to the development standards, which is one of the reasons we're not remodeling it, we're not touching it. Therefore, we don't need to go through a non-conformity permit for that. And if If the land use restrictions to two units on this property, that building would also be nonconforming to the land use requirements for two units. And again, that structure we are not altering at all. We're doing a little exterior remodel on it. So the way I look at this project, is that it conforms to both the land use requirements Um, and the development requirements and again a portion of the project that we are working on is the building that is at the 6264 uh building and not the 66 68 structure |
| 01:24:13.05 | Nastassya Saad | You still have time. We'll get to questions after, so I don't want to interrupt your presentation if you want to keep going with anything else. |
| 01:24:22.01 | Scott Couture | Okay. We're going to go through the second slide. |
| 01:24:30.38 | Scott Couture | So this here has shows sort of the vertical differences between the neighbors on here. The extension that we're doing is down here, really has no impact, no view blockage to any of the neighbors on there. Next slide. |
| 01:24:50.44 | Scott Couture | This is the 66 68 structure. Again, this is a unit up top. It's about 375 square feet. There's a unit down underneath the street level. It's 360 square feet with a garage in between. This is the 62 64 structure. Next slide. kind of a view down the street. There's an existing hedge here that we're keeping. Again, you can see the kind of the roof line of 62, 64, all this stays in place. Next slide. This is looking into the driveway area at 62, 64. There's an existing hedge there that's going to stay. Okay. Next slide. This is looking from down the street. This is the neighborhood home down the street, 5460 Lower Crescent. The 6264 structure is here. It's gonna be behind some hedges and some trees. Next slide. |
| 01:25:46.87 | Scott Couture | This is the rear portion of the 6264 structure. The addition that we're doing is along this wall. We'll pull it out two feet, four inches. Next slide. This is the rear yard. Again, this is the section of wall that we're pulling out, two feet, four inches. This deck stays. We're gonna do an infill underneath. This is tree number five and six. The branches that are being trimmed to this one here And then this skinny little one here that sticks out towards back of the house of tree number five. Next slide. |
| 01:26:24.49 | Scott Couture | This is the rear yard, looking up. This deck remains, we're gonna infill underneath. This wall here comes out two feet, four inches. We have a deck that runs along long now deck that runs on along both levels. Next slide. And this is just kind of a quick rendering again. This roof line is all existing on the 62, 64 structure. This roof line here is really the major work. This roof is going to come up about two feet. These walls come out to two feet, four inches. We add a little deck along the top and the bottom. He's about four feet, six inches. Next slide. And this is a little further around the back. Again, this is sort of that existing deck area we've infilled underneath. that these narrow decks along the backside and this wall here on both levels comes out two feet, four inches. This is the same roof line. We've added a little kind of triangular addition here, build up some of the two bedrooms in the back, Next slide. This is street view. This is the existing hedge along the street. There's an existing hedge that's here. We're going to keep all that. We're going to expand them in each direction. We've added a little privacy fence and gate entrance gate to the yard in front. And this is the main part of the addition here. This roof line comes up two feet, a little entry canopy, and then a little canopy that runs along this interior living space in there. And I'll take any questions. |
| 01:27:51.81 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. You have five minutes and 48 seconds left after public comment. Okay. We can ask questions of the applicant. I am We heard your interpretation. I'm just going to kick that discussion off. I don't know if we're going to agree. I'm going to lean on Attorney Rudin to make that final call, which I think we understood from his earlier comments that there is going to need a nonconformity permit. So I don't want to get too deep into that discussion here. |
| 01:28:10.66 | Marnie Wilson | don't know. |
| 01:28:26.80 | Nastassya Saad | But, um, but Commissioner Luxembourg, why don't you go ahead and kick us off for questions with the applicant? |
| 01:28:33.31 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:28:35.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So forget all the stuff you did, whatever. You have four units on it. It's sort of a similar question that Commissioner Vice Chair Marlowe was asking. You have four units on this problem. Assuming for the sake of a hypothetical that you're going to renovate and do the plan you're proposing, and you didn't need an ADU because you have a use problem. It doesn't matter if you have three or four. Only two is allowed. That's what the code requires. You can't have more than two. If you have more than two, you need a non-conformable program. Assuming that to be true, just for a hypothetical, |
| 01:28:47.62 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:29:15.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And we didn't, would you still want to call one in a single family and then the other one in ADU or just call one a primary unit and the other one a secondary? Is there some benefit that you or your client has ignore what you think the state is requiring. You're going to get four units no matter what. We agree with that. That's the only thing I agree with you on. I don't agree with you that having, if you have a duplex on a duplex lot, and let's say you have a three-quarter acre site, and you had a duplex on it, and you added four more duplexes on the site, |
| 01:29:34.69 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:29:39.56 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:29:54.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That is not allowed in this zone. We have to do a subdivision and have them on their own lots. That's what the code requests. So my only question for you is if, if, You could get your four units. Do you really want to call one an ADU? Assuming that you're going to get the four units and you're going to get the expansion, because I think we have some leeway. We have to get clarification to the city attorney on that. To do the plan as you've designed it. Is there a benefit to you or your client instead of calling a primary unit and a secondary unit that you want to call it an ADU? Is there any reason you're doing that? |
| 01:30:33.61 | Scott Couture | Yeah, absolutely. What this property has, as we proposed, is we have two very small units, right? Three other 375 square feet each, right? So they're on the other building in this building. We work with both the client and real estate agent. And what I know about Sausalito is One of the demands that a lot of people have in Sausalito for real estate is a home that has space for multi-generational years. So what is that? Um, you know, an Asian adult, parent who lives at home. who can have their own unit, but the house is connected. You have. Um, you know, a grown child that is not quite out in the universe yet, 20-something, that needs to come home for some reason or other, wants to live in the parent but wants to have their own unit, which is connected to the house. or you are trying to age in place and you wanna have in-home live-in health. I can also have their own unit, attack. to the main portions of the house. No, it's not going outside. So an ADU. is allowed to have an interior connection to a main residence. |
| 01:31:55.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I looked at the plan. I don't see a connection. I was looking for that. And I don't see, I mean, you have walls. Are these two, is that in you that it's on the plan, having a connection? Absolutely. Yeah. |
| 01:31:55.98 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 01:32:06.09 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:32:06.10 | Scott Couture | Absolutely. Yeah. There's a doorway in the hallway. |
| 01:32:07.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:07.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:32:07.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:07.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:32:07.94 | David Marlatt | It's a positive. Thank you. |
| 01:32:10.26 | Scott Couture | door. |
| 01:32:10.96 | David Marlatt | All right. |
| 01:32:11.49 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 01:32:11.50 | Nastassya Saad | just for the record state, what sheet that's on |
| 01:32:11.54 | David Marlatt | Thank you. The one that I'm going to say. A 2.1. |
| 01:32:19.01 | Nastassya Saad | Would staff mind, do you have the ability to pull up the plans |
| 01:32:22.03 | David Marlatt | You have the ability |
| 01:32:22.83 | Unknown | you guys. |
| 01:32:22.90 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:32:23.03 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 01:32:23.06 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 01:32:23.08 | Scott Couture | THE COUNTRY. |
| 01:32:23.47 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:32:23.52 | Scott Couture | plans. |
| 01:32:23.86 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:32:23.98 | Scott Couture | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:32:24.28 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:32:24.84 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, let's give Kitty a minute because it would be nice to all look at the plans. |
| 01:32:28.89 | Scott Couture | Katie, you can use my presentation. or A2, that's a lower level. A 2.1. |
| 01:32:34.81 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:32:35.03 | Scott Couture | Go past that last slide, you'll find the set of plans. Okay. |
| 01:32:35.13 | David Marlatt | you're going to be a little bit. to the community. to find the set of |
| 01:32:40.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But I thought the thing was on the lower level. It is the lower level. |
| 01:32:44.77 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, let's go ahead and bring up the plan so we can all be on the same page. A2. What was it? A2.1. A2.1, please. Thank you. Okay. So if, yeah, if you wanna use the... |
| 01:32:50.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:32:50.45 | David Marlatt | 8. |
| 01:32:55.18 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 01:33:00.69 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:33:00.73 | David Marlatt | Bye. |
| 01:33:02.18 | Scott Couture | So right here, there's a pocket door right here. So this section, and it's highlighted in a dashed green line, is an ADU. And it operates as a one bedroom separate living unit, which can be closed off, close the door, or it can be opened up to the main portions of the house. And this is something that Sosleto does not have many of. |
| 01:33:27.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but if you have a dooplas, |
| 01:33:29.75 | Scott Couture | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:33:29.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You can also, there's nothing that says you can't connect with it. |
| 01:33:34.36 | Scott Couture | Yeah, there is. What's in the building? You can't have an interior connection |
| 01:33:36.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:33:36.18 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:33:37.57 | Nastassya Saad | Can we speak into our microphone so everyone on the... |
| 01:33:37.58 | Scott Couture | rooms |
| 01:33:38.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:33:38.29 | Scott Couture | Bye. |
| 01:33:41.40 | Nastassya Saad | on Zoom can also hear. |
| 01:33:43.54 | David Marlatt | sorry, this gets into a building code issue rather than planning, but I mean, the door has to be 20-minute fire rated, etc., etc. But what in the building code prevents one from having a door between two units, assuming the fire code? Thank you. |
| 01:33:56.99 | Scott Couture | My understanding would be a planning code, and I could be mistaken on that. you |
| 01:34:01.41 | David Marlatt | where in the planning code would that be? I'm not, I'm just asking the question because that's- |
| 01:34:05.21 | Scott Couture | Yeah, I don't know how you would call it a separate apartment. |
| 01:34:06.79 | David Marlatt | But... if it's connected. Well, you can have doors to common hallways. I don't know anything in the planning code that prohibits that. |
| 01:34:15.52 | Nastassya Saad | So, think the overarching issue here is still the nonconformity, which I think we're not gonna resolve at this moment. What I think we should do for the questions is we still have an opportunity to go through the tree removal and design review. The application does have an ADU that is what's in front of us. It's also out of the purview, right, of the Planning Commission this evening. But we appreciate the plans because that was difficult to see. So let's work with what's in front of us, put a pin in the nonconformity, go through some of the other findings, and then let's bring Attorney Rudin back so we can figure out our final steps. |
| 01:35:00.34 | Scott Couture | Can I add one thing to that nonconformity question? Yes. So there's two development standards that we're trying to have... |
| 01:35:03.17 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:35:09.81 | Scott Couture | not meet the nonconformity compartment of one is in the development standards And so if we have four units on this property, we're nonconforming to the development standards and we're nonconforming to the land use standard. That's two different things. One's a use. One's the structure. I propose in an 80 you. we now conform to the development standards with three units. |
| 01:35:34.93 | Nastassya Saad | So I think that's what, you know what, let's just solve this right now. Attorney Rudin, would you mind, that was a clear statement. So that's appreciated, Mr. Couture. Can you weigh in on that? The applicant's interpretation versus our interpretation on a lot of this. |
| 01:35:53.61 | City Attorney Rudin | So, I think what the applicant is getting at is looking at the site development standards in I don't know. It's table 10.22-2 for the R2.5 zone. um, I believe um, that the applicable density for this lot is one dwelling unit per 2,500 square feet. And this is a 9,000 square foot lot. So, Under the standard, the maximum density for the lot is three units. So what the applicant, the applicants proposing a configuration that proposes no more than three units accessory dwelling unit does not count towards that density for the purposes of this table. And so the proposal that is before you is more conforming with respect to at least that particular standard than some of the alternatives that have been discussed. And so for that reason, I think the applicant |
| 01:36:56.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:58.48 | City Attorney Rudin | you know, the applicant is the master of their own project, they can propose a project for the consideration the planning commission they have, and that was their justification for going this direction rather than trying to maintain a duplex. With regards to the non-conforming use permit, as I previously said, given |
| 01:37:13.23 | Marnie Wilson | Yeah. |
| 01:37:20.52 | City Attorney Rudin | that on the site there are four units and Um, If the ADU doesn't count, you would have three. but still... Given the definition of what is in the zoning code for multifamily, multifamily is defined as being three units on a lot or more. and the fact that we have in table 10.22-1, multifamily dwellings is a prohibited use, so we still have a problem. |
| 01:37:54.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:54.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:37:55.42 | City Attorney Rudin | Um, on that issue. |
| 01:37:58.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I guess... The way I've always understood this for 30 years, if you have 2500 square feet per unit and it's two families only you can get two units and we have to have a minimum of 2500 square feet, if you have a 55,000 square lot lot, it doesn't mean you can put 10 duplexes in an R2 zone. It just, there's no logic to that, that it's a prohibited use. And this doesn't make the development standards more conforming because the three units aren't allowed in the first place. So how can it be more conforming if the use isn't allowed? I just don't understand it. the use is not allowed, therefore it doesn't really matter that if it was zoned, if you want to divide the, if you want to divide the 9,000-foot lot and the 5,000-foot lot and the non-performing 4,000-foot lot, and then argue that you can put a single family on the 4,000-foot lot and a duplex on the 5,000-foot lot, okay. But that's why we have subdivision laws and whatever. And that's why we have an R3 zone. If you want to rezone this to R3, then yes, they could do what they're suggesting. But I'm making a strong point here, not about this project, but it'll set a precedent throughout the R2 that people are just going to put any limited number of units in an R2 zone, even though it's only supposed to have two units. And if they're historic, yes, we have a non-performing permit and possibly a non-performing structure. Then we have a way to do that. And I think we could approve this project as designed without changing the design if we just add a permit to it. I mean, that's, I believe. I mean, I think the language is there, but we held off on that to go get back |
| 01:39:51.94 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I'm going to move on for some other questions. more. No questions. Vice Chair, oh, wait, Commissioner, thank you, no, former Vice Chair. |
| 01:40:04.98 | David Marlatt | real vice chair. Real vice chair. Yeah, well, thank you. And first of all, because I think it might get lost in this debate about process. I think the design is great, and I hope we can approve it. And I went by and looked at the property and it's in sore need of what you're doing here. And I think my other fellow commissioners had no other comments, partially for that reason. And so I really do hope we can agree or come to a conclusion on what the proper process is. I do support, though... you know, Commissioner Luxembourg contention that It's just plain English that it's a non-permitted use. I would, in a heartbeat, approve or vote to approve a non-conforming use permit I think the ADU permit makes no sense because it's, redundant, so to speak, with the nonconforming. I think it's just a matter of process. But I just wanted to go on record, too, that I have no questions about the design because I think it's very nice. |
| 01:41:00.65 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 01:41:00.69 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:41:00.70 | Scott Couture | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:41:00.77 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:41:00.81 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 01:41:02.15 | Nastassya Saad | I totally agree. Thank you. And these things happen, but I completely agree with original Attorney Rudin's statement. And the two, I think we need a nonconformity permit. But because we don't have that, let's find a way to at least get what we can across the line. Because I don't have any issues with the design review. And I don't have any issues with the tree removal. I don't want to get into the double variations though. I just realized, so why don't we. Hold off. Do you have any further conversation because you had some more time? |
| 01:41:37.12 | Scott Couture | Yeah, the only thing I do want to point out is the nonconformity permit is required when the wording is here. The structure is enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered. Now we are only doing this to one structure on the property, not the other. So is the whole property deemed nonconformin, or is each structure deemed nonconformin, or is one deemed nonconformin and not the other? It's not the use that's nonconforming. |
| 01:42:09.35 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Yeah, it's the use. It's the use. Okay, I have noted down five minutes and 48 seconds, so we're gonna, let me go ahead and open this up for public comment before I forget to do that. And then you can come back. |
| 01:42:22.56 | Marnie Wilson | Thank you. Come back. Yes. |
| 01:42:23.51 | Nastassya Saad | We do see one raised hand. Feel free to come up to the microphone if you could state your name for the record, and you'll have three minutes for public comment. Thank you for waiting. |
| 01:42:33.90 | Yes Hadzik | Good evening, everyone. My name is a yes, Hadzik. A couple questions for for the folks, mostly on on timing and and just the road issues road closures any. You know, impact there, as well as what the hours of work would be assuming things move forward. So who would I? Yeah. |
| 01:42:59.15 | Nastassya Saad | So we can't engage with you at the moment, but we can address that when we, yes. Do you have any, can you state your address for the record? Are you a neighbor? |
| 01:43:06.47 | Yes Hadzik | I'm a yeah, exactly. One six zero Crescent, right, right next door. |
| 01:43:09.48 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 01:43:09.98 | Yes Hadzik | Great. |
| 01:43:11.16 | Nastassya Saad | Anything else? |
| 01:43:12.08 | Yes Hadzik | No, that's it. |
| 01:43:13.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for waiting. Thank you. Anybody else in the audience for public comment? No. Katie, can you please look to me for Zoom for public comment? |
| 01:43:24.61 | Matthew Mandich | See you then. |
| 01:43:25.42 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Okay. We will go ahead and close out for public comment. Scott, you still have five minutes and 48 seconds. If you'd like to go ahead and make any closing remarks or use your time. Okay, thank you. So seeing that that is off the table, we're going to go ahead and bring that back up. Just to quickly adjust since you've been waiting to the neighbor that just asked about construction. So in the ordinance, there are operating hours Monday through Friday and then Saturday. I believe Saturday is from nine to six. I should not miss quarter on code nine to five. So Monday through Friday, I think is from eight to six and Saturday is from nine to five. And there's no construction on Sundays. in the plan and also when building permits are issued there are construction management plans so it is required that there's access especially for emergency access not to say that you will not be inconvenienced potentially at times but there are requirements for encroachment so if there's containers or parking and trucks, but access because Crescent is a very steep location. We have many steep hills in Sausalito, so they will have to adhere to the construction management plan and they do have to adhere to the hours of operation that are in the code and noise ordinance as well. Technically, no. I'm sorry. but you can always email staff, or you can ask staff that they'd be happy to answer a question for you. So with that, we do have a few things going on here. Does anyone want to kind of kick us off here to get us moving in a direction that we can go forward in? Commissioner Junius. |
| 01:45:13.29 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I'm actually not going to kick us off. I just want to make a statement regarding the very confusing issue that we've been spending all this time on. I mean, it really seems to me that that, the architect who I, you know, very competent and our professional staff came to an interpretation that, made a lot of sense to me. I think the fact that we've been through the you know, three units, it's, you know, it's just all a bunch of semantics, right? It's really four units, but You know, technically it's three units in an ADU. I think That was the right approach. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other, you know, R2 2.5 districts or properties that it didn't have this issue come up. So in terms of precedent, I think we're looking at it something where, you know, we are scrutinizing something in a way that's completely unnecessary and certainly not what the developer and the property owner and the architect and the staff has been working on for months. I think it's, not necessary. Uh, great project. It's really too bad. We have to fall down these kind of pits of, uh, bureaucracy and confusion, but Code was fine. Interpretation of the code by staff was fine. And I'll leave it at that. |
| 01:46:33.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Genius. Commissioner? More? Any Comments or thoughts? |
| 01:46:39.18 | Fred Moore | I also thought it was a good project and was looking forward to moving forward. A little hesitation was obviously Mr. Luxembourg's comments and the city attorney indicating that this would require a nonconforming permit, which would obviously have various findings. So I'm sort of in that neutral area of maybe it needs to be continued. And when we have the nonconforming permit in front of us together with the findings in order to approve it. |
| 01:47:06.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 01:47:10.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I talked a lot on this commission about objective design standards. This is one of the most objective standards we have. Multifamily use is not allowed on this site. Duplex is. The fact that it's preexisting allows for nonconformity. It needs a nonconformity use permit, possibly a nonconformity structure permit. This is the most objective. This isn't subjective at all. I'm sort of where Commissioner Moore is is suggesting we have a staff report that has errors in it that especially regarding this use issue uh we should do this cleanly if we want to come to concurrence that we love the design fine but i think we should continue with us let him properly notice it let let us get the staff report clean for the next time with it to go. I would add the word trucks to the construction management point for the comments that we got from the butter, and adopt it cleanly as it's designed, but with the proper permits. And then we're not going back of approving it subject to a design permit, a nonconformity permit, which then comes back to us. I mean, they can't really do anything maybe than other than pick the trees down in the short term. So I don't see the benefit of rushing it through this evening, but I do see a benefit that if we all concur with the design, we should do that. But I would strongly encourage it to continue and let's adopt it cleanly at the next meeting. |
| 01:48:42.83 | David Marlatt | Thank you, Vice Chair. Yeah, thank you, and I'm not quite there. I think I understood that one of the options from Attorney Rubio is to approve or vote on the design review contingent upon a separate, which would be a future hearing, a separate non-conforming use permit application. So I would hope that we can approve the design review with that condition, approve the tree removal, and that at least gives them the assurance to move forward because they still have to go through structural design and everything to do to prepare building permits, so there's time to come back to us with the nonconforming use. Which I think would be a slam dunk and then whether or not they choose to continue or withdraw the adu permit we don't need to discuss that anymore that's just. that'll be up to the applicant. So that's what I hope we can do. Okay. |
| 01:49:34.97 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 01:49:34.99 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:49:35.17 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Well, I would like to, I'd like to support you vice chair, because I do think there is a lot of good here. And I know you probably heard a lot of negative tonight, but there, there still is a lot of positive in this project. Let's just test the temperature here to see if we're going to get a motion. for anything to see where we are, since I'm not, I can't, I feel like we're split here. Absolutely. |
| 01:50:06.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | after they really understood that we love the project and they don't have to go through all the, all the, the general role we do in ADU comes back with not an ADU. and re-approved this tonight. And then they're gonna come back with a revised plan I mean, I think that If we approve it tonight, they're going to purposely not come back and change it, even though they want to change it, because it is the most logical thing. I think that they read the state laws and thought they had to do this, which I don't think they have to do. I don't want to set a precedence that were encouraging people to try to convert something to single family and add an ABU to bypass some laws when all they had to do was submit what the non-conforming permit. And so I'm worried that if we approve something tonight, they're going to come back with the ADU because at this point they've got it approved. Why would they come back and change anything? And then we're gonna get hokey ones like this in the future. I mean, I think we should do it cleanly and we should not do it. But we should come to conclusion It's a love and desire. |
| 01:51:17.62 | Nastassya Saad | Let's take one step back. Do we have any issue with any of the findings for Design Review? So because this is our time to give feedback, if nothing more. |
| 01:51:28.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can't even get to findings on a project that's not allowed. I mean, it's just not allowed. If there's not going to be a non-conforming use permit, I can't make findings at all. I mean, it's just, you know, how can you find something which you know violates the code? I mean, that's a simple example. All right. |
| 01:51:54.05 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 01:51:54.07 | David Marlatt | That's fair. That's fine. Okay. Well, I could make all of the findings. I don't see whether they followed the proper process or not. It's nothing to do with the proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction, etc. I think emphatically, yes. So I don't have any problem making all of the findings for design review. It's just about process for me. |
| 01:52:17.93 | Nastassya Saad | And the tree permit? Do we have any... |
| 01:52:19.70 | David Marlatt | I have no issues. |
| 01:52:20.82 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Okay. |
| 01:52:21.46 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:52:21.68 | Nastassya Saad | Any issues with the tree permit or design review down here? |
| 01:52:21.91 | David Marlatt | and the other side. |
| 01:52:27.82 | Fred Moore | I might like to say to earlier, I'd rather have it together as one project. |
| 01:52:31.53 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, why don't somebody put a motion on the floor? whichever way you want to go. |
| 01:52:38.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we continue to date certain to the next meeting and strongly encourage the applicants to submit a non-conforming use permit and if needed a non-conforming structure permit. And so we can do this all cleanly and encourage the staff and clean up the staff report and make it all correct, including the requirements for 10, 44, 350. |
| 01:53:05.98 | Nastassya Saad | Is there a second? |
| 01:53:07.04 | Fred Moore | for that. seconded to get to get this to a vote to move on. |
| 01:53:11.69 | Nastassya Saad | And also, but I'd like to look to the applicant. Our next, our next meeting is going to be on June 10th. Obviously, it's going to be on a Wednesday. you Thank you. Is that agreeable if this motion passes to you, Mr. Couture? |
| 01:53:35.94 | Nastassya Saad | So we have a motion, we have a second. Are there any other motions on the floor? |
| 01:53:39.66 | David Marlatt | Does that leave enough time for noticing? It's just a question. |
| 01:53:43.00 | Nastassya Saad | That is a good question, but there should be time for noticing. Can I actually look to staff for that? Do they have the capacity and availability for noticing and |
| 01:53:50.83 | Matthew Mandich | Noticing would have to go out tomorrow, but yes, doable. The only concern I would have from staff is that the nonconformity permit does require some documentation about whether or not the structures were built legally. So it may take some time to dig in to that. But I still think that we could probably get it done for the test. |
| 01:54:14.89 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you very much, Matthew. So we have a motion, we have a second, we have no other alternate motions. So may I look to you, Director Manich, to take roll please. |
| 01:54:26.65 | Matthew Mandich | Commissioner Mark. I guess. Mission or genius. Yes. Commissioner Luxembourg. I share... Thank you. Marlott. Yes. Cheers, Saad. |
| 01:54:37.93 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:54:39.28 | Matthew Mandich | Ocean Pass. |
| 01:54:40.07 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. We are going to move |
| 01:54:44.71 | Matthew Mandich | Excuse me, Chair, with that. I think since we've been into hearing about two hours, staff would like to request a brief bio break, five minutes recess before hearing the ordinance amendment. |
| 01:54:45.47 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, yes. |
| 01:54:51.97 | Nastassya Saad | Recess. Absolutely. Okay. Let's go ahead and take a five minute. Let's come back at eight 30. |
| 01:54:55.80 | Matthew Mandich | Let's go. |
| 02:00:03.06 | Nastassya Saad | All right, we are back from break. It is 8.30, so we can resume. We are gonna move now to item. 6 C, this is a recommendation on Adoption of ordinance amending the South Slita Municipal Code Chapter 10.42. It's our sign ordinance. We have Senior Planner Katie Nelson here again. The floor is yours. |
| 02:00:26.45 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. Good evening. I'm back presenting item 6C, the proposed amendments to Saucydo Municipal Code Chapter 10.42, the city's sign ordinance for the commission's consideration and recommendation to city council. We'll cover five topics tonight. |
| 02:01:06.17 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. Let's move on to the next slide. First of all, provide some background on the existing ordinance and why an update is needed. Second, we'll recap the direction the commission provided at the March 25th study session. Uh, third, I will summarize the key changes made to the draft ordinance in response to that direction. And we'll walk through the revised sign permit process, including the new 30 day approval timeline. And lastly, we'll finish with staff's recommendation. Next slide. So the current sign ordinance in chapter 10.42, whereas last comprehensively updated in 2003. Over time, staff and legal counsel have identified several significant deficiencies that warrant a comprehensive update. The existing ordinance requires discretionary planning commission review and approval for many sign applications, including routine science types that meet straightforward objective standards. Approval findings currently rely on subjective criteria. The most pressing reason for this update is legal. In 2015, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, establishing that a signed ordinance is content-based, and therefore subject to strict constitutional scrutiny if a government official must read the message on a sign to determine how it is regulated. Content-based regulations are frequently struck down by courts. Sausalito's existing Chapter 10.42 contains numerous provisions that distinguish between sign types based on the nature of the message displayed, including political signs, real estate signs, construction signs, and holiday decorations. The proposed amendments remove and restructure these content-based distinctions to focus exclusively on objective content-neutral criteria. Next slide. On March 25th, the Planning Commission held a study session to review an initial draft of the proposed amendment. Staff presented an overview of the proposed changes and the commission... provided extensive direction, which staff has incorporated into the revised draft before you tonight. With respect to the definitions, the commission asked staff to consolidate the description of permissible temporary sign materials into the definition itself, eliminating redundancy in section 10.42040. On signs allowed without permits, the commission expressed concern over menu boards and indicated a willingness to retain freestanding outdoor signs for commercial businesses. In the prohibited science section, the Commission provided input on preserving memorial dedications, plaques, and nameplates, such as those commonly found on park benches throughout the city. In sign standards, the commission generally did not support the proposed increase in projecting sign match maximum projection from 36 to 48 inches. The commission was also not fond of the increase in allowable signage for upper level businesses to 10 square feet. Within the historic district standards, the commission directed staff to remove the reference to the historic, district sign design guidelines restore the six square foot upper level business maximum and update projecting sign clearances for consistency With regard to sign permits, the most significant direction was to preserve Planning Commission review of signs associated with larger discretionary entitlements. The commission also directed staff to remove the detailed submittal requirements from the code and research the city's historical sign permit processing times. Finally, with regards to nonconforming signs, the commission indicated their desire to explore options for preserving historic signage. Next slide. The revised draft ordinance incorporates the commission study session direction. Here's a section by section summary of the key changes. In section 10.42030, the definition of temporary sign has been revised to consolidate the materials description, eliminating the redundant reference in section 10.42040. In that section, content-based sign categories have been replaced with location-based categories. And a new allowance has been added for non illuminated freestanding outdoor signs up to six square feet and 48 inches tall on commercially zoned private property. In section 10.42090, a new exception has been added to the 90 day removal requirement for non conforming signs protecting signage that has been formally designated as a historic resource. In section 10.42060 projecting sign maximum projection has been set at 42 inches. We feel this is a reasonable compromise between the current 36 inch standard and the originally proposed 48 inches. Upper level business sign area has been restored to six square feet. The roof sign standard has been removed due to vagueness. In the historic section, the historic design guidelines reference has been removed from the general regulations. Projecting sign maximum projection has also been set at 42 inches consistent with the general standards. Again, upper floor signage has been restored to six square feet, and a new eight-foot minimum clearance between the bottom of a projecting sign and the public right-of-way has been added. In section 10.42080, a new subsection B preserves Planning Commission review of sign applications associated with discretionary entitlements. And the submittal requirements list has been replaced with a reference to the department maintained checklist and the approval timeline has been updated to 30 days. Next slide. The revised ordinance establishes two pathways for sign permit review, depending on the nature of the application. The administrative sign permit pathway allows the CDD director or their designee to approve signs that comply with objective standards, in section 10.42060 under this pathway the applicant posts notice that the property and the director must issue a decision within 30 days of a complete application The decision becomes effective 10 days after it is issued and applicants may appeal an administrative decision to the planning commission within 10 days. The planning commission review pathway applies to sign applications associated with discretionary entitlements that require planning commission approval, including design review variances, conditional use permits and certificates of appropriateness. Under this pathway, the sign application is reviewed by the PC and the Commission must also render a decision within 30 days of a complete application decisions may be appealed to the city council within 10 days. An important legal note accompanies the planning Commission review pathway under current first amendment case law, the Commission's review of sign applications. is limited to the objective standards set forth in the ordinance. The commission may not exercise subjective discretion in approving or denying a sign that complies with the adopted standards. Next slide. In response to the commission's direction at the study session, staff reviewed the complete record of planning commission signed permit approvals from 2018 to present. Of the 23 total signage records reviewed, 12 were planning commission signed permit approvals. Staff analyzed each by date, completeness, application date, completeness date, and approval date. As shown in the table, the average time from a complete application to commission approval was 28 days with a median of 25 days. Based on this data, staff recommends updating the approval timeline from the previously proposed 60 days to 30 days. A 30 day timeline. is grounded in the city's actual processing history, provides a meaningful and legally sound guarantee for applicants, and is consistent with legal requirements that permits for First Amendment activity be issued within a brief and specified period of time. The 30-day requirement applies to both administrative approvals and Planning Commission approvals. Next slide. Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions tonight. First, conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance and zoning amendments. And second, following deliberation, adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Sausalito Municipal Code Chapter 10.42. If the Commission wishes to modify the resolution to reflect any changes, staff is available to incorporate that direction. Thank you. |
| 02:09:27.41 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you again, Katie. We appreciate it. Any comments, Commissioner Luxembourg? Do you have any questions for staff? |
| 02:09:35.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, um, Mayor Mrakas- Director, can you bring up the red line version of the ordinance. |
| 02:09:48.32 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:09:48.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:09:48.38 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:09:50.36 | Nastassya Saad | No rush. |
| 02:09:56.08 | Katie Nelson | If we want to go through it like last time, I'm happy to sit down there too. |
| 02:10:01.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think I'm, for me, I'm good. I just wanna do, it's not that many, so. |
| 02:10:03.89 | Katie Nelson | Okay. |
| 02:10:04.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:10:07.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can we go to page six of the Red Von version? I'm looking for 1042-040-A3. |
| 02:10:20.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So non illuminated freestanding outdoor signage up to a maximum of six square feet and 48 inches tall shall be permitted on any commercially zoned parcel. You took out menu boards. Does this allow for a menu? |
| 02:10:35.84 | Katie Nelson | This is, that's the intent behind this is to still allow for a menu board type of sign. |
| 02:10:42.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. I wondered whether that was just for that or there was something else I hadn't thought of. So that's great. |
| 02:10:45.91 | Katie Nelson | I mean, I was like, |
| 02:10:48.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And can we bring up the so this is a three can we bring up the clean version of this. document. |
| 02:11:03.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | off the agenda. |
| 02:11:07.31 | Katie Nelson | It's also, it's in the same tab. Thank you. Yeah, sorry. I tried to set it up. |
| 02:11:17.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So go to... uh I saw red lines. That was the other time. |
| 02:11:24.52 | Nastassya Saad | That was the other tab. Yeah, it's just slow. |
| 02:11:26.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to 1042-040-A3. |
| 02:11:37.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So on the clean version, this section is missing. |
| 02:11:43.72 | Nastassya Saad | 1040 to |
| 02:11:45.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just note that. |
| 02:11:45.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Can you say that for me one more time, Commissioner Luxembourg, 1040? |
| 02:11:49.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 1040.040A3 in the red line, blue lines, whatever, red line. I like the section. It's added. It does what we asked it to do. |
| 02:12:01.56 | City Attorney Rudin | It is there. The formatting is incorrect. There just needs to be a paragraph spacing added there. |
| 02:12:01.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. It is. |
| 02:12:07.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:12:07.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. All right. So I missed it. I was looking for number three. OK, great. So we just need to fix the format. In a similar thing, can we go to page eight? |
| 02:12:21.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And, um... There's a now a section I And we had talked about fixing the references once you got the formatting clean. So this is section I. And then in section I refers to subsections I and J. and it should be referring to subsection H, I'm sorry, G and I, refers to, I'm sorry, I and J, and it should be G and G not I and H not J. So just to clean that up. And my last comment, and we can keep the clean version up, in 1042.080, Section B, |
| 02:13:05.30 | Katie Nelson | Oh, the under typo. |
| 02:13:07.42 | Matthew Mandich | Can you provide a page number please? |
| 02:13:08.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, no, no. of the people. |
| 02:13:09.06 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:13:09.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. |
| 02:13:09.40 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 02:13:09.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:13:09.43 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:13:09.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:13:10.09 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Alex, do you have a page number for that one? |
| 02:13:14.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't 10 42 0 80. It's near the bad end. |
| 02:13:19.84 | Nastassya Saad | Page 11. |
| 02:13:26.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So this is the section that you talked about based on your analysis to do 30 days. So I just have a hypothetical. If you have a final application, I'm just going to come up with a compromise. But if you have an application that's submitted and you finalize it on July 20th and we don't meet in August, then we're going to go beyond the 30 days. So my only suggestion is, I understand we should bring it less than 60. Is there any reason not, we couldn't bring it to, let's say 45 days? |
| 02:13:58.35 | Katie Nelson | I'm going to refer to Attorney Rudin on that based on the guidance for prompt issuance of the sign permit. |
| 02:14:07.84 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, so we do need to have a standard in our ordinance. We don't know what the outer boundaries are. We do know what the courts and the Supreme Court have said is okay. I'm relatively confident that the 30 day standard is okay because in the Thomas, versus Chicago Park District, the court upheld a structure that was 28 days for initial issuance and 28 days for subsequent appeal or review. for park permits. Potentially 45 days would be okay. realistically, I think that if necessary, staff can call a special meeting. Um, |
| 02:14:54.88 | City Attorney Rudin | So that may be the other way to address this. If you have a project applications that, you know, our, going to occur when we have a breakup. |
| 02:15:10.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, All right, 1042 AD, section B, let's get to it. |
| 02:15:22.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, Uh... Yeah, so the reason, let me just ask this, this is a section, among others, but it talks about the Planning Commission review. The only reason we would be reviewing a sign is there's a bigger application involved. So, you know, to come and rush a special meeting in for a downtown property that has substantial stuff that we would then schedule for the first meeting in September just to meet a 30-day requirement, you know, would seem to me, if we could do 45, it just seemed like a good compromise. I'm not You know, if we can't, we can't, but it's just a thought. |
| 02:16:10.08 | City Attorney Rudin | My suggestion is put that in the planning commission resolution as a recommendation. |
| 02:16:15.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Correct. Thank you for that input. Those are all the questions I defer back to the chair. |
| 02:16:21.10 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Moore, any questions? Thank you. |
| 02:16:23.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other comments. Excellent job, by the way, on the presentation and getting our input and changing the ordinance. Excellent job. |
| 02:16:31.85 | Nastassya Saad | THANK YOU. |
| 02:16:32.05 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:16:33.18 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:16:33.20 | Fred Moore | Commissioner Moore. I'll reiterate, great job on the presentation, very clear, putting the summaries of what was asked for last time and all the presentation was very much appreciated and made it much easier to go through to take care of the red line. So a couple of questions that are somewhat in name, probably. So I'm looking at the red line. |
| 02:17:01.34 | Fred Moore | Oh, that was already answered, sorry. |
| 02:17:07.35 | Fred Moore | Super small typo on page five under temporary signs. we changed the material before. |
| 02:17:14.05 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 02:17:14.07 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 02:17:14.14 | Katie Nelson | Yeah. |
| 02:17:14.15 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:17:14.19 | Katie Nelson | in the room. Sorry. |
| 02:17:15.28 | Fred Moore | just |
| 02:17:15.35 | Katie Nelson | to. |
| 02:17:15.39 | Fred Moore | I'm like, |
| 02:17:15.44 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 02:17:15.45 | Matthew Mandich | Is the red line page five? |
| 02:17:15.76 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 02:17:15.77 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:17:15.81 | Katie Nelson | Right. |
| 02:17:15.88 | Fred Moore | Bye. |
| 02:17:17.36 | Matthew Mandich | you |
| 02:17:17.38 | Fred Moore | Yeah. Page five is just, it just papers, papers indicated twice. Papers already there. You didn't cross off those added. So you just might want to correct that. Um, And then you answer the questions with 30 days. I appreciate you spending the time to go through the prior history to give a recommended time period. Um, |
| 02:17:43.89 | Fred Moore | So on the temporary signs for the commercial zone property, With the new interior design locations and the size of lettering, etc. Would you consider the existing for sale signs in the old theater building consistent with this? Or are you looking for state 714 code to govern that sign? |
| 02:18:07.09 | Katie Nelson | Personally, I'm not familiar with the second reference that you're providing to that code, but I haven't personally analyzed those signs. I don't know the size of them. I don't know the specific location of them. So it's hard for me to make that determination right now, but I can certainly look into it. |
| 02:18:26.73 | Fred Moore | No, by the count, that's my overall question, and I'll come up later with sort of my comments about the resolution. But I'm concerned that some of these provisions may or may not put some signage that's already existing everywhere and non-conforming or in violating of the new code. So the specific lettering here, I think, is an issue. Yeah, that's... |
| 02:18:49.60 | Katie Nelson | Yeah, that I don't believe has been changed. I think all of that interior lettering, that's existing language. Yeah. |
| 02:18:57.75 | Fred Moore | Reference to the 714 code section was in the previous section, but it's been deleted. So just as a point of reference. |
| 02:19:04.72 | David Marlatt | Oh, gotcha. |
| 02:19:05.70 | Fred Moore | I'm, |
| 02:19:17.17 | Fred Moore | The last one would be... So under the off-premises signage now are prohibited. So a lot of businesses downtown use off-site premise signage, which I'm assuming that was illegal before. They'll put a little sandwich board there, and now we're putting it here, it's illegal. I'm assuming that. enforcement of that is through code violation enforcement. |
| 02:19:44.54 | Katie Nelson | Correct. Yeah, that would be the pathway. There's there's no change to the prohibition on that. We've always, you know, not allowed like such things like billboards. I think there's a definition for off premise sign. No, I'm aware, yeah. Yeah. |
| 02:19:58.99 | Fred Moore | No, I'm aware, yeah. Um, |
| 02:20:09.45 | Fred Moore | And if Sam already deleted that. |
| 02:20:17.89 | Fred Moore | And it's not really a... That's all the questions I have for you. Thank you. |
| 02:20:21.52 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you very much. Place chair. |
| 02:20:27.64 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, and thank you, Katie, again. It's also just a leaps and bounds improvement over the previous draft we looked at a few months ago. But I do have some comments, and I'm happy to share this with you afterward. |
| 02:20:41.02 | Katie Nelson | Great. |
| 02:20:41.19 | David Marlatt | There's a few, you know, comma, double commas and things like that, which is... |
| 02:20:46.42 | Katie Nelson | I noticed that as well, yeah. |
| 02:20:47.83 | David Marlatt | So I'm not going to get into that. They're in yellow. Um, So on page I'm on the clean version now. on page eight. sign it which is located entirely within an enclosed structure and is not visible from the exterior thereof. Can you Clarify that for me. Number three, under the definition of sign. Exactly. We understand page, oh, page seven. I'm sorry. Page seven. I'm sorry. |
| 02:21:16.44 | Marnie Wilson | I'm just kidding. |
| 02:21:21.02 | David Marlatt | I'm in the... I mean, the PC resolution Thank you. Oh, okay. Sorry. It's under the definition of sign. |
| 02:21:32.61 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:21:34.08 | David Marlatt | And number three, |
| 02:21:36.10 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:21:36.36 | David Marlatt | Signage which is located entirely within an enclosed structure and is not visible, which sounds contradictory for a sign, from the exterior thereof. What would that refer to? |
| 02:21:47.17 | Katie Nelson | Yeah, I'd have to look at that, but... I'm, |
| 02:21:53.84 | Nastassya Saad | I think if you're on the red line version, it's on page 5. |
| 02:21:57.35 | David Marlatt | on page five. Yeah. |
| 02:21:59.07 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:21:59.21 | David Marlatt | 1042.030 in Definitions. |
| 02:22:02.73 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 02:22:05.84 | David Marlatt | Okay, well, I mean, like I said, I'm happy to share these later. That was confusing for me. |
| 02:22:10.75 | Nastassya Saad | I think it's, hold on. Number three, four slash three signage, which is, |
| 02:22:17.58 | City Attorney Rudin | So that is an exclusion because The last sentence of that is for purpose of this chapter, signs shall include any combination of signs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. but does not include Three, signage, which is entirely... within an enclosed structure and is not visible from the exterior thereof. So basically, |
| 02:22:38.36 | Unknown | That's like a moment. |
| 02:22:38.41 | City Attorney Rudin | The signs that are in people's homes and people's businesses that they're not displaying outside is outside of the scope of the regulations of this chapter because it's defined to not be a sign. |
| 02:22:48.38 | David Marlatt | Okay. 1042.040, signs allowed without permits. Part of these are clarification, somewhat comments. Number two, interior signs located within 15 feet of business frontage, visible by the public. So... Thank you. And it stipulates, and I think this was in the previous code, that they can only have letters that are one inch tall. Thank you. But would this apply to like a shop window sign that would have the brand of whatever is being sold Is it realistic? |
| 02:23:20.92 | Katie Nelson | Yeah, potentially. |
| 02:23:23.43 | David Marlatt | because you look at a shop window sign and something that's not a temporary sign. And they're just, you know, displaying the brand Levi's or whatever the brand merchandise is, it's going to be more than one inch. and more than one inch is not allowed within 15 feet of the exterior. |
| 02:23:38.31 | Katie Nelson | If it's an interior sign. |
| 02:23:40.83 | David Marlatt | Yeah, right, if it's an interior sign. So we can put a pin in that, but that seems a little harsh. |
| 02:23:47.09 | Katie Nelson | Yeah, that's, yeah. |
| 02:23:47.98 | Marnie Wilson | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:23:48.57 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 02:23:48.59 | Marnie Wilson | Thank you. |
| 02:23:49.65 | David Marlatt | B, this is a tiny thing, temporary or permanent non-illuminated signs. I would suggest eliminating temporary or impermanent because I don't know what the third choice would be. temporary or permanent. |
| 02:24:06.33 | Unknown | Down. |
| 02:24:11.81 | David Marlatt | Jumping down to would this be? 1042.060 a three just to clarify about the rectangle that defines a sign because it mentions borders But the board so if you had a sign like is three by six sign with a border and the words within that border were maybe One by three by this definition the sign is defined by the letters of the words not by the border |
| 02:24:43.25 | David Marlatt | Does that make sense? |
| 02:24:49.81 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, I think with the with the regards to this section, this is spelling out that if you're putting letters directly on the frontage of a building that functionally is akin to a signage for the purpose of calculating the sign area. you're drawing an imaginary box around the letters and saying that's how you're going to calculate the square footage for the purpose of the total sign limits. |
| 02:25:10.81 | David Marlatt | It says if the sign has borders, a deck of enclosure or as a combination, the area shall be measured as the area in square feet of the combination of flush-attached rectangles within which the letters, like it doesn't say within which the border appears. |
| 02:25:26.40 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. Yeah, well, and I suppose that this is a policy choice for the commission. You can choose to include the border or you can choose if there's a decorative border to exclude it. Yeah. |
| 02:25:39.75 | David Marlatt | Seemed like it would be included, just otherwise why would we say it? but um, B, well, B, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It seems like 1, 2, 4, and 5 could be combined, but that's another. And then awnings shall project no more than 5 feet into the public right-of-way, and shall project no closer than 2 feet from the face of the curb. I think I know what that means. So it can go not more than five feet. It can't be within two feet of a curb line. or more than five feet. The lesser of. |
| 02:26:15.20 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:26:15.71 | David Marlatt | Thank you. That might be something you want to look at. |
| 02:26:17.93 | Unknown | Clarify. |
| 02:26:18.41 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 02:26:18.84 | David Marlatt | as well. Five awning signs are subject to limitations contained in this section, with the exception that all faces |
| 02:26:30.39 | Unknown | Lord. Okay. |
| 02:26:33.56 | David Marlatt | I wrote a note here, exception to what? With the exception that all faces, maybe I don't remember that anymore. In monument signs, monument signs don't seem to have a limit on their area in section D. Other places, we limit signs to 50 square feet. |
| 02:26:38.69 | Unknown | I'm, |
| 02:26:51.83 | David Marlatt | I hear monument signs, and I couldn't find it in the definition of monument signs either, that the area. |
| 02:26:55.41 | Nastassya Saad | What page? Thank you. Where are you? |
| 02:26:57.50 | David Marlatt | And number C. Um, 1042.060c |
| 02:27:05.54 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:27:07.09 | David Marlatt | It's just elsewhere, we always say that you can have signs up to a total of 50 square feet or, you know, we've used that number a number of times. But we give monument signs may be permitted, provided that the signs are limited to one per building. But in a crazy circumstance, you could have a 500 square foot monument sign. |
| 02:27:25.43 | Katie Nelson | Well, I think the limitation is based on what type of business it is. Is it how much, is it a lower level business? Is it an upper level business? |
| 02:27:36.30 | David Marlatt | Okay, and that's somewhere else in the code? It would just seem like a monument sign if you wanted to, it would seem like you would limit it to the same. |
| 02:27:42.70 | Katie Nelson | Yeah, I mean, if you... If you want to entertain a size limit, I'm open to that. |
| 02:27:49.26 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:27:49.30 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:27:49.55 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Then D, just wondering, with concurrent review, what does concurrent mean in this context? with concurrent review and approval of an encroachment permit |
| 02:28:05.26 | Katie Nelson | Um, that if it's in the right of way, they need to get an encroachment permit as well. So they would apply for that permit separately through the department of public works. |
| 02:28:14.81 | David Marlatt | works. So it might be a concurrent application. |
| 02:28:20.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:28:20.06 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 02:28:20.97 | Unknown | small stuff. |
| 02:28:29.10 | Unknown | Now I'm down to |
| 02:28:31.01 | City Attorney Rudin | And actually, if I if I may make a recommendation, I would recommend striking that entire section signs on public property, because there's other provisions in this ordinance that already address the subject matter of signs on public property. |
| 02:28:45.73 | David Marlatt | Yeah, striking is good. 1042 070 historic structures There, I'm more of a general comment, but in F, One, commercial signage shall be limited to half a square foot of signage per linear foot. Elsewhere, you say there's a 50 square foot maximum, but in historic structures, there's no 50 foot square foot maximum. |
| 02:29:09.96 | Katie Nelson | So should we make it consistent with the I would think. Other standards. I would think. |
| 02:29:13.67 | David Marlatt | I would |
| 02:29:14.11 | David Marlatt | Other standards. I would think. Um, And as a general comment, I think, is the formatting thing, so it's whatever you choose to do. I think that this probably could have been handled as a table. Like, here's all the various criteria. And then, you know, non-historic district, historic district, because I keep going kind of circling back and forth and back and forth. |
| 02:29:35.25 | Marnie Wilson | Sure. |
| 02:29:36.45 | David Marlatt | So it might be something to think about. In H, projecting signs, maximum area six square feet of irregular shaped signs should fit within an imaginary rectangle. So in a non-historic district, you cannot have an irregularly shaped sign. It only appears in the Again, that's my argument for a table. |
| 02:30:00.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:00.45 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:30:01.26 | David Marlatt | Sorry, which page? Well, on the clean copy, it's page 13. |
| 02:30:05.44 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:30:07.57 | David Marlatt | What section? And |
| 02:30:07.60 | Unknown | What sections? |
| 02:30:12.56 | David Marlatt | 10.42.070 |
| 02:30:24.36 | David Marlatt | And then, okay, so then moving down to section K, hanging signs. So I don't think hanging signs are defined. So we've got projecting signs and different kinds of signs, And for me, a hanging sign is probably what a projecting sign is. It's not defined in the code. And also what's kind of funny about it is the hanging sign hangs from an awning, but the bottom of the hanging sign is eight feet and the bottom of the awning is also eight feet. Hang from the, I'm just trying to do what the intention is here. So the hanging sign is eight feet and the awning is eight feet. and what's it hanging from? And why is it under an awning? Thank you. Just ask questions. Also then right there, Subjection 3, located perpendicular to pedestrian movement. I'd say, be careful. I think you mean parallel to the street or perpendicular. Yeah. It sort of presupposes which way pedestrians are moving. Thank you. |
| 02:31:26.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:26.65 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:31:26.66 | City Attorney Rudin | It seems like the easiest way to address this is just to strike the hanging side and provisions because they're |
| 02:31:27.12 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:31:34.29 | City Attorney Rudin | They should be duplicative of the provisions for projecting signs. |
| 02:31:38.24 | David Marlatt | Yeah, I think so. I think it is. Yeah. I think it is. Um, okay. 1042. I'm almost done. 1042.080 sign permits. be I know we did cover that planning commission shall be approved within 30 days. I had questions about that. We did. Okay. Um, later on in the sentence, there's any appeal on a denial. I think that should be of a denial. Um, And then Yeah, my comments were about the 30 days, but we addressed that. findings in EV, So are there findings for a sign permit? Because I thought the findings were just for the design review of which the sign was... a portion of that. This references findings, I think, for the site or sign permit. That wasn't clear for me. I understand we're approving a sign within the context of a design review. |
| 02:32:22.97 | Marnie Wilson | of that. |
| 02:32:34.16 | David Marlatt | but we can sign permitted self require findings because I don't see that. |
| 02:32:34.23 | Katie Nelson | Right. |
| 02:32:38.63 | Katie Nelson | No, but I think that you have to find that it's not in violation with the ordinance or other law or, Um, Sergio, do you want to? |
| 02:32:51.85 | City Attorney Rudin | Yes, it doesn't require findings because the case law provides that you must have fixed criteria under which a permit shall issue. So you need findings for denial of these permits, not findings for approval. |
| 02:33:04.37 | David Marlatt | So should we just strike that? |
| 02:33:06.83 | City Attorney Rudin | I have included suggested findings for denial. And that is you have to issue the permit unless you find that the sign does not comply with applicable provisions of the title or the code. going to violate state or federal law. or that it's going to pose a, actual threat to public health or safety. |
| 02:33:25.36 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:33:27.00 | David Marlatt | Okay, moving down to 1042.090, non-conforming signs. This is a practical matter, continuation of a non-conforming sign, except as ordinance may continue to be used, except that the sign shall not be structurally altered to extend its useful life. That can be interpreted as if a sign is dry rotted or suppose it's a safety, public safety. So you're gonna, obviously, if it's got a wrought iron bracket that's rusted through and the sign could fall. So I think we wanna make sure that it's clear |
| 02:33:57.51 | Marnie Wilson | right. |
| 02:34:00.36 | David Marlatt | that they can continue to maintain and structurally alter, I guess, the sign, but not intensify its non-conformance. |
| 02:34:09.29 | City Attorney Rudin | And yeah, again, that is a policy decision for the Planning Commission and the council. But typically... Um, The courts do support the amortization of existing non-conforming uses through I'm not sure. obsolescence. if something is going to rot to the point where it needs to be repaired and replaced, that is a way that you get rid of non-conformities. And so I think our existing code, envisions that, at least with respect to signs, maybe not with respect to buildings or other uses. But that is typically how zoning ordinances are structured. |
| 02:34:50.19 | David Marlatt | Okay, but it says structurally altered to extend its useful life. Well, maybe that is a policy decision. It just seems to me that we don't want to have people incentivized to leave dangerous signs |
| 02:35:03.25 | City Attorney Rudin | Uh, |
| 02:35:03.45 | David Marlatt | that |
| 02:35:03.81 | City Attorney Rudin | That's the other side of the coin, obviously. |
| 02:35:03.84 | David Marlatt | That's, Yeah. Okay. Those were all my comments, and I'm happy to share this with you, Katie. Yes, thank you. |
| 02:35:12.35 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 02:35:12.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Eavesdropping, he's got great notes. I love it. |
| 02:35:15.88 | David Marlatt | I love it. |
| 02:35:16.40 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sure he'll send them over. Thank you. Hello. Yes. I don't have any other questions. I think everyone did a great job. Commissioner Moore, of course. Thank you. |
| 02:35:17.19 | Fred Moore | on the |
| 02:35:22.19 | Fred Moore | Did the. just want to bring up one of the question on the sign types that are permitted in the historic district and so forth on page 13 of the red line we've removed the plaque signs So, |
| 02:35:36.38 | Katie Nelson | I think... |
| 02:35:38.13 | David Marlatt | I saw that elsewhere. |
| 02:35:39.03 | Katie Nelson | Dr. Gio, correct me if I'm wrong, but public agency signage, if installed by a public agency, is still allowed, and so that would be a permissible use there. |
| 02:35:50.32 | Fred Moore | I'm assuming you're... |
| 02:35:50.37 | Katie Nelson | Mr. |
| 02:35:50.72 | City Attorney Rudin | The idea was that, um, |
| 02:35:51.40 | Katie Nelson | The idea is that |
| 02:35:56.92 | City Attorney Rudin | And maybe we didn't intend to remove plaque signs with respect to what's being shown here on 13D with respect to benches, you know, placed on public property or in the public right of way. If they're placed by the city, the city can place an acknowledgement on the bench. But we certainly don't. I think there was concern by staff about having bench advertisements and opening the pathway to letting people place their own benches, which the city doesn't typically allow. |
| 02:36:31.61 | Fred Moore | I guess I took it more in consideration of if you're going to have some historic plaque that you're going to put on some, like the park next to the barrel house or the building. |
| 02:36:41.75 | Katie Nelson | I mean, would it just count as a wall sign? |
| 02:36:48.10 | Fred Moore | It depends on where they put it. Like you put a freestanding sign. Sometimes we already have some, I would consider plaque signs or historic markers talking about the Bay and historic nature there. If you don't put it under a black sign, where would you want to put that? |
| 02:37:04.87 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 02:37:04.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:37:05.04 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. I mean, any of the other available permitted sign types? Thank you. |
| 02:37:15.87 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, I mean, that's certainly a policy decision with respect to private property, with respect to signs on public property, including plaques. Um, and, I think Katie, this is one I'm just realizing as I'm looking on page 6, 1042.050i. I think we want to, with exception of handheld signage and signage required by law, or placed by the owning public agency. It should be added there. Erections of sign on public property or in the right of way is prohibited except for signs set forth in 1042-040-C. So that I think makes clear the city can put up its own signs, including |
| 02:37:50.25 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:37:54.43 | City Attorney Rudin | you know, memorial plaques on city sponsored benches and other kinds of plaques or, um, you know, public information. Although we do have another sign for public agency signage, I guess. Um, which may address that as well. |
| 02:38:18.31 | City Attorney Rudin | Oh, yeah. It signs with allowed without permits in all zones public agency signage so I think with regards to signage along the waterfront or something like that, signage explaining art pieces that may be installed, Um, I think that that section adequately addresses that concern. But if the Planning Commission wants to see plaques on historic buildings that are private property, then certainly allotment can be made for that in this code. |
| 02:38:56.77 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you. That's a good question. Anything else, Commissioner Moore? All right, thank you very much, Katie. Appreciate it. We're going to go ahead and open this up for public comment. Thank you. Seeing none in the chambers. And... Seeing none on Zoom. Thank you very much for confirming. So we're going to close the public comment and bring it up here. Those were some good edits, good catches. I appreciate it. Commissioner Luxenberg, you want to? |
| 02:39:18.59 | David Marlatt | No, not on Zoom. |
| 02:39:33.83 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, something. |
| 02:39:34.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I will just to get it on the floor, I will make a motion to approve pursuant to the staff. Included resolution to go to the city council recommending approval of the revised sign ordinance, including all the typos and other corrections that were labeled and including changing the 30 days on the planning commission review to 45. And I don't know what we want to do with the non-conformant I would leave the nonconfora, let the rotted iron ones go away. So I would not make that change. But I don't know if there were some other changes that weren't typos that were policy, but those, including any other policy ones that I think we agreed on, but I don't remember them, so we'll have to enumerate. But anyways, that would be my motion. |
| 02:40:27.37 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:40:27.39 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 02:40:28.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's very articulate. |
| 02:40:29.75 | David Marlatt | It was. |
| 02:40:29.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:40:30.02 | Nastassya Saad | with. I think that's a good thing. |
| 02:40:31.34 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:40:32.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:40:32.08 | David Marlatt | Was there a second? |
| 02:40:33.87 | Nastassya Saad | My only concern is, I would like to get this over the line as well, is we gave quite a few edits. Um, are we comfortable with sending it over without? Seeing it again? |
| 02:40:46.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... |
| 02:40:47.86 | Nastassya Saad | I mean that's a question for the entire commission because there were. |
| 02:40:51.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Exactly. |
| 02:40:51.11 | Nastassya Saad | Exactly. |
| 02:40:52.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. comfortable. I think that this is the second time we've had it. I'm comfortable that they can review the tape and make sure they get them all. But |
| 02:40:59.87 | Nastassya Saad | Is staff comfortable with making all of those edits, of course, provided by vice chair as well? |
| 02:41:00.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | steps. |
| 02:41:05.37 | Katie Nelson | Yeah, I would welcome vice chair's communication on his notes. So but yes, I am comfortable making those edits. |
| 02:41:11.58 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other conversation? Is there a second? |
| 02:41:17.56 | David Marlatt | I'll second. |
| 02:41:18.47 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 02:41:19.16 | City Attorney Rudin | I will just note that I think the one issue that may have been flagged was the deletion of plaques from the historic district provision. |
| 02:41:27.53 | Marnie Wilson | for it. |
| 02:41:29.60 | City Attorney Rudin | This is in Where is it? |
| 02:41:38.67 | Nastassya Saad | 1042-07-0-D. |
| 02:41:41.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Isn't a plaque just a wall sign in this country? |
| 02:41:45.00 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, and the definition of wall sign has been amended to include plaques or signboxes. |
| 02:41:51.93 | Nastassya Saad | So that can just be irrelevant and Remove his. |
| 02:41:56.66 | City Attorney Rudin | I guess so, yes. |
| 02:41:58.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:41:58.65 | City Attorney Rudin | Bye. Bye. |
| 02:41:59.03 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 02:41:59.10 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 02:41:59.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:41:59.14 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 02:41:59.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:41:59.34 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 02:41:59.39 | Nastassya Saad | We like striking things out. Okay. Yeah, it does seem redundant. Commissioner |
| 02:41:59.47 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah. |
| 02:42:00.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:42:04.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I agreed with the hanging of the signs, that section being deleted also, which is more of a policy decision than a typo. But. |
| 02:42:14.58 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:42:15.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:42:15.76 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, well, we have a motion and a second. Director. |
| 02:42:20.74 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:42:20.75 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, |
| 02:42:20.97 | David Marlatt | All right. |
| 02:42:20.99 | Fred Moore | All right. |
| 02:42:21.02 | David Marlatt | Excuse me. |
| 02:42:21.92 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, yeah, discussion. the |
| 02:42:23.23 | Fred Moore | Is there? |
| 02:42:23.45 | Nastassya Saad | . |
| 02:42:24.28 | Fred Moore | I have a little discussion. I'm sure no one slogged through the redecision, but it's interesting that that Supreme Court case, notwithstanding multiple hearings and even a summary judgment in one of the hearings by all the lower courts, which always ruled in favor of the city, the Supreme Court overruled it. And you can always kind of sense where a Supreme Court is going to go or where a court is going to go when they open a statement. They say the petitioner basically is a church and a small cash-strapped entity that owns no building and wants to hold its services, and it was picked on by the city because they want to have signs of their services and locations. So it's frustrating when we have, and if you read the decision, I'll be damned if you can follow exactly what the content based decision is that started all this changing of our signed ordinance. And I appreciate staffs and Katie's work and the city attorney and going through this and making so many additions and changes and modifications to try to conform with that content based requirement, which I think is obtuse at best. But part of the ordinance under Section J is to enhance the visual appearance in the city. That's one of the purposes of the signed ordinance. And my take on this sign, or not withstanding it has a bunch of items trying to address content, but to me it addresses a lot of other things other than content related items. It doesn't enhance the visual experience of the city. So I'm inclined probably to not support the motion because I think, like I stated the first time this came forward. Thank you. to me, it seems like there should be more of a study session of, do we need to enhance this sign program to deal with certain way finding or other, other aesthetics that are not in violation of the content based item, but helpful to make sure the signage in our town is beneficial. Um, So I think we're maybe rushing this at this point, and maybe it could be better if we actually confirm that a lot of signs are already existing, whether they're compliant or not, or whether or not we want to add more sections to this in order to address the visual image of the signage in our town. |
| 02:44:43.67 | Nastassya Saad | I appreciate your feedback. Do you have any inkling to make a motion? and also |
| 02:44:49.81 | Fred Moore | Bye. |
| 02:44:50.03 | Fred Moore | I wish. |
| 02:44:50.25 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 02:44:50.42 | Fred Moore | Thank you. I would, it would probably not at this point, because I think the motion would be involved with putting together a study session and a more robust detail of, uh, a scope of where we want to end up by adding additional provisions. So I'm not sure there's the, uh, maybe the bandwidth with the other commissioners to go down that route, which would be probably multiple months and multiple hearings. Sure. |
| 02:45:16.32 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:45:16.34 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:45:16.90 | Nastassya Saad | Mr. Junius, do you have a comment? |
| 02:45:18.85 | Andrew Junius | I just interesting comment from Commissioner Moore. I mean, are we talking about a kind of a a design, um, document the to to try to create a uniformity to the signage. I guess I'm still kind of confused as to, I get your point. The Supreme course case is probably a mess and there's none of this may have been necessary, but here we are. I'm gonna support the motion. It seems like it did in addition to dealing with the constitutional issue, it does seem to have cleaned up. what was kind of a messy ordinance to begin with, but I'm still, I'm still not clear. I like the, creativity that people bring to their signage. And I don't, I'd rather not be talking about spending time and energy to try to beautify it. the city in a way that's completely subjective and every human being is going to have a different idea of what that beauty is. So I'm, I'm comfortable leaving it. as is, but anyway, interesting conversation. |
| 02:46:17.61 | Nastassya Saad | OK, thank you very much. All right. Well, any more discussion? Director Mandage, can you take roll please? |
| 02:46:26.01 | Matthew Mandich | Absolutely. Commissioner Moore. |
| 02:46:29.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:46:29.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. |
| 02:46:29.39 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:46:30.28 | Matthew Mandich | Commissioner Genius. Yes. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 02:46:33.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 02:46:34.37 | Matthew Mandich | By Sher Merlot. Yes. Yes. Sherrissad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 02:46:35.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Yes. |
| 02:46:38.65 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Katie. Thank you, staff. Item, the next one is adjournment. |
| 02:46:47.60 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:46:47.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:47.77 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:46:47.92 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you very much, everyone. Have a great evening. |