| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:03.83 | Heidi Scoble | thinking. Audio's up, now we'll go over to our streaming. And while we're doing that, we are going to admit Yeah. participants. |
| 00:00:21.77 | Heidi Scoble | Good afternoon, Mayor Hoffman and council members. This meeting is being held pursuant to section three of executive order N-29-20 issued by Governor Newsom on March 17th, 2020 and executive order N-08-21 issued by Governor Newsom on June 11th, 2021. All members are joining this meeting telephonically through Zoom and is being broadcast live on the city's website. |
| 00:00:47.08 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Madam Clerk, and good afternoon and welcome to the special City Council meeting of Tuesday, July 13th, 2021. And Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll? Councilmember Sobey, |
| 00:00:56.97 | Heidi Scoble | Yes. |
| 00:00:57.68 | Jill Hoffman | Sure. |
| 00:00:58.74 | Heidi Scoble | Council member of lasting. |
| 00:01:00.21 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 00:01:00.22 | Heidi Scoble | here. Council member Cleveland Knowles. care. And... Thank you. |
| 00:01:05.64 | Jill Hoffman | I hear. all I will recognize that four members of the council are present and that vice mayor Kellerman is recusing herself from participation on this. I am due to her participation in hearings on the project as a planning commissioner prior to an election to the city council. And so moving on to our next item. Um... Do I have a motion for approval of the agenda? I'm out. for a second. |
| 00:01:36.20 | Melissa Blaustein | Second. |
| 00:01:37.48 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Madam Clerk, could you please follow the roll? |
| 00:01:40.99 | Heidi Scoble | Council member Sobieski? |
| 00:01:42.41 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:01:43.37 | Heidi Scoble | Councilmember Blaustein? Yeah. |
| 00:01:45.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:45.09 | Heidi Scoble | you |
| 00:01:45.28 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:45.65 | Heidi Scoble | Councilmember Cleveland Knowles. |
| 00:01:47.03 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 00:01:47.34 | Heidi Scoble | Yeah. |
| 00:01:47.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:48.06 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:01:48.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:48.25 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:01:48.30 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:01:48.32 | Heidi Scoble | Hoffman. |
| 00:01:49.42 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, motion passes unanimously. We have one item on our agenda today. It's a public hearing item. It's an appeal to Planning Commission decision approving design review 2008. to construct a new single family residence at 99 Wolfpack Ridge Road. |
| 00:02:15.45 | Jill Hoffman | Um... At this point, I would ask for members of the council to recognize their ex-party communications, and I'll start. the architect for the appellant and looked at the property. Um, the attorney for the appellants and Mr. McMillan and lifted the property from that vantage point. And that's the total of the ex parte communications. |
| 00:02:52.71 | Jill Hoffman | anybody else on the house. Go ahead. |
| 00:02:55.18 | Cleveland Knowles | Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Other than correspondence during the front yard, rear yard proceedings that we had earlier. I've had no ex parte communications. |
| 00:03:10.13 | Melissa Blaustein | Mayor, I, at the invitation of Elizabeth Berkhus, visited the site yesterday. There were several others that she invited to attend and did a site visit at the property and adjoining parcels. |
| 00:03:26.65 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:03:27.54 | Ian Sobieski | Mayor Hoffman, I conducted a site visit in either of the parties just to view the site. And then other than the correspondence that's been shared, all of the council have not met with any ICMP party members. |
| 00:03:39.05 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. We will have in this hearing today, we'll have a staff presentation. The appellant will provide up to 15 minute presentation and will be allocated five minutes for rebuttal. after public comment, the project applicant will provide up to a 15 minute presentation and will be allocated five minutes for rebuttal after public comment. The contract staff planner in this case is Brad Evanson. And, Brad, I believe you're on the call. And if you are, I would invite you to begin your presentation. |
| 00:04:16.33 | Brad Evanson | Thank you Mayor Hoffman, Councilmembers. I'm Brad Evanson. I'm with Regional Government Services and I'm a contract planner with the Community Development Department. And if you'll allow me, let me go ahead and share my screen. |
| 00:04:42.62 | Brad Evanson | All right, this is an appeal of the planning commission approval of a design review for 99 Wolfpack Ridge Road. |
| 00:04:52.52 | Brad Evanson | Okay. On April 21st, the planning commission approved designer view 2018 dash 00276 to allow the development of a 5120 square foot single family residents with a 1465 square foot subterranean garage. at 99 Wolfpack Ridge Road also known as lot five of Wolfpack Estates On May 3, 2021 an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed with the Community Development Department citing numerous technical procedural errors and violations as ground for the appeal. background for the site details. This site is located at the southern end of Wolfpack Ridge Road, east of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. um, It is... Kind of a unique shaped lot here. You can see the aerial where the site is and what the surrounding homes are. It's designated as very low density residential in the general plan. This was subject to the 1995 general plan because the application was filed before the adoption of the 2021 general plan. So those designations and policies are associated with the 1995 general plan as that was enforced when the application was filed. It's also subject to the zoning ordinance, title 10 of the municipal code. It's in the R120 single family residential district. It's also subject to the Wolf Act state subdivision settlement agreement that was approved by the city council in 1993. I'm not sure. Finally, there is a declaration of restrictions, deed restrictions that are recorded against lot five that regulate building location and height. The city is not a party to these, but has assessed the project against them due to the general overlap with development standards in the zoning board. Previous hearings, this hearing has been before the planning commission for a total of four times. The first was in November, 2019. The residence was a little bit larger than what is currently under review. The general design is similar. Lots of articulation, multiple planes. The color material palette includes exposed black lamp concrete treated to patina, similar to a lot of the old military facilities and structures around the GGNRA. Cord and steel that would also... patina in and a living green sedum roof In November, the commissioners and the public raised concerns regarding visibility and visual impacts to neighboring residences as well as GGNRA. view blockages affecting 51 Wolfpack Ridge Road. compliance with setbacks, concerns about the preservation of the Monterey pine and Monterey cypress trees. and excavation and off-haul intensity. and the project was continued to October 2020. It was actually would have been seen or heard sooner but with the pandemic things obviously slowed down while we figured out how to address all of that. For October 2020, the applicant shrunk the size of the residents. reconfigured to the residents to reduce some of the glass area, added automatic window shades, lower reflectivity glass to parts of the area or parts of the residents. I'm not sure. Shrunk portions of the house sought to eliminate view impacts to one Canto Gal, reduce impacts to 51 Wolfback Ridge Road, and further protect the Monterey Pine and Cypress trees on site. um, Issues raised during that meeting included slope stability pertaining to the pool that had been part of the application and concerns regarding proximity to the 2019 landslide that uh happened across Sausalito Boulevard. There were privacy concerns about impacts to one canter gal due to the elevation difference between the two homes. concerns about visibility of the residents on the hillside, particularly from within GGNRA. Again, concerns about the Monterey Cypress trees. and concerns that language within the environmental impact report should be considered a formal development control, that a description of a hypothetical future home within Wolfpack Estates would be a and that the proposed residents did not comply with that description. In concurrence with the city attorney staff determined that the final impact environmental impact report does not impose a formal development control on the size of the residents and the project continues as a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act Planning Commission continue the public hearing to a date uncertain. THE FAMILY. On February 24th, the project came back to them. Again, minor revisions, pulling parts of the building back to increase setbacks from one Kanto Gal. to improve setbacks to the trees The pool was replaced with a spa and a water feature to minimize potential noise and visual intrusion to one Canto Gal. |
| 00:09:54.10 | Benjamin Graves | MINISTER. |
| 00:09:59.62 | Brad Evanson | I'm not sure. And four additional oak trees were proposed along the points on the western elevation to screen some of the windows from GGNRA to minimize those visual intrusions. Generally the size and the style of the art of the residence stayed as had been in October Concerns were pretty similar to those of the previous meetings. Impacts to one canter gal, including shadowing from the residents across that home. potential noise and privacy impacts safety regarding the proposed garage access from the shared driveway Despite the determination by the city attorney, there were again concerns expressed about lack of consistency between the proposed residents and the conceptual home sizes within the Wolfpack Estates EIR. visual impacts from GGNRA trails, and proximity to and preservation of the trees on site. and also concerns about the setbacks, including their adequacy in the interpretation of the applicable codes as they relate to increased setbacks for building length in section 10.40.070D1 of the zoning ordinance and structural projections into side yard setbacks in section 10.40.090 of the zoning ordinance. In discussing the project, the commissioners went through the various findings and criteria to assess where they felt they still had concerns. design review findings, these included finding six landscaping concerns about those oak trees impacting views from 51 Wolfpack Ridge. Finding seven concerns at the proximity to one canto gal would cause shadowing impacts. Finding eight concerns that lighting impacts could impact nighttime views from GGNRA. finding 10 concerns that the placement of the garage would prevent a circulation or present a circulation hazard to residents at one canto gal. finding 11 concerns that the architectural changes and arborist recommendations would not adequately preserve the Monterey Cypress. and finding 13 concerns that the proximity of the proposed residents to one canto gal was too close. And the Wolf Beck estate settlement agreement architectural standards, the commission expressed concerns with standard E that there was too much window glazing Standard I again too much window glazing. Standard J, again, too much window glazing. And standard K, concerns that living green roof would not be properly maintained in a healthy living condition. In review of the relevant findings, the planning commission was unable to support approval of the residents in February. As such, they continue the public hearing to a date certain April 21st to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the concerns they identified in their findings and architectural standards. To address these concerns, the applicant presented the following revisions. To mitigate glass reflectivity and illumination, louvers were added to the western elevation windows, low reflectivity bird friendly glass was specified, and chandeliers and ceiling lighting were eliminated from the stairwell. Lighting was also specified to be low mounted, shielded, and downward facing. Dark bronze trim was added along the roof perimeter, soffits, et cetera, to reduce the brightness of the upper roof and further blend the residents into the natural viewscape. The kitchen and pantry cantilevered pop out was reduced by up to four feet. to further separate it from the Monterey Cypress Tree. Several other minor building shape and size changes allow the foundation and structural walls to better avoid the trees root system. The building was revised to reduce and recess the size of the garage entrance, allowing for safer ingress and egress. and a guardrail and safety signal light were also added. Finally the landscaping along the western elevation of the building was revised to include taller shrubs to help screen and soften the elevation of the building from GGNRA. Here you can see a site plan of what the Planning Commission approved see where the in the middle we've got the proposed footprint for the residents the residents above At the top of the screen is one can to go to the right is one Rose Bowl. And off screen to the left would be where 51 Wolfback Ridge Road is. Here we have a proposed lower level floor plan, subterranean garage in the upper left corner. I'm not sure. bedroom, bathrooms, exercise room down below. Here we have the upper floor. or we got an upper parking pad for visitors. Master Suite, kitchen, additional bedrooms. Here we have some aerial views of the site showing the photo simulation for the proposed residents there in the middle. In the foreground, you see one Rose Bowl and then one Canto Gal off to the right. at the back where that trailer is, that's where 51 Wolfback Ridge Road is. Here's a view from the west. |
| 00:14:51.52 | Brad Evanson | Here we have from the north where you can see the garage door down there at the curvature of the driveway. the state. with One Canto Gal there in the foreground. The gate for access to the driveway and garage at One Canto Gal is just behind the trees off screen there. Here we have the bird's eye view from the east. get a perspective of how the color palette blends in. Here are the color material samples proposed. |
| 00:15:26.13 | Brad Evanson | And the planning commission reviewed the revised plans. They took public comment, considered previously identified issues. Two of the commissioners felt there were still unresolved issues, including concerns about the setback interpretation between the proposed residents and one canto gal. That there needed to be greater separation between the two structures and the proximity would lead to impacts to one canto gal regarding noise and shadowing. Concerns about the placement of the entrance to the garage regarding the residents of one canto gala as they might walk or drive on the shared driveway. about the lack of a fire truck turnaround in the vicinity of the project site as originally depicted on the Wolfpack estate subdivision improvement plans. Concerns about the proposed oak trees used for screening the proposed residents from GGNRA and concerns about the general scale and bulk of the residents as being overwhelming to surrounding homes. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to approve the project. The ayes were Chair Feller, Commissioner Sedd, and Commissioner Pierce. The nays were Commissioner Luxenberg and Vice Chair Graff. The majority voted to make all required design review findings, confirmed compliance with the Wolfpack State Settlement Agreement architectural standards, and verified consistency with the development restrictions recorded against Lot 5. Condition of approval was added to require the spa be reconfigured or relocated to address conflict with the side yard setback. And a condition of approval was added requiring additional louvers be added to the windows on the west elevation to further limit glare impacts from the residents to GGNRA. The appeal was filed on May 3. The appellants include Green Tree Headlands LLC. They own 51 Wolfback Ridge. Steve and Joan MacArthur, they are residents of 51 Wolfback Ridge, The Friends of Marin Headlands for Responsible Development. All three of them are represented by Elizabeth Breckes directly. Bruce McMillan is an appellant as well. He's the owner of One Canto Gal. And he is represented by Leonard Griffin and he is filed under the umbrella of Elizabeth Breckis for the appeal. The grounds for appeal, the appellant has identified eight categories for grounds of appeal that include Failure of the Planning Commission to ensure code compliance regarding inadequate setback depth, spa location, spa canopy location, and requiring a firetruck turnaround. |
| 00:17:34.30 | Benjamin Graves | Thank you. |
| 00:17:34.43 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 00:17:34.45 | Benjamin Graves | Thank you. |
| 00:17:43.64 | Brad Evanson | Planning Commission errors regarding findings related to the East Side Yard projection, including finding four, which is view blockage of 51 Wolfback Ridge. finding seven maintaining light and privacy impacts to one Kanto Gal. and finding 13 crowding of existing structures with the proposed residents being too close to one camper There's also general planning commission errors in making design review findings, including finding three, compatibility with the scale of the existing neighborhood, that the proposed residence is too large and doesn't comply with the EIR. finding five that there's a prominent ridgeline silhouette created finding 10 the traffic and circulation safety that's garage location is a hazard to one canter gal. Finding 11 concerns that the Monterey Cypress trees are at risk. and conflict with general design review principle that the relationship of a building to its surrounding matters more than good architecture in that the proposed residence does not relate well to GGNRA 51 Wolfback Ridge Road and 1 Canto Gal. The categories continue, planning commission errors, finding that the Wolfpack Estate Settlement Agreement, architectural standards A, Ridgetop homes would be visually adaptive and sensitive to topography. Standard B that ridgetop homes are subordinate to existing hillside. uh standard f that the height and scale should be compatible with terrain existing homes etc Standard G that the design should be articulated to achieve low profile forms on ridgeline crests. And standard H the ridge top home should be small volume which is described in the Wolfpack estate's EIR as 2,000 to 4,000 square foot size. Category E planning commission errors regarding findings pertaining to the landscape plans including finding four view blockages of 51 Wolfpack Ridge by the new oak trees. and the failure to discuss finding six Landscaping provides appropriate visual relief and complements development that the commissioners expressed concerns about in the new trees on February 24. MR. Category F the Planning Commission errors in ensuring compliance with landscape controls in the settlement agreement particularly landscape control B. that landscaping should protect views and landscape control F that large box trees should be discouraged. and the general statement that no landscape findings were made during the approval of the project. Category G the Planning Commission violated CEQA because the proposed residence exceeds the future home parameters in the EIR size of the home excavation volume thus constituting a change in project and necessitating additional review under CEQA. And category H procedural errors in conducting the April 21st planning commission meeting, including concerns that proper public noticing was not provided because the site was not reposted following the February 24th hearing. and that it was unfair to expect the public to listen to the seven hour meeting just to find the action describing the project was being continued. also that public comments opposing the project. were not properly published because they were published less than 24 hours before the hearing. While letters of support were published five days prior. Finally despite failing to identify any specific misinformation The commissioners dismissed the postcards from the Friends of Marin Headlands unfairly by referring to them as containing misinformation. staff response. We have gone through and prepared a response on this. Category A, the side yard average depth does not meet the minimums. This is a unique property that's oddly shaped. It doesn't lend itself to easy application of the zoning ordinance. hence the applicant has relied on city staff past and present to provide direction on interpreting the standards within the zoning ordinance. The applicant's proposal includes building projections into some of the setbacks consistent with uh, in municipal code section 10.40.090D. such projections are allowed subject to criteria within this section. including maintaining an average yard depth equal to or greater than the minimum required setback and yard depth. In this case, the minimum setback for the affected side yard is 34 feet. The applicant has demonstrated this by offsetting The area projection 692 square feet with more than that amount of unencumbered side yard area. This is shown on the following slide. right here. So the tight crosshatch area in the middle of the slide is the area of projection within the setback 692 square feet. The applicant has identified a small area on the right side of the screen as a partial offset. and has identified the area at the upper left corner of the screen as the other area of offset And by utilizing the area available within those setbacks as unencumbered land space, they can provide more than enough yard area to maintain the average yard depth required of 34 feet. THE END OF THE END OF THE The appellant argues that the area at the top of that image, offset area one, is actually rear yard and thus not eligible to be used to offset a side yard projection. per section 10.88 definitions of the zoning ordinance A setback is an area of a lot where buildings and structures are not to be located and thereby becomes a yard. As such, the rear yard technically only extends 30 feet from the rear property log. all lot area outside of this respective setback yard area. is that are unencumbered by buildings or structures could be then used as additional yard area as needed. The image on the following slide demonstrates this. that. The outer dash line is the property line. The inner dash line is the setback line for each respective setback for side yard or rear yard. And the area at the top, where I've noted required rear yard that is all that is required to that is all that is officially defined as a rear yard. The offset area in the middle is not associated with any yard in particular one way or the other. So it can be utilized as a side yard space And the area that the applicant has chosen where I've identified the offset area there in the middle, that actually is much closer to side yards than it is to a rear yard. Thus, it is a valid argument to call that a side yard space that can be used to offset the structural projection that the applicant has requested. Therefore, this does maintain the standard and no code violation exists. for the spa and spa canopy. There was an error at staff's part, my part, in allowing the spot to be located within the side yard of the property as shown on the plans presented to the April 21st planning commission hearing. This was corrected with the addition of language in condition three of your draft resolution, requiring that the spa and the spa canopy be relocated to eliminate conflicts with the setbacks. Thus, the violation has been addressed. And that condition of approval was also included in the draft resolution that the Planning Commission adopted. that has been addressed. in terms of the fire truck turnaround. Um, The original subdivision improvement plans included a firetruck turnaround on lot nine in Wolfpack Estates, which is across the street from lot five. In 2002 the city's public works department acknowledged that the public improvements had been installed to their satisfaction and they requested that the security for the improvements be released. this despite the turnaround not having been installed. Chief Hilliard with Southern Marin Fire District was contacted regarding this issue. He stated that because the application was not on Lot 9, there was no nexus to require the applicants to install a turn around. He also noted that should an application be filed for lot nine, such condition of approval would be imposed. Thus, no violation has occurred. |
| 00:25:42.22 | Brad Evanson | The applicant states that design review findings for view blockage, seven maintain light air and privacy, and 13 crowding of existing structures cannot be made and the planning commission erred in approving the project. Specifically, the project blocks the view of San Francisco from 51 Wolfback Ridge. The project inhibits the passage of light and air across one Kanto Gowl. and the projection crowds won Cantal Gala. The development restrictions recorded against lot five by the subdivider and agreed to by the MacArthur's in their purchase of 51 Wolfback Ridge effectively authorized development within those specified areas as shown on the following slide. Here we have a zoom in on the building pad portion of lot five. and the upper crosshatch area. The deed restriction limits it to a maximum 14 feet of height. The tighter crosshatch allows for a maximum 26 feet of height. So this is the restriction that the McArthur's agreed to when they purchased 51 Wolfpack Ridge. Implying that they expected development to occur there and they were acknowledging that there will be view impacts at those locations to those height limitations. The side yard projection, the applicants have requested the planning commission approved is located in the 14 foot height restriction area. And it is thus not in conflict with that. And thus is deemed to be development that was anticipated. and no violation has occurred. I'm not sure. Design review finding three that the project is compatible with the scale of existing development. Finding seven that don't create a prominent ridgeline silhouette finding 10 circulation safety due to garage location and finding 11 protect existing trees cannot be made. and the Planning Commission erred in approving the project. Finding three there are homes in the vicinity of the project that are in similar range or exceed the size of the proposed 5,120 square foot residents. These include one Canto Gal 4,350 square feet of living area per the Marin County Assessor. 61 Wolfback Ridge, 4,611 square feet of living area. and 51 Wolfback Ridge. 5,330 square feet of living area with a request to increase it to 5,587 square feet per the zoning permit application on file with the Community Development Department. Thus finding three can be made. Finding five, the proposed building site is already graded establishing the expectation that a residence would be built there. This is further supported by the development restrictions establishing maximum building heights over those parts of the building site. Finally the proposed residence utilizes significant articulation in varying surface planes to minimize appearance of large bulk structure. finding five can be made. Finding 10, placement of the garages off of an existing driveway that only serves two homes. Furthermore, the applicant has designed the residents to set the garage entrance further back, allowing safer vehicle movement. and has included improvements such as improved curbs, guardrail and a safety light to further enhance the usability and safety of the driveway. Finding 10 can be made. Finding 11, the appellant states that the proposed residence crowds the existing Monterey Cypress tree on site. the proposed residents has undergone several revisions and modifications to increase separation of the structure from the tree. protect the root system. and generally minimize potential construction impacts. The arborist report prepared by McNair and Associates further outlines tree protection measures and construction methods that would be sufficient to protect the tree in place. Finding 11 can be made. The appellant also states that the Planning Commission erred in approving the residence because it's designed violates the quote basic design review principle that the relationship of a building to its surroundings is more important than the quality of the design and that the proposed residence fails to consider its relationship with the Ridgetop GGNRA and other surrounding residences. The Planning Commission found that the residents utilizes a quality design that does take into consideration its relationship with surroundings. The use of subterranean space allows a lower profile, more compatible with the ridge top and used from GGNRA. The color and materials palette will blend into the natural landscape better than several of the adjacent residences. And finally, the applicant has worked closely with GGNRA staff directly for several years on both design and landscape issues. GJNRA staff have consistently expressed their appreciation of this. there is no violation of this principle. The appellant states that the planning commission erred in finding that Wolfpack Estate Settlement Agreement architectural standards A, B, F, G, and H have been met. because of the wall and window space facing GGNRA and the Golden Gate Bridge. I'm not sure. Finding A, given the colors and material palette consisting of The cordoned steel the weathered concrete bronze trim and low reflectivity glass. I'm not sure. the, uh, Planning Commission found that the home is visually adaptive and sensitive to hillside topography and that the standard has been met. Ridgetop Homes should be subordinate to the existing hillside and ridgeline forms in standard B. By designing a home to utilize subterranean space, the above ground profile is minimized. Furthermore, the above ground profile of the residents is consistent with those surrounding homes. This standard has been met. to the next episode. Standard F. building heights and scale should be compatible with the existing terrain of other project home sites and surrounding existing homes on Wolfback Ridge. Again, the use of subterranean design reinforces the low profile along the ridge top. and the above grade profile is consistent with surrounding residences. This standard has also been met. And standard G residential design should be articulated to achieve low profile forms on the ridgeline crests. By designing the home to utilize step down articulation from upper floors to lower floors, the flat green roof and the building height building height. restrictions imposed on the project by the Wolfpack Estate Settlement Agreement the proposed residence does present a low profile civil law on the building site and this standard has been met. finding eight or standard age, ridgetop homes should be small volume and that the EIR informs what a small volume is, 2,000, 4,000 square feet, two car garage, et cetera. the subterranean design. I'm, I apologize, I had run out of time in doing my presentation. So in this case, what we are looking at here is that, for standard H. I'm not sure. The FEIR for the subdivision does not impose a restriction on the size of homes in Wolfpack Estates. um, It is simply a description for a conceptual future project. It is not carried over as a development control into the settlement agreement. And thus this is a relevant point or an irrelevant point of appeal. um, The appellant notes that the commissioners recognize a lack of compliance with standards I and J. and requested that staff include conditions of approval to address them, but was unable to locate them in the conditions of approval. Staff noted that architectural standard I, building materials in color should be subdued. THE FAMILY IS is addressed by the approved plans, which identify the colors and materials for the project. The planning commission determined that those were suitably subdued and met the criteria. and the condition two in the Planning Commission resolution also required compliance with the approved plans, thus that standard was met. Standard J reflective windows and materials shall be prohibited is also addressing the specifications. Additionally, condition 13 required that all windows be specified as low reflectivity and bird friendly, and this is required through the lifespan of the building, so this standard has been met. Finally, the appellant did note a discrepancy in the resolution of approval for the planning commission where the title of the resolution correctly identified the size of the proposed residents, but the first recital included the size of a previous version of the resident. That was simply a typographic error. The agenda of the staff report and other supporting documentation correctly listed the size of the proposed residence, no violation occurred, and this does not affect the planning commission's vote to approve the project. Category E. I'm not sure. These are landscape findings. and for finding four, views without altering the landscape design to include, exclude the new proposed oak trees. The appellants were concerned that the oak trees would grow and impact the view shed from 51 Wolfback Ridge Road. the Wolfpack Estate Settlement Agreement, in addition to MR. having development controls imposed over the lot. There is a tree cutting easement imposed on lot five. And what that stipulates is that the owners of 51 Wolfback Ridge Road, If they are determining that there is a view blockage with appropriate notice to the owners of 99 Wolfback Ridge Road, they can go down and trim the trees back to maintain their views. So given that development restriction, It was determined that that finding, there was no error and the finding could be met. There's also a appellant that the Planning Commission erred in approving the home without a majority of commissioners making finding six for landscaping to provide visual relief. I'm not sure. the planning commission resolution improving the project includes finding six Three of the five commissioners made this finding. During the February 24th hearing, several of the commissioners expressed concerns about the proposed oak trees. Several questions were asked about the landscaping in general. The commission asked the applicant to provide a more thorough landscape plan that included photos, various plants for the proposed residents that was provided. and that satisfied the commission. No error was made and the finding was made. Category F, this pertains to landscape controls within the Wolfpack Estate settlement agreement. The appellant expressed concerns that additional trees violate landscape control B, which states that each site shall be landscaped in such a way to minimize adverse impacts, off-site vantage points. landscape control F, which discourages use of trees in larger containers like 24 and 36 inch boxes. The Wolfpack Estate Settlement Agreement clearly stipulates that the landscape controls therein are to be implemented when a property owner applies for building permits, We are not at that stage yet. Landscaping was reviewed for this project in conjunction with designer view findings that include landscaping criteria. I'm not sure. So Control B was not violated further because regardless of its application, Landscape control B is not violated because the development restriction creating a tree cutting easement addresses that concern. Control F is permissive. And if there is a reasonable justification for use of the larger box tree, the landscape controls allow this. So no violation has occurred. the appellants state Category F that the Planning Commission aired because they did not make any findings regarding the landscape controls in the Wolf-Bachford State Settlement Agreement. As noted previously, the landscape controls are tied to an applicant requesting building permits And because the landscape plans were reviewed against the design review landscape findings, No findings for the landscape controls were required and no error was committed by the planning condition. Category G. these are SQL violations. The Planning Commission approval of the residents is violation of CEQA because The size of the proposed home far exceeds the project parameters stated in EIR. that describes expected future homes as being 2,000 to 4,000 square feet. the state. As has been noted previously, consulting with the city attorney, The EIR has been determined to be a supporting informative document, does not impose a restriction on the size of the homes, There's a statement in the project description that homes in the project would be expected to range in that size range. but it does not limit the size of the proposed project and does not carry over into a development control within the settlement agreement. As such, the secret determination made by the planning division and proposed for city council's consideration does not rely on the environmental impact report for the subdivision. Rather, the project is considered to be a categorical exemption from CEQA pursuant to section 1-5. 303.8. of a new single family residence within the state CEQA guidelines. and Thank you. With that, no violation of CEQA has occurred and no additional CEQA review is required. Category H, these are procedural errors alleged of the Planning Commission. The appellant states that the April 21st meeting was held without proper notice. The appellant felt that because of the February 24th meeting went for more than seven hours, and didn't end till 2 a.m. in the following morning. It would be unreasonable to expect members of the public to listen to all seven hours of the meeting to understand the planning commission's action. Additionally, the February 24th posting was still up at the project site. And that was misleading the members of the public. Under California law when a public hearing is continued within said public hearing to a specified date additional public noticing is not required. The video of the February 24 planning commission meeting is available on the city's website and allows a viewer to scroll through to any point in the meeting in this case at the conclusion of the hearing on February 24. The Commission clearly indicated that the public hearing was being continued from February 24th to a date certain specifically April 21st. Thus the April 21st planning commission meeting was properly noticed, no violation has occurred. The appellants state that the April 21st planning commission meeting was held I'm not sure. without properly publishing public comment or fairly considering public comment. The appellant states that more than 200 postcards opposing the project were posted to the agenda late, meaning less than 24 hours before the meeting, while letters of support were published five days before the meeting date. Also the appellant states that the commissioners were dismissive of the postcards calling them noise and that they resulted from erroneous information on a flyer created circulated by the Friends of the Marin Headlands for responsible development. It is staff practice to include all letters received by the writing of the staff report as attachments to the report and all letters that come in after the writing of the staff report as late mail to the agenda item. Consistent with this practice staff included letters received prior to completion of the staff report and an attachment to the report. All late mail was uploaded as soon as staff was able to upon receiving the correspondence. Staff received the first 195 postcards from Ms. Brekus in an email timestamped April 19th, 2021 at 4.38 PM. Staff replied to Ms. Rekus on the same day at 517 p.m. that the staff was uploading the documents submitted, including the 195 postcards, as soon as possible to the agenda as late mailed. An additional run of postcards were submitted the day of the meeting April 21st by Ms. Breckis' assistant at 930 913 AM They were also uploaded shortly after receiving them. Regarding the postcard, the Sierra Club expressed concerns about the information they used to base their opposition on and withdrew their letter of opposition. No violations occurred no basis supporting an appeal. In response to the appeal, the applicant has provided a package of supporting documentation Attachment nine of your staff report. These include photo simulation view montages, of the proposed residents from various bird's eye angles from the rear deck of 51 Wolfback Bridge a montage of off-site viewpoints of the project site, shadow impact study for one Kanto Gal, and numerous letters of support for the appeal. Many of these documents have been already provided at one or more of the previous planning commission hearings. and can be found in the attachment list for the respective meetings. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15303A of the state CEQA guidelines. to the people who are not Staff's recommendation is that the city council conduct a public hearing adopt the draft resolution denying the appeal of planning commission's action approving design review 2018-00276. Options for the city council include denying the appeal of the planning commission to construct a 5,120 square foot single family residence. That draft resolution has been provided to the council report as an attachment. The city council can also approve the appeal of the planning commission decision approving design review permit 2018-00276 and direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve the appeal providing specific direction to staff for revision of the draft resolution to reflect the denial findings. THE CITY IS A The council could also continue the public hearing for further consideration by city council. or the council can remand the matter back to the planning commission for review with specific direction to then return to the city council for further consideration. And with that, staff is available if you have any questions. |
| 00:43:06.21 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Um... Oops. Thanks, Brad. Thank you for that thorough presentation. I appreciate all the work that the staff has done on this project. I know it's been a long road. Okay, and at this point, then, does anybody have questions at this point for, or Mr. Evanson, or if not, then we'll proceed on to the appellant team's presentation. There's no questions. I don't see any hands raised. So then we'll go ahead and proceed on to the appellant presentation, and you'll have 15 minutes allotted. |
| 00:43:55.10 | Len Rifkin | Thank you. |
| 00:43:55.60 | Elizabeth Brekus | There. Yeah. |
| 00:43:56.04 | Len Rifkin | Good afternoon, Madam Mayor. We have four speakers. Elizabeth Brackes, Michael Rex, and myself and it would be in that order. So Ms. Brackus is supposed to go first. |
| 00:44:08.28 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:44:08.29 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 00:44:08.33 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:44:08.41 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 00:44:08.73 | Jill Hoffman | Go ahead. |
| 00:44:09.34 | Elizabeth Brekus | news. |
| 00:44:09.52 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:44:11.18 | Elizabeth Brekus | Good afternoon Mayor Hoffman and members of the City Council Elizabeth Brekus representing appellants Green Tree Headlands Steven Joe MacArthur and friends in Marin Headlands for responsible development. including 351 Sausalito residents who have joined in asking the city not to approve this large house on the border of the Golden Gate National Rep. I'd like to start my slideshow. I don't know if it's happening from staff or if I can share screen. |
| 00:44:41.59 | Jill Hoffman | Um, uh, Staff, can you There you go. Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:44:46.77 | Elizabeth Brekus | Thank you. |
| 00:44:49.94 | Elizabeth Brekus | Why are we appealing unacceptable neighbor impacts? Eliminate San Francisco city view. of 51 Wolf Back. Inadequate setback for one canto gal. side yard projection not properly calculated, and too large. A 6,585 square foot home violates the small volume and low profile on a ridge line requirement in the settlement agreement. which specifically states the EIR is fully binding and should be consulted for future development. As such the city is bound by the 2000 to 4000 square foot home requirement. The current dispute focuses on the black and white interpretation of section 10.40.090 D. which is essentially a side yard projection and recess ordinance. It allows for projections into a side yard If design review findings can be made for the projection, But then you have to recess back an equal amount. Here, the minimum setback is an undisputed 34 feet. Why is the setback 34 feet? Because the house is so large, it triggers another code section that says, if the house is longer than 40 feet, you increase the setbacks One foot for every five feet of added length. Here the house is 110 feet, so the applicant has to increase the setback to 34 feet. Why does the city have this provision? It's to give a neighbor a greater setback when the house next to them is going to be so long. Here the applicants want to eliminate the benefit of this provision and essentially ignore the required increase by applying for a discretionary projection. But this projection ordinance section has been misinterpreted by applicants, and staff has failed to correct this misinterpretation. resulting in the planning commission approving an impermissibly large projection into the east side yard The 692 foot projection, which is right here. is properly offset by 245 square feet right here. But the applicants claim that this 3,000 square feet space in the rear yard is also an offset. is wrong. When we pointed this out, staff came up with a novel analysis. They said that the applicants can project into The Macmillan Side Yard. because across the driveway, and down the hill, they have no building. And so they have recessed away. But that makes no sense because each side yard is treated as a separate yard. If you use this area, for a recess. What's to prevent you from using this side yard over here or this side yard over here? You cannot use the space outside the yard for an offset. The code says it's the average depth of the yard. It runs afoul of the code, and this is a novel interpretation that makes side yards illusory if you can offset them far away and in areas where the building is not being built. City Council resolution number 5836 shows lot five has six separate side yards. And you cannot look to side yard D, E, or F to create a recess to offset the projection into the McMillan side yard. Again, the applicant put the recess in a very in a different yard than its projection and that's a clear code violation And the code says that to approve A projection, you have to make the design review findings for the projection. Here, the projection crowds the Macmillan property and eliminates MacArthur's very best view of the San Francisco skyline. And so the findings cannot be made. And note, we cannot find a single prior instance where the city allowed a 14 foot setback projection into the side yard, essentially an entire wing of the house and with absolutely no basis to justify it. This is a flat lot. And there is no hardship. warranting the projection. This is an unprecedented departure from the city's normal analysis of a project. The applicants can still build a reasonably sized home in the lot, in fact, without the projection. the home would be 5,893 square feet. We ask that the city council reverse the three to two approval of the project. direct the applicants to return with a project that is smaller and less impactful to the neighbors. The city signed a settlement agreement and promised this community that it would approve small volume homes that are low profile on a ridge line. The settlement agreement says that multiple times and this approval violates both the letter and the spirit of the agreement. What is small volume and low profile? The settlement agreement says consult the EIR. This home should respect the environmental review and limit development to a 2,000 to 4,000 square foot home with a two car garage. Don't allow a wall of glass to light up the Golden Gate National Rep. and impact the public views from the park. Thank you and I'll turn it over to Michael. |
| 00:50:40.79 | Len Rifkin | Stop the clock, please. Please stop the clock. Madam Mayor. |
| 00:50:46.66 | Jill Hoffman | Um... |
| 00:50:50.02 | Len Rifkin | Thank you. |
| 00:50:51.25 | Michael Rex | I'm not sure. Hello, before you start the clock, I'd like to post a short presentation and grab a spotlight so I can point to it. So bear with me one second before you start the clock. Thank you. OK. I'm going to start here and get it large enough so you can see it. And then I want to grab a spotlight. Bear with me. Oh. I annotate. I don't seem to have an annotation opportunity here on the screen. |
| 00:51:34.45 | Len Rifkin | So the clock has started and the only reason Madam Mayor we're making a big deal about the clock is that we have 15 minutes and we have four speakers. And so, and each of us have practiced to try to comply with the 15 minutes. |
| 00:51:47.92 | Jill Hoffman | I understand, Mr. Rifkin, but you need to be prepared to go straight through your presentation. Okay. |
| 00:51:53.50 | Michael Rex | Well, we have Zoom here, which makes it a little more difficult. We're not arguing. Let me get started. |
| 00:51:57.64 | Jill Hoffman | We're not arguing. You guys need to, Mr. Rex, you guys need to be able to go one after the other. So... Mr. Rex, are you prepared to start your presentation or do we need to switch the order? |
| 00:52:10.76 | Michael Rex | I am prepared, thank you. |
| 00:52:12.28 | Jill Hoffman | Let's go forward. |
| 00:52:13.35 | Michael Rex | The code says that a structure shall be measured along a line parallel to the adjoining side lot line. The graphics in the code demonstrate this. The building parallel to the side lot line is what you calculate for a projection. That's not what's being done, as Elizabeth pointed out. They're projecting down to a rear yard, not a side yard, and there's no building where they're calculating square footage parallel to a lot line. So it's the staff errant in allowing this. The applicant nor staff ever calculated the average setback that's proposed. It's supposed to be 34 feet. We calculated it from two methods and it's 27 feet 10. Does not conform to the code of staff I told you they'd have to pull it back eight foot four and a quarter inches to get an average of 34 feet. And this is what the applicant showed the planning commission. And it's incorrect because it was based on a wide angle lens, which staff should have never allowed. This is what we're losing. And it's unnecessary. Without the discretionary projection of 14 feet, this is what we would get. MacArthur's always expected the city would apply its setback requirements properly. This we could live with. This we cannot. And I want to conclude that the applicant will tell you that to pull it back the 8 feet that's required for an average of setback of 34 feet, they'd lose the entire master bedroom weight. That is simply not true. Why? Because this house is huge. It's 69 feet in the east-west direction, 110 feet long. That width is more than twice many homes in town. The foyer is 19 feet across. The living room is 22 feet. The master bedroom is 28 feet in width. And the bathroom at the master is 10 and a half feet average. There's no reason on a ridgetop to have such massive rooms. I want to leave this with you. I did a quick sketch and I could show, I show here pulling back seven feet, the east wall of the master suite. And I didn't really change the design at all. I just show reasonable size rooms. The only reason that justifies this 14 foot projection against what the code allows is simply to build a massive home. Please reject this design and ask him to make it smaller and honor the setbacks and measure it properly. Thank you. |
| 00:54:53.69 | Len Rifkin | We stopped the clock, Madam Mayor, so Mr. McClendon can go. Please stop the clock. You've just lost We've lost about 15 or 20 seconds here. |
| 00:55:03.63 | Jill Hoffman | It looks ripped in. Can you please add 20 seconds back to the clock? |
| 00:55:08.61 | Len Rifkin | Thank you, Madam Mayor. I appreciate your courtesy. |
| 00:55:11.50 | Jill Hoffman | My pleasure. And Mr. Rifkin, so it's you and who, and there's one other person? |
| 00:55:15.73 | Len Rifkin | Mr. McMillan, the owner of one canter is going to speak next and then I will finish. |
| 00:55:20.44 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, very good. Thank you. And Mr. Rifkin, do you have any presentations that you plan to need to share screen for? |
| 00:55:28.30 | Len Rifkin | Yes, I have one picture that I'm going to attempt to share, not a whole PowerPoint, just one photo. |
| 00:55:33.82 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, got it. And Mr. McMillan, is he going to share screen for any reason? |
| 00:55:38.23 | Len Rifkin | No. |
| 00:55:39.56 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, very good. So we won't stop the clock again. We're just gonna roll straight from Mr. McMillan into you, Mr. Rifkin, is that acceptable? |
| 00:55:45.85 | Len Rifkin | I accept that I'm at dinosaur level, and when it's my turn to try to share the screen and put it up, I'll probably fumble it for two seconds. Other than that, we'll try to be expeditious, we promise. |
| 00:55:52.13 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. I'm excited. Okay, so for the staff, after Mr. McMillan's done, let's pause the clock, and then when Mr. Rifkin is able to bring his presentation up, we'll go forward, okay? |
| 00:56:07.01 | Len Rifkin | Thank you. |
| 00:56:07.76 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, you're welcome. Go ahead, Mr. MacDonald. You're on mute. |
| 00:56:16.08 | Len Rifkin | Roche, you're on. |
| 00:56:21.24 | Jill Hoffman | Hold on. Hold on. Stop the clock. Hold on. We don't have Mr. McMillan. We're not able to hear him yet. |
| 00:56:28.04 | Len Rifkin | I don't think he realizes that he's on. |
| 00:56:29.93 | Jill Hoffman | That's okay. Okay, Mr. |
| 00:56:31.37 | Len Rifkin | that you're here. |
| 00:56:32.75 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, you understand you have the floor, sir. |
| 00:56:35.28 | Bruce McMillan | I'm Bruce McMillan. I live at one Canto Gal, directly behind these heritage trees on the ridgeline. and I'll abbreviate my comments to pass to Len Rifkind. I'd say one thing that the Sausalito Municipal Code states that the proposed project is consistent with the general scale of structures and buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and or district. Now this doesn't say the surrounding two or three buildings, it says neighborhood. We are a very real neighborhood. The average size home in our neighborhood is 2,318 square feet. This proposal is not consistent with the general scale of the neighborhood. It would be the largest in our neighborhood and almost three times the average size. I'll also add, Mayor Hoffman, your predecessor, Mayor. Amy Belzer assured my neighborhood. that we could rely on the EIR. She wrote. to the owners of property on Wolfpack Ridge, the settlement calls for strict environmental design constraints. Thank you. I'll pass to Len Rifcon. |
| 00:57:56.43 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:58:01.51 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, we pause clock for just a second. And remember to turn it back on when we start again. |
| 00:58:10.47 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:58:10.49 | Heidi Scoble | about. Yes, sorry. |
| 00:58:11.57 | Len Rifkin | Sorry about this is my photo. It's best that I could do, but we'll go on. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is Andrew Klein, and we very much appreciate the council setting a special hearing for this appeal and giving the time for it. I'm going to make... five points of why the council should does not deny design review approval for this project. And these are somewhat reiterative of what you've already heard, but they are the key points. The bottom line is this house needs to go on a diet. It's 6,590 square feet. It truly is the largest home, not only in a subdivision, but also in all of Wolfback Ridge. You heard staff mention that there's other homes almost as large nearby. Those homes, particularly One Canto Gal, was not part of the subdivision. Number two, design review findings cannot be made. That is the primary focus of what the city council should be looking at and deciding whether or not to grant the appeal or not are the findings. And you heard multiple findings raised in our appeal. And on behalf of one canto gal, the number two points are finding seven and finding 13.7. This project simply doesn't maintain the light and privacy. And number 13, it crowds one council gal. Number three is the setback. These are all related. We can actually support this project. If we could just shrink the house a little bit and honor what the code requires, which is a 34-foot setback, then I think we could support this project. And, yeah, there's a technical gobbledygook going on for whether or not we can offset a space that the applicant wants to that's down the hill. The bottom line is there's a setback between one canto gal and the proposed project, and it's not being honored as what the code requires point number four is critical the design the garage location and that's what my photo that's up on the screen relates to the garage location is dangerous it's on the uh as you saw in the renderings that staff showed you it's located at the on a downhill turn and while they've modified the width of the garage it doesn't take out or reduce the safety issue we've provided in with our letter from a transportation consultant says this is just the wrong location for the garage commissioner luxembourg also agreed that logical location for this garage is in front of lot four at the beginning of One Canto Gal or on Wolfpack Ridge. Certainly not here and what this photo that you see up there depicts is the headlights that will be shining in Mr. McMillan's bedroom every night as five to seven cars are entering into 99 Wolfback Ridge. The garage should not be located. And point number five is I've learned recently that the applicant now proposes to reduce the hedge, the existing ephemeral hedge that's now about six feet to two and a half feet. We need as a condition of approval a solid wall to provide screening between the two houses. I'm not sure. In conclusion, we urge the council to deny design review approval. While there's been a lot of energy put on it, it's not ready. It needs to go back to the planning commission for further work. And the way they can do that is reduce the size, not have a wall of glazing facing the GGNRA. Thank you. We're available for questions. We have, and my presentation is done, but we're available for questions, both Ms. Reckens and myself, as well as Mr. Reckens. |
| 01:02:09.29 | Jill Hoffman | OK, thank you. I have 53. I have only 15 seconds left and then you have an additional five minutes for rebuttal, as I understand it. Council member Cleveland Knowles, I'm thinking that she has a question. Does anybody other council members have a question for the appellants? |
| 01:02:26.35 | Cleveland Knowles | Thank you, Mary. I don't have a question. I just thought we were coming back on screen. |
| 01:02:31.66 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, does anybody have a question for the appellants that just gave their presentation? No, same thing. Thank you for the appellants for presenting that very insightful and well presented presentation. Okay, moving on then to the applicant. |
| 01:02:55.56 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE Mr. Hurd, I would ask, are you making a presentation or will we be going to different presenters as we did with the appellants? |
| 01:03:07.17 | Riley Hurd | Yeah, the goal for us is for me to talk for a few minutes. The architect will show you some plans and I know Puntag is attempting to join. but if he can't, I will read a statement from him. |
| 01:03:19.28 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, very good, thank you. same process then that we all do with the appellants. In other words, when one person's done, just pause the clock, let the next person get set up if they can quickly do so. |
| 01:03:24.03 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. |
| 01:03:24.38 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 01:03:25.87 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. |
| 01:03:32.13 | Jill Hoffman | and then we'll roll right into that presentation. Then if we can hear from the applicant, or I'm sorry, the applicant, then great. If not, then we'll go back to Mr. Hurd. Okay, Mr. Hurd, go ahead. |
| 01:03:42.29 | Riley Hurd | Sure, thank you so much and good afternoon. My name is Riley Hurd. I represent the owners of Lot 5. I'd like to make a few comments before the project architect takes it to the project. So with the volume of information you guys have in front of you, and all of these kind of micro allegations you just heard. I think it's really helpful to step back and take a look at the numbers on this project. So this house is proposed at half the height half the floor area and half the lot coverage that's allowed in this zoning district. There is not a single variance requested. There are at least double the setbacks for this zone. I'll just respond to one thing about the setbacks. We went to the staff and said, how does the code work? Not the other way around. So this was a city endorsed interpretation. because it's a complicated line. This house is over 200 feet from the home at 51 Wolfback and uphill and 35 feet from the house at 1 Canto Gal with a full 20 foot setback on that side. You guys have been around the city. These are very unusual statistics for a Sausalito house where heightened designer view and variances are the norm. We got 20 foot setbacks, 200 foot setbacks, and half of everything. So you can't even see these story poles from anywhere meaningful on one canto gal and the views of the bridge and the city are preserved well beyond what the code requires for 51 wolfback. These two architects got together and agreed on a location for the photos. when it didn't show the impact they wanted, Now they challenge the photos, which is why I really implored you to just go look for yourself. I think it shows you all you need to know. I'm not sure. So what's going on? With all that in mind, why have we had eight hearings over three years for one house? The answer is It seems like there's a A neighbor who just can't stand the concept of anything being built here. You heard about the deed restriction. It slashed the allowable height and building area on the lot. And I think maybe it was anticipated that that would prevent someone from building. But here you have a house that fits the code, the settlement agreement, the EIR, and the deed restriction. And that's why you have a smaller above-ground form. Remember, there's only 3,600 square feet of house above ground. We've had Tons of demands. We met all the first ones. And then the goalposts kept moving. And the requests escalated. Rex knows what he put up on the screen today, cutting the house that much, is tantamount to saying, don't build a house. |
| 01:06:24.84 | Brad Evanson | move. |
| 01:06:35.53 | Riley Hurd | So we wasted a lot of time meaningfully negotiating only to kind of find out that our dance partner actually didn't want to dance. There's been a whack-a-mole game of issues. Probably the biggest one is this house size limit and the EIR. There isn't one. And we spent a bunch of time combating this. Your own attorney agrees. I hired a CEQA attorney. He agrees. We covered all of that. louvers and garage exit lights. It's extreme at this point. And finally comes the refrain, save Wolfback Ridge. Okay. I was born and raised in Marin. My first job was at Sausalito Cyclery. I'm a frequent user of the SCA trail. And I want to be very clear, this is not a maroncello moment. It's not even close to it. You know? people who are in a house that looks like a castle with a trailer in the yard, who are currently asking for retroactive approval for a 5,400 square foot house because they didn't get permits. trumping this up into something it isn't. If you want to know who's actually saving Wolfpack Rich, I would submit It's our client. He has acquired lots seven, eight, and nine. and he's prepared to donate them to the National Park Service. This would be monumental, but nothing can happen until we get the outcome of this house determined. Finally, the Park Service. They are tough customers, and they have written a letter supporting this project. I think that says a lot. So every planner from the city who's touched this has recommended approval. The planning commission approved it. We asked that you would do the same, and now I'll have Scott walk you through the house. Thank you very much. |
| 01:08:27.78 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Can we pause the clock here until Mr. Koteur gets his |
| 01:08:34.06 | Scott Couture | Thank you. Good afternoon. I would like to do a screen share. |
| 01:08:43.84 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:08:46.22 | Scott Couture | All right. Screen up. Thank you. |
| 01:08:47.98 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:08:48.01 | Heidi Scoble | Yes. |
| 01:08:48.25 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:08:48.82 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 01:08:48.84 | Melissa Blaustein | Okay. |
| 01:08:50.98 | Scott Couture | All right, I'm ready to start. Good afternoon, council. I wanna start by showing you the home we designed and how we got to the solution. We spent a year and a half working with the neighbors on the design prior to the initial planning department This involves six sets of story polls, numerous meetings on site. including with the neighbors of all three nearby homes, The Patterson family who own several adjacent lots |
| 01:09:15.74 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:09:16.31 | Scott Couture | Fire Department? the Planning Department, and the National Park Service. This included making numerous revisions, get the home and respond to the concerns and to minimize the impact. From this, we came away with some basic site design principles. |
| 01:09:36.93 | Scott Couture | First, we want to locate the home where the site had already been graded flat. This area here. |
| 01:09:47.66 | Scott Couture | Second, we wanted to leave the southeast corner open. This is adjacent to the one Cantogal and the one Rose Bowl property. Third, we wanted to push taller portions of the home to the west, again, away from one console gall and one rose We wanted to save the Monterey trees. who wanted to save the hedges along one canto gall and one rose |
| 01:10:11.63 | Scott Couture | Now here is what we are proposing. However, we did not start here. Originally, we had a two-story section over on the west Question of the problem. We had The garage is located where we have the open parking area. We had an ADU located over on the Eastern Bank. We received feedback And we took this feedback into consideration. 51 Wolfpack Ridge and one Council Gall requested no structures on the Eastern slope. 51 Rule Backridge Road requested not to build any structure where the current open parking area is. They're also requested to lower and shorten the two-story portion by the National Park surface in one Rose Bowl. We agree. And then we made some very significant change This is where the underground subterranean solution was born. By locating the garage underground, we could eliminate any view, mass, or shadow impacts typical of an above ground garage. This also opened up the opportunity to develop a forward-in, forward-out garage, increasing safety and ingress and egress. This also minimizes the visual impact that a multiple-day garage would have. We also tucked two bedrooms and the family spaces and some utilities underground. just lower the overall roofline, reduce the overall visible mass, This is a significant reduction in the visual bulk of the proposed home. The results? The overall height, the maximum height is just 16 feet. 17 feet 6 inches above gray. The southeast corner remains open. Northeast corner, it remains open. The garage entry is reduced to a single door. And the eastern slope? is undeveloped. This leaves over 70, over nearly 70% of the nearly one acre property untouched. The hedge along one Consul Gile and one Rose Bowl will remain. two Monterey trees. will remain. The shape of the design is highly articulated, both horizontally and vertically. This is to create shade and shadow. This helps minimize its mass and its visual brightness. The materials are quartz in steel and concrete. These will both weather and blend into the landscape. The roof is covered with a bed of succulent. |
| 01:12:40.07 | Scott Couture | Now I wanna touch upon a few of the appellant's claims. First, the proposal is in full compliance with Sausalito Municipal Code and the Wolf Act State Settlement Agreement. As Riley stated, we're less than 60% in the allowable floor area, less than 50% of the allowable building coverage, 55% in the allowable height, This meets all setback requirements. There are no variances required of any sort. This proposal also includes numerous improvements to the Contour-Gal access easement Here is the current roadway. It serves four properties, one Council Gowell, lot four, lot five, and 51 Wolfpack Bridge Road. Most of this roadway is on the lot five property. It is currently very narrow, as narrow as seven feet. And it also includes two tight curves with limited visibility. Now here is proposed roadway improvement. The dark green areas are where the road will be widened, up to 16 feet. the hot screen area, will be opened up to increase visibility at the corner. The garage entry is recessed back 10 feet, allows for plenty of visibility. Thank you. The road will be newly paved. We worked very extensively with the Southern Marine Fire on the layout of this driveway to provide far better emergency access for all four properties. This roadway, these roadway improvements are a huge asset to this neighborhood. Now let's take a look at the view of the proposed home from 51 Wolfback Ridge Road. As you can see, The view from 51 Wolfpack Ridge Road is vast to panoramic. Every room. Every level. The proposed home on Lot 5 is over 225 feet away at its closest point. Most of it is below grade and below the lot for a bank. It sits here. The highest part of the house is only eight feet above the locked door back. The view impacts the 51 are very insignificant. Now I want to talk about the proposal's relationship to one canto gao. Outlined in right is the master suite. This is the portion adjacent to one concert gal. This is a one story and is only 13 feet 6 inches above grave. It is screened for one council gal by an existing hedge, which will be five to six feet tall, eight to 10 feet wide. Now the master sweep |
| 01:15:14.35 | Scott Couture | Now the master suite only borders the one council gal property with 35 feet. This is highlighted here in red. Almost all of this is along the one-cantile gal garage. Now the master suite has a setback of 20 feet from the property line. It is a full 53 feet away from the one Tantogal garage. With the ample space between the two halls, plus the hedge, there will be no crowding, There'll be no lumen. There are no privacy impacts to OneContoGo. These site-sectional studies clearly show no impact. You can see the rest of these on the agenda link in item 10E, privacy section. Likewise, there will be no shadowing impact to one canto God. Any time of day? any day of the year. The LCA Architects shadow studies clearly show this. These can be seen on the agenda links under item 10K, shadow study. Now it was understood from the beginning that this home would be seen from GGNRA. We worked for the National Park Service from the very beginning in 2017. We have reviewed every aspect, they have reviewed every aspect of the proposal. They've influenced many portions of the design. The city has received four separate written statements from the national park service supporting or collaborative efforts. Park Service. the people whose mission it is to protect the integrity of the park have no objections to this proposal. Now let's look what we are proposing. Full zone in compliance. 50% of the proposed building floor area will be below gray. Nearly all the work will be confined to the existing previously graded gravel pad. 70% of the nearly one-acre lot will be left untouched No tree removal. This is rare for a new home on a vacant lot. existing screening hedges or to remain Significant roadway improvements and fire truck access to contact ground will be made. We have an increase in planting and natural vegetation on the property. improvements to the hillside drainage and stability, The architectural design is consistent of highly articulated masks to break down the scale to reduce the visibility. The home is finished in naturally toned, visually recessive, fire-resistant materials. It is my belief. But this proposed hall and his wonderful family of Oigan and Punzsag will be a great attribute and a huge asset for the Wolfpack Ridge neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Inveilable for any questions. |
| 01:17:56.72 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. Was your client going to make any comments or Riley were you going to? |
| 01:18:04.13 | Scott Couture | Can we hold the clock and see if he made connection? |
| 01:18:05.56 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 01:18:07.25 | Riley Hurd | the comment. But I think that's a good thing. Boomsag, if you're here, start the video and chime in. |
| 01:18:10.69 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 01:18:10.76 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:18:10.77 | Scott Couture | here. |
| 01:18:15.58 | Riley Hurd | I think it's a good thing. Let's take a look here. So we can just, I'll just say a few comments. You can start the clock and We'll close this section out. And if Poonsegg joins, he can speak during the rebuttal time. I just wanted to let you know that Poonsegg is a civic leader back in Mongolia, although he primarily resides in Sausalito and has been dreaming, actually, for many years of living on Wolfpack Ridge and was really excited to purchase this lot. The problem is there's been a significant COVID resurgence in Mongolia. So he was brought back to the country to help and internet connectivity is not a strong point in the region that he represents. So if he doesn't make it on, I can read some of his comments during our five minute rebuttal time. |
| 01:18:30.38 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:19:14.56 | Riley Hurd | kind of the crux of which are He says, hey. I hired a guy, Scott Couture. I said, follow the rules. I talked to my neighbors. I don't understand why this is happening to me. But we'll see if he comes on. And thank you for your time. |
| 01:19:33.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, at this point, The applicant, sorry, the appellants have five minutes. Sorry, pardon me. Do any council members have any questions on the applicant's presentation? |
| 01:19:42.59 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 01:19:42.62 | Mary Wagner | All right. |
| 01:19:42.90 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 01:19:50.47 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not seeing any hands raised. Okay, very well. Then we'll roll into the... five minute rebuttal for the appellant. |
| 01:19:57.32 | Len Rifkin | Madam Mayor, we had some time left on our, like about a minute left. Do we get that for rebuttal or are we at five minutes? |
| 01:20:03.75 | Jill Hoffman | No, I think you get that from Rebellion. Five minutes and 53 seconds, I think. |
| 01:20:09.03 | Elizabeth Brekus | I think that you were going to do this after public comment. You want to do this now? |
| 01:20:15.30 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:20:15.85 | Elizabeth Brekus | I'm not sure. |
| 01:20:16.04 | Mary Wagner | Hold on a second. |
| 01:20:17.93 | Len Rifkin | I think we should do it after. |
| 01:20:18.84 | Mary Wagner | None. Madam Mayor, if I may. Yes, so typically you would take public comment now and then allow the appellant and the applicant their rebuttal time. And it is not our standard process to allow for time to be saved, but that's at your discretion. |
| 01:20:27.85 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:20:27.87 | Jill Hoffman | And it is not. |
| 01:20:34.03 | Jill Hoffman | Alright then, I just granted it. Congratulations. Okay, so let's roll into the public comments. on on these two presentations. So I'll let the clerk call on whoever has a raised hand since my screen doesn't look like her screen. |
| 01:20:56.60 | Heidi Scoble | Madam Mayor, it does not appear as though there are any raised hands at this time. Okay. Just got one hand that's raised. And we have Jeffrey Peet. Jeffrey, I have asked to unmute yourself and asked to share your video. |
| 01:21:13.80 | Jeffrey Keith | Thank you very much. Could we go to share screen, please? |
| 01:21:21.43 | Jill Hoffman | If you're able to do that, Madam Clark. I am. Oh, no, ma'am. |
| 01:21:23.56 | Jeffrey Keith | I am. It says the host has disabled my shares. Thank you. |
| 01:21:27.84 | Jill Hoffman | Um, asking |
| 01:21:28.50 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:21:28.52 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:21:28.60 | Heidi Scoble | Madam Mayor, I have co-hosted Mr. Keith, so he has the ability. Go ahead, Mr. Keith. |
| 01:21:28.70 | Jill Hoffman | Madam Chair. |
| 01:21:38.78 | Heidi Scoble | Mayor would you like us to stop the clock? Oh, we're going. |
| 01:21:40.99 | Jeffrey Keith | So... Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor Hoffman and Councilmembers. My name is Jeffrey Keith and I'm a professor of color theory and a contemporary artist who works in Marin County. |
| 01:21:46.84 | Heidi Scoble | My name is |
| 01:21:52.83 | Jeffrey Keith | I am vehemently opposed to the proposed development for 99 Wolf Backridge Road, Lot 5, because it does not comply with the settlement agreement EIR. The architect presents this project as a cozy little cottage when it is anything but. Because of my extensive background, I know how visual images are used to manipulate people into believing things, that are not true. This picture is taken directly from the architect's website. The building is described |
| 01:22:15.38 | Jill Hoffman | Building is described. As a modern |
| 01:22:16.61 | Jeffrey Keith | Thank you. as a modern, yes, |
| 01:22:18.04 | Jill Hoffman | Hold on, Mr. Keith, hold on. Stop the clock, please. Mr. Keith, I'm not seeing your shared screen. |
| 01:22:23.55 | Jeffrey Keith | OK. |
| 01:22:29.10 | Jeffrey Keith | Are you seeing my shared screen now? |
| 01:22:31.07 | Jill Hoffman | No. |
| 01:22:32.76 | Jeffrey Keith | Okay. |
| 01:22:33.57 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:22:34.26 | Jeffrey Keith | I'm sorry, I apologize. Let me... |
| 01:22:50.11 | Jeffrey Keith | I apologize for this, Mirha. |
| 01:22:54.01 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, there we go. Okay, I'm seeing the start of the group. |
| 01:22:58.44 | Jeffrey Keith | Right. All right. |
| 01:23:01.26 | Jill Hoffman | Now I can see it. |
| 01:23:02.86 | Jeffrey Keith | Okay, thank you. I'll start over. |
| 01:23:05.26 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:23:06.04 | Jeffrey Keith | Good afternoon Mayor Hoffman and council members. We're loading. My name is Jeffrey Keith and I'm a professor of color theory |
| 01:23:10.54 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:23:10.64 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:23:10.66 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:23:10.78 | Brad Evanson | Yeah. |
| 01:23:13.92 | Jeffrey Keith | Okay, we didn't start at the beginning, but I'll push on. Color theory and contemporary artist who works in Marin County. I am vehemently opposed to proposed development for 99 Wolfpack Ridge Lot 5 because it does not comply with the Settlement Agreement EIR. The architect presents this project as a cozy little cottage when it is anything but. Because of my extensive background, I know how visual images are used to manipulate people into believing things that are not true. This picture is taken directly from the architect's website. The building is described as a modern Sausalito yurt. It is a sales job. The idea that this new building is no big deal because there are already large houses on the ridge is a fallacy. Foreshortening creates the illusion that the houses in front are massive compared to the architect's little house when the exact opposite is true. One Rose Bowl is 2,200 square feet, and one Tanto Gao is around 4,300 square feet. The proposed building would total well over 6,500 square feet when the EIR recommends a 2,000 to 4,000 square foot building. On the left is the architectural drawing from the applicant. On the right is the accurate rendition of the same elevation, which illustrates approximately 110 feet of glass wall. This is how the hikers will see the building up on the ridge from the GGNRA. This is a romanticized aerial view that makes this massive building look like a friendly toy. The unnaturally lush green grass, roof and plantings imagine that the house is hidden in the trees. No one is going to actually see the building this way unless they fly in by helicopter. Seen from above, the building looks reasonable, pleasantly proportionate to its surroundings. Seen in elevation, as an actual person would, based on the story poles, the true size and mass of the building is apparent. The average home in the Wolfbeck Ridge neighborhood is a little over 2,300 square feet. The other residences in Wolfbeck Estates built after the EIR was put in place comply. What is so special about this project that it gets a pass? The EIR has been enforced in the past. To find that it is no longer enforceable sets a dangerous precedent. There's really just one glaring issue. the Massey scale of this proposed construction. For over five years, the architect has insisted |
| 01:25:23.92 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:25:23.94 | Jill Hoffman | Your three minutes has elapsed. |
| 01:25:25.73 | Jeffrey Keith | Thank you. |
| 01:25:26.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Mr. Key. I see one more raised hand. |
| 01:25:33.14 | Heidi Scoble | Our next speaker is Linda Fairchild. Linda, you've been asked to be unmuted and asked to share your screen if you'd like. You will need to press your unmute button. |
| 01:25:46.13 | Jill Hoffman | There you go. |
| 01:25:46.64 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:25:46.67 | Jill Hoffman | Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Yes. May I please have a share screen? Yes. |
| 01:25:56.78 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:25:57.96 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:25:58.09 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:25:58.48 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:25:58.57 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:26:02.75 | Mary Wagner | And then we'll stick to the top. Thank you. percent. |
| 01:26:09.86 | Linda Fairchild | Thank you. |
| 01:26:09.87 | Laura's iPad (reading Newton Cox letter) | One second. |
| 01:26:11.78 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:26:12.10 | Linda Fairchild | Thank you. |
| 01:26:12.12 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:26:12.15 | Linda Fairchild | Thank you. Thanks. |
| 01:26:12.59 | Heidi Scoble | you |
| 01:26:12.66 | Linda Fairchild | Thank you. |
| 01:26:16.05 | Linda Fairchild | Good afternoon. I'm Linda Fairchild and I'm speaking in opposition to the proposed development. I would like to comment before I start that the staff report is what I call a classic example of seemingly factually correct. yet dead raw. This project will have a devastating impact on the local environment that borders the GGNRA. Conifers play the most important role in protecting the ridges of California. The writers of the EIR for Wolfbeck Ridge understood this. It protects all of the biggest concerns to Sausalito. There's a huge importance to reduce scale. In direct opposition to the arborist report from the applicant, There is new information from Arbor Logic. It's a consulting arbore specializing in the health and management of trees posted buildings. They see this project is putting the famous heritage tree at extreme risk. It is my professional opinion that the proposed development would likely kill this Monterey cypress tree within 18 months. and or cause its collapse during an average high wind event. We all know in October 2017, a wildfire escalated out of control and Wolfbeck Ridge was evacuated. Practically speaking, lot five is currently the fire turnaround. The Southern Marin Fire District has not required an additional turnaround to be installed. Where are the fire trucks going to turn around? We need an answer. Sausalito is not a stranger to environmental catastrophe. we experienced this horrific mudslide as recently as 2019. This happens over and over again. In 1982, the Sausalito mudslide on the same fall line and slip zone from lot five closed the 101 in the Golden Gate Bridge. I lived through it. |
| 01:27:53.84 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 01:27:55.76 | Linda Fairchild | I do not think that this is the right time to do massive excavation on lot five that can destabilize this mountain and cause runoff of mud and water to the 101. It will happen again. We Californians know all too well the deadly cycle of drought, fire, rain, mudslide, I suggest we take a common sense step back. What did the EIR promise us? to mitigate the environmental stressors on the Precious Ridge. That was the big idea and it should still be in place. It was comprehensive and carefully considered and it was inclusive of everybody. There was a time before When Wolfpack Ridge was threatened in 2016, our now Vice Mayor Kellman was instrumental in blocking the proposed Carson home. directly below block five. She said, while I appreciate that the applicants selected this site due to its unique location, Without a doubt, it was those same unique site characteristics that required a commission not approved. And I would like to add also, that this life five. only 14,000 square feet of the 40,000 square feet is building. most of it is a vertical drop down to 101. So the numbers and the ratios that are being used are actually not if you use common sense, should not be applied. Thank you. |
| 01:29:15.38 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. . I see Laura's iPad also with the hand raised. |
| 01:29:23.78 | Heidi Scoble | Yes, and Madam Mayor, I have received a request to read into the record how public comment may be received at this meeting. Sure. If I may, if I could jump in and just read that. Your audio public participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application, and you'll be called upon it when it's your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. And with that, it looks like we have two speakers, we'll start with Laura's iPad and then we'll do Benjamin Graves. Laura, you've been asked to be unmuted and start your video. |
| 01:30:04.27 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:30:10.39 | Laura's iPad (reading Newton Cox letter) | Okay, can you hear me? |
| 01:30:11.15 | Jill Hoffman | Did he? I think it's a big deal. |
| 01:30:13.01 | Laura's iPad (reading Newton Cox letter) | you |
| 01:30:13.60 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:30:13.73 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Peace. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. We're having a... |
| 01:30:19.27 | Heidi Scoble | Reverend. |
| 01:30:21.44 | Jill Hoffman | You might want to. It goes someplace. |
| 01:30:23.15 | Laura's iPad (reading Newton Cox letter) | Right. |
| 01:30:23.37 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:30:23.57 | Laura's iPad (reading Newton Cox letter) | Thank you. |
| 01:30:24.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. On. My phone turned off. |
| 01:30:28.48 | Laura's iPad (reading Newton Cox letter) | Okay. Yeah. That's better. All right, great. Um, |
| 01:30:35.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:30:35.82 | Laura's iPad (reading Newton Cox letter) | I wanted to read a letter from Mr. Newton Coase. He is a neighbor. on the fact that My name is Newton Cox and I live at 34 Wolf Bacteria. When I went through the design review, the Sausalito Planning Department held me to a very have a strict condition of the EIR. |
| 01:30:53.19 | Mary Wagner | I think that's a good idea. |
| 01:30:54.17 | Laura's iPad (reading Newton Cox letter) | The settlement agreement. with Alan Patterson and the CCNRs. and of course, all the current building codes. I am asking the Planning Commission to hold the owners of Block 5 to all the same conditions that I was held to. while I'm not directly affected by this home, I think the rules for building should be equally enforced for all the construction within the estate. It's been said that we don't want a home built on lot five. This is not true. we would welcome a reasonably sized home, the two car garage that conforms to the EIR settlement agreement and the municipal code Many concerns have been expressed over the year or so here. but some had been ignored. massive excavation. this huge garage. No privacy or sound law. But there is a much bigger issue, and that is one of following the rules. There has been a discussion about home sizes with comments that there are large homes on the Thug Ridge However, we're discussing new construction. These documents don't apply to homes built before these documents existed. The Salsa Liedelman's for code states that the proposed project is consistent with the general scale of structures and buildings in the surrounding neighborhood or district. It doesn't say the surrounding two or three buildings where the average home size is 2,300 square feet. Also, why would the planning commission ignore the municipal code and grant this applicant, the largest setback waiver in social legal history. Just I don't want to limit, limits grading in too small volume. a large underground garage and additional first floor below grade that cuts into the bridge and looks out through the bridge requires massive ratings. The settlement agreement says that the EIR shall override and prevail Small volume is designated in there as 2,000 to 4,000 square feet. three to four bedrooms, two to three bathrooms, two car garage. Massive western facing walls, 108 feet long and 23 feet high are 50% glass. A southern wall with 90% glass will be visible from the GGNRA. the SCA trail and many other public lands. beautiful green artist renderings of many, many green plants will not hide these walls. Thank you very much. |
| 01:33:24.05 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:33:31.98 | Jill Hoffman | It looks like we have one more speaker and then council member has her hand raised. Did you have a comment now or question? |
| 01:33:37.62 | Cleveland Knowles | I just had a question for the woman who just spoke, Laura, about whether she was reading a letter from the same person who A submitted comment at the planning commission from 34 wolf back terrace is that the same gentleman. It is the same, gentlemen. Okay, thank you very much. |
| 01:33:57.40 | Laura's iPad (reading Newton Cox letter) | I felt it was important to get that letter read in in case someone had not had a chance to read it. |
| 01:34:01.68 | Cleveland Knowles | Thank you. reading. Okay, I saw it, but thank you very much. I just wanted to make sure it was the same person. Thank you. You're welcome. |
| 01:34:08.06 | Laura's iPad (reading Newton Cox letter) | You're welcome. |
| 01:34:09.85 | Cleveland Knowles | Thank you. |
| 01:34:11.03 | Jill Hoffman | Go ahead. |
| 01:34:11.67 | Cleveland Knowles | Thank you. |
| 01:34:12.02 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:34:14.98 | Benjamin Graves | Madam Mayor, can you hear this audio? |
| 01:34:16.84 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 01:34:18.03 | Benjamin Graves | Thank you. |
| 01:34:18.05 | Jill Hoffman | I can hear it. |
| 01:34:18.54 | Benjamin Graves | Thank you. Thank you to your staff. I'm not sure. My name is Benjamin Graves. I represent the property owners that are most affected by this development The owners of Block 4 whose predecessor was the developer of the subdivision. couple of very short points. FOR A LITTLE BIT. for all the residents that objected to this building, When they moved here, they moved into a residential subdivision and should have expected a home to be built on the side. I was hired by the owners of Lot 4, who share the same interest as 51 Wolfpack because Our property on lot four will, my client's property, look across this project to the city and the Golden Gate Bridge. And I was hired to make sure that this project complied with the settlement agreement the EAR, the subdivision, MAP Act. the Salt Fleet on the Municipal Code, And our findings were that it does. I've watched every sacrifice that the architects have made. in planning and trying to reach a compromise with the neighbors I'm not sure. And our findings were that this was compliant We would... the city council to approve this deny the appeal, Let this process come to its natural conclusion, which should be, the permit. Thank you. |
| 01:35:54.22 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Mr. Graves. Do I see any other, I don't see any other public comment. I do see that Council Member Blaustein, that's her hand raised. Do you have a question or? |
| 01:36:03.10 | Ian Sobieski | I just wanted to confirm that Mr. Graves was representing the resident of one Rose Court, which is just below one kennel. I'm not sure. below the lot, I'm just trying to understand where the location is of the property that he's speaking |
| 01:36:14.56 | Jill Hoffman | I think he's representing the owners of lot four, which is not Rose Court. Mr. Graves, are you still able to? I believe he said he was representing the owners of lot four, which is the undeveloped lot in between 51 Wolfpack Ridge and 99 Wolfpack Ridge. Great, thank you. Is that correct, Mr. Graves? |
| 01:36:33.47 | Benjamin Graves | That is correct. It's lot four. |
| 01:36:35.48 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, and Lot 4 is the lot in between 51, the undeveloped lot in between 51 Wolfpack Ridge and 99 Wolfpack Ridge. Okay, thank you Mr. Graves and thank you Councilmember Blaustein for that clarification. Um, Okay, I don't see any further hands up for public comment. Can you confirm that, please, Madam Clerk? |
| 01:36:55.00 | Heidi Scoble | Madam Mayor, that's correct. We do not have any hands raised at this time. |
| 01:36:58.95 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, in that case, appellant, you have your five minutes and 52 seconds or something like that. Okay. I think it was 52. Anyway, congratulations and you may proceed. |
| 01:37:10.16 | Len Rifkin | So if we could set, thank you, Madam Mayor, if we could set the clock appropriately, that'd be great. |
| 01:37:14.19 | Jill Hoffman | Madam Clerk or Serge, could you set the clock Bye, Manson. |
| 01:37:18.21 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Madam Mayor, unfortunately, we are not able to reset the clock to that type of number. However, we do have our iPhone with 53 seconds on it. Once the 53 seconds runs out, then we'll start start the five minute clock. Okay. |
| 01:37:33.02 | Jill Hoffman | Mr. Riffin. |
| 01:37:34.24 | Len Rifkin | Of course, I can hold my breath for 53 seconds. So thanks, Heidi. Appreciate that. Okay. All right. I'm not sure. First thing that I want to say is at least on behalf of Mr. McMillan, again, we have no objection to a code-compliant home being built on lot five, known as 99 Wolfback Ridge. In fact, we welcome... a nice home built there. We just wanted to be compliant with the things that you heard Laura say, compliant with the municipal code, compliant with the settlement agreement, compliant with the EIR. You heard my colleague, Mr. Hurd say, let's talk about some facts here, that this project complies with every aspect of the municipal code and the general plan and all the other requirements. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Hurd. It doesn't comply with the setback. The code requires 34 foot setback. And you heard Mr. Couture show you there's only 20 feet. So yes, we're having a big raging dispute about how you determine this setback. The code quite clearly says 34 feet. Ms. Brekus gave a very detailed explanation of why the offsets that staff is proposing are not correct. And that setback is critical for two reasons. It gives the space that Mr. McMillan needs for his house, and it provides the view corridor that the MacArthur's are entitled to through their deck that you saw the pictures that Mr. Rex showed you. Mr. Hurd further told you, well, only 3,600 square feet of house is above grade on this house. Yeah, there's massive grading, but you saw multiple slides that show huge glazing of glass facing west and glazing facing south. And that's two stories of glass that's going to be seen from the SCA trail. Further, there's two stories of building, right on one canto gal with the garage door and the master suite above. This is not a single story home buried in the ground. It's the biggest home in the neighborhood at 6,590 square feet. We can solve all problems with this project by putting this house on a diet and reducing its size. You heard Mr. McMillan tell you, and he read you, Mayor Belzer's letter that was sent to the public after the settlement agreement was entered into between the city and the developer. Okay. And the reason why the city council settled that case back in 89 or 90, however long ago it was, was unfortunately this was planning by litigation. And that's what happens when you do planning by litigation. It wasn't the normal course of action. And Mayor Belzer promised the public that there was going to be modest-sized homes. And, in fact, you heard Newton Cope tell you he followed the rules. He stuck his house to only 4,000 square feet. Same as I could believe 61 Wolfpack Ridge also limited their home to 4,000 square feet. And that's what we ask for here. That's what we want to see. Um, Lastly, There's a lot of talk about outreach Well, unfortunately, there has not been the really warm and fuzzy kind of outreach that I think the Planning Commission and the City Council would like to see where the neighbors all get together with the architect and the applicant. And there's a lot of discussion about what would work and not work. basically been Mr. Couture, who's a quite obviously talented architect who create very beautiful plants. Unfortunately, The principle of design review is, You've got to have a project that fits with the site. And this is a very beautiful home. It's just too big for the site. |
| 01:41:23.48 | Len Rifkin | Lastly, as I made a big deal about, and it's a huge deal for Mr. McMillan, is the location of that garage. I urge the council to consider another location for that garage. It's downright dangerous. You saw the headlights that are going to be shining right into his bedroom. It's very easy to move a one-story, two-car modest garage at another location in this project. I'm going to stop shortly because I want to give Mr. Rex enough time so that he can speak. But the claim that there is no impact of the SCA or the GGNA is false. As I mentioned, there's two stories of glass that are going to face that way. I'd like to stop at points that Mr. Rex can finish. Thank you. |
| 01:42:07.77 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. |
| 01:42:07.98 | Len Rifkin | Thank you. |
| 01:42:08.00 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:42:08.19 | Len Rifkin | Thank you. |
| 01:42:08.64 | Jill Hoffman | Stop the clock and then there you go. Okay, then Mr. Rex, when you start, we'll start. |
| 01:42:12.54 | Michael Rex | Thank you. The applicant just told you that we, I'm representing the MacArthur's, by the way, in this rebuttal. And the applicant told us, told you that we never wanted a house. That's not true. Why would MacArthur's enter with a deed restriction showing where the house should go if he didn't expect a house? We told you what we want. We want the house to be smaller, the setback honored by reducing that projection and getting rid of those oak trees that are going to grow up and block the view of the Golden Gate Bridge from MacArthur's home. The applicant told you they had multiple revisions. I can tell you that they were token. Our objections have been consistent for the last two years and have not been addressed meaningfully. We need your help to do that. I show you, can you see this elevation? How can anyone say this house that faces west two stories, over half its length, that roof line is 80 feet long, unbroken. That's not articulated. The overhang on the north and south are 7 feet long. The ceiling heights are 13 feet high. 54% of this wall facing the wilderness is glass. 91% faces the city of San Francisco to the south is all glass. It's going to be a lantern lining up. We'll be horrified if this project gets built. It'll be a lantern at night and a mirror during the day. |
| 01:43:01.85 | Heidi Scoble | Yes. |
| 01:43:44.61 | Michael Rex | Um, uh, Upholding this appeal does not cause a major revision. You simply continue- |
| 01:43:51.12 | Heidi Scoble | Your five minute and 53 seconds time allotment has expired. |
| 01:43:55.58 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:43:56.42 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:43:56.44 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Mr. Rex. And so then we'll move on to the rebuttal for the applicant. And Mr. Hurd, will you have multiple speakers for your five minutes or? |
| 01:44:08.10 | Riley Hurd | Let's see, if Hoonsack hasn't showed up, it'll just be me. See anything? Thank you. |
| 01:44:16.17 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:44:16.49 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:44:17.40 | Melissa Blaustein | All right. |
| 01:44:17.72 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. |
| 01:44:18.55 | Melissa Blaustein | Can I take it? Quick question, may I? |
| 01:44:18.72 | Riley Hurd | Okay. |
| 01:44:21.03 | Melissa Blaustein | Sure. I don't know what the right order is, but there was some mention of the SCA trail. |
| 01:44:21.74 | Riley Hurd | you |
| 01:44:26.26 | Melissa Blaustein | And I don't know how to limit the length of the response, The National Park Service, of course, submitted this letter where they where they make a comment on their conclusion about the impact on when we get an actual recreation area. And I'm just wondering about the response to that. Thank you. |
| 01:44:47.50 | Len Rifkin | I can respond briefly to that council member. |
| 01:44:47.56 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:44:50.68 | Len Rifkin | Thank you. The GGNRA responded in general that, you know, obviously I'm disappointed that they, in general, are supporting the project, but I think that if you go on the SCA trail, right near the house. It's a fact that you can see all the story polls. Okay, so the point that the appellants are making is that the house is very visible from the SCA. I think that's basically the takeaway that we're gonna take. And from the west and the south, there were all the glazing that we were just talking about. And that's where the SCA trail views the house, from this west and, thank you. |
| 01:45:29.86 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, and then, so then Mr. Hurd, if you have a response to that, go ahead and respond. We won't count that against your time. |
| 01:45:36.86 | Riley Hurd | Yeah, so like I said, I'm a frequent user of the SCA trail, and it's true. There's a portion of the SCA trail that you can see this house, the house on Rose Bowl, 51 Wolfback, Macmillan's place. And I talked about that with the parts service, and what they told me was that they understand that the GGNRA, is development adjacent. And it is actually not negative to them that you can see things on the outskirts of the park they didn't want the home to be a way up in the sky or anything like that, which is why we worked with them and got their approval. So I would say GGNRA knows best when it comes to their park. |
| 01:46:21.43 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 01:46:21.60 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. |
| 01:46:23.05 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. All right, then. If you have no further comment on that question from Council Member Sobieski, we'll start with your Rebuttal in the five minutes. |
| 01:46:34.02 | Riley Hurd | Thanks. I'll just go over a few points. We got the folks who without permits built a 5,587 square foot house with 792 square feet of garage. above ground telling us to limit to 4,000. I have a problem with that. That's do as I say, not as I do. Um, Second. This EIR thing is getting beaten to death and it got traction. It kind of reminds me of the front property line thing. and There is no house size limit in the EIR. There are mitigation measures, none of which are house sizes, and all of them are complied with. I don't know how that gets so many legs, maybe it's just you repeat it enough and it does, but it's not there, and I always just say, ask your own attorney that one, not us, not the other side. I'm not sure. The setbacks thing. You know, I might understand it if there was an impact But when you go to one canto gal or go to 51, there is no impact. from a 20 foot setback. You can't even see the place. So again, red herring to try and cut the house. I actually really liked the comments of Jeffrey Keith and his images. But what I think it showed was the impact of good design So when you look at Scott's house versus the pre-existing ones, which are obtrusive objectively, you can see how good design, reduces the impact of a similarly or larger sized home. And the story polls speak for themselves in regards to the massing. I thought that was also compelling from our point of view. In regards to this, tying this to the landslide in town, I think just really streams credulity and is not a fair approach to that very serious event. I'm not sure. Also, I'd like to talk about Lot 10, which the Carsons donated on the other side of the road. That was a more sensitive area, and I was involved in that project. I was pleased with that outcome. This is different. This is a pre-graded pad where we knew development would occur. I think zoning the other side of Wolfpack for homes was a mistake, but like Len said, when you get zoning by litigation, you don't always have the best outcome, but we got a chance to Solveig here. Um, The garage. You know, it's two homes only on this shared driveway. We even offered Mr. McMillan to pay for it at our expense an opaque gate. Um, That was declining. I don't know why. There is no safety issue with having two garages on one street. If you go to Old Town, you can see hundreds of garages on one street. So. I think it's a good thing. I did have the comments from Hunsag here, which I kind of already went over with you. He's excited about this. He has no idea why this has happened to him. We did do outreach. We've made so many changes in response to meeting after meeting with Rex. And so I'm going to agree to disagree on that one. but he's really excited to bring what I think is a very elegant house to this property and also to have that outcome with lots 7, 8, and 9. And the thing that Kunzak really highlighted in his comments was that his request of his team was to follow the rules and follow the law. no variances, no deviations, and that's That's what happened. We would really respectfully request that you bring this to a close. approve the project, deny the appeal. Sadly, I don't think this will be the end. Thank you. probably see more of the promised lawsuits and all the things we've been been dealing with but we got to move this this forward and thank you again very much for having the special meeting time for this |
| 01:50:54.23 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:50:55.06 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. |
| 01:50:55.07 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Go ahead, Scott. Did you want to do you have further comments or? |
| 01:51:00.29 | Riley Hurd | You're on mute, Scott. |
| 01:51:05.69 | Jill Hoffman | Mr. Kutcher, yeah, there you go. |
| 01:51:07.44 | Scott Couture | Yeah, actually, I just wanted to say thank you also for having a special meeting here. And I do kind of agree with what Riley said. I mean, we did a massive amount of outreach and... really put forward kind of a positive effort that our client, Mr. Punsog, had instructed us to do and do it with an immense amount of integrity to show who this man is and who his family is. So we would like to see this appeal denied. We've done an immense amount of work on this house. We've made an immense amount of changes to it to accommodate all neighbors on all sides. And we appreciate your time on this. Thank you. |
| 01:51:50.90 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Okay, at this time I'm gonna close comments and comments from the applicants and the appellants and I'm going to move on to our additional our council discussion and direction. I will note the time. It's 4.58. We do have or next scheduled City Council effort is at 530 so we have about 32 minutes. When we get close, when we get to about 520, then I'll have a pause and we'll decide how we're going to proceed if we don't already have consensus on how we want to move forward. So Thank you. |
| 01:52:27.03 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 01:52:27.06 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not. not America. |
| 01:52:27.97 | Mary Wagner | I apologize for the interruption. |
| 01:52:28.23 | Jill Hoffman | I'm going to go ahead and |
| 01:52:30.59 | Mary Wagner | point of clarification, just to clarify, you closed public comment completely, correct? |
| 01:52:34.87 | Jill Hoffman | I did. I closed for a comment after. Thank you. |
| 01:52:35.62 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:52:37.86 | Jill Hoffman | after before the rebuttals. Okay. Alright, so if anybody wants to start, they can start. Otherwise, I'll jump into my comments. I don't see a hand raise, so I'm just going to jump into mine. I will note and thank the staff and for their tremendous amount of effort for this project. and also all of the parties, the applicants, the appellant, All of the people that we receive public comment from I will note that we have had nine meetings with regard to this project alone. Um, Sorry, two on the city council to talk about the front lot line to the planning commission to talk about the front lot line back in 2017. for public public planning commission meetings, Um, recently and we had two I believe public planning commission meetings prior So we're up to nine. This is our ninth meeting. I also have to staff how many times they've met with informal meetings with any of the parties, with the appellant, the applicant, and I was informed that they had 20 or more informal meetings. So. there has been tremendous amount of scrutiny with regard to this project, I think, because we are all committed and understand the sensitivity of the site. We are all committed to environmental impacts and what happens with properties adjacent to the National Park Service. So with that, I will say though, that I, I will say that I visited the site with both the appellant and the applicant. I also viewed the site from the western side. of Wolfpack Ridge from the road and the trails. And I will say from my own observations, the visual impact of a site and from the road with regard to this project are less and far less than comparable impacts from other structures on the ridge. There is no doubt that there is housing up on the ridge when you are hiking the trails. Um, the the design and the colors used by this, the use of the vegetation, all all lead to the less of the lessening of the visual impact from other other views from the western side. And also, I will note that the lower level, as noted in Laura Joss's letter, the National Park Service General Superintendent, Um, that the lower level was not visible from the road or from most of the trails. And so I agree with her comments in her letter. I will also note that the her letter listed three three reasons why they were supporting this project. The first, was that that was very different from the lot 10 project. That was the previous lot. that was on the other side of the road and facing an actually adjacent to the national park. um, and that the topography And the likely species that were living on the lot, the current lot was far less than lot 10 because of development that had been done in the past, the grading for development that had done in the past. that the NPS would rely closely on negotiated and litigated CCNRs and CEQA requirements in the city's review process to protect the park values and the lots developed. And they were satisfied with those efforts. And the third was that the project proponents consulted with park staff on many aspects of the proposed residents, and they were satisfied with the accommodations given to the park service. I also note that the Sierra Club has withdrawn their opposition to this project. So I am leaning toward a vote that the project meets the allowable standards and restrictions and is in many ways below the maximum standards. I would deny the appeal and I'm leaning toward denying the appeal and approving the project as approved by the planning commission. and finding that the project is categorically exempt from the application of CEQA. But of course, I'm always I'm interested in what my fellow council members, their thoughts and thought process. And so who would like to go next? Councilman Cleveland Knowles' hand is up, so we'll move on to her. |
| 01:57:03.66 | Cleveland Knowles | Great, thank you, Mayor Hoffman, and thank you for starting us off with those comments. agree with everything that you already said. I did wanna just add my thanks for all of the members of the public the applicant, the appellant, and I think most especially to our planning commissioners for many grueling hearings on this project. They did an excellent job asking very tough questions and getting to a point where at least the majority of them could approve the project. And I would like to associate myself with a lot of the comments that were made by the majority of the planning commission. at their last meeting on April 21st. know i think uh commissioner pierce said it pretty well that This is a delicate balance here, and the mayor also mentioned this. We've got a very sensitive habitat, but we also have settlement agreement that guarantees buildable lots, including on lot five. And this is very definitely not lot seven, eight, nine, or 10. which were explicitly set forth in the settlement agreement for acquisition by the GGNRA. And I also want to thank Laura Joss and her staff for their review and their involvement in this project and for their letter of support. It was great to hear from them that they were in support of the bird safe glass, the preservation of the existing trees, reducing the building height and mass below uh legally permitted aspects i am also a frequent user of the golden gate national recreation area including the sca trail this is a very special place for many people around the Bay Area But as the mayor mentioned, there are homes it's a buildable subdivision and there are already homes there. So, I have found that the addition of this particular home with It's mass, it's articulation. the use of many small volumes in different areas reduces the impact as much as possible. To add to some of the comments from the mayor, I think the view impacts, I agree with the findings made in the staff report. I've spent many years on the planning commission. interpreting our general plan, Thank you. And the fact that while it strives to preserve views, a panoramic, a full panoramic, A view is not guaranteed. And here, there is definitely some impact to the views from 51 Wolfback Ridge. but I do not find that those meet a level of significance All right. that would preclude this project from moving forward. In addition, I think I've already spoken about the ridgeline. I think the use of the subterranean space for this project and the use of the various materials and the non-reflective glass are going to minimize the impact to the ridge as demonstrated in our findings. There's been a lot of attention to the size limits articulated in the final environmental impact report in the project description. I've read that document and I agree with staff and with the planning commission that the size of This building is generally consistent with those in the surrounding area. and that the FEIR does not set a specific size limit That combined with the fact that the above ground size is relatively is smaller and consistent is also helpful in making that finding. I was very pleased to see a letter also from our division chief and fire marshal, Hillard, in the packet. that did not find a turnaround necessary at this point, but that would include that as a condition of approval of adjacent lots when they are developed. I'm not sure. At the side yard rejection, I think was probably the most complicated and difficult part of this for me. It's very, you know, it is a very uniquely a sized parcel, but I was very impressed by both the presentation by Couture Architects Thank you. and the staff presentation and in the staff report for the April 21st Planning Commission. meeting. I think it is consistent with the zoning code. And then as has been mentioned, Again, it is close to one canto val, but far enough away that I do not perceive any direct impacts. to that property. I think I know our time is short, so I will stop there, I think that concludes my main comments that would like to say that I can make the design review findings, I agree with the majority of the planning Commission. that the project is consistent with the architectural guidelines and the Wolfsback Ridge settlement agreement, and the development restrictions. And as the mayor noted, can also, I'm comfortable with the categorical exemption So I'll stop there. and obviously also interested to hear what other Council members. before making a final decision. |
| 02:03:01.71 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Councilmember Blalstein or Councilmember Sobieski, who would like to do that? |
| 02:03:05.38 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:03:06.17 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:03:06.19 | Ian Sobieski | I'm happy to go ahead and I really would I would echo the comments made by the Mayor and Councilmember Cleveland Knowles in thanking the appellates and the applicants for the property and also all of the community members and the extensive feedback that was provided to the Planning Commission and the Council absolutely a lot of gratitude is due to the planning commission and the several hours that were spent in meetings on this issue. It was very important that the mayor noted the number of meetings that have been held, seven public meetings and over 20 meetings with staff on this topic. It's something that's not been taken lightly because, of course, the GGNRA is a very special place for our community that we all appreciate and we all enjoy. And we're so lucky to have it be a part of. our community and so this decision was one that needed to be very seriously considered and and I of course walked the property and I'm familiar with the trail and ridgeline and there is existing development and it's buildable. There are buildable lots on the space and for me. having walked the property and looked at the impact and understood and reviewed the findings and especially for me seeing the letter from GGNRA and being aware of that the GGNRA themselves are supportive of this development and this project was something that was really a big part of my decision making process in whether or not the development |
| 02:04:24.32 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. |
| 02:04:31.44 | Ian Sobieski | should go forward. And additionally, being equally concerned with fire safety as I know my fellow council members are seeing the letter from Chief Hilliard indicating that a fire truck turnaround would not be required was another thing that was really critical for me. I don't wanna rehash too much what's already been said, except to say, that I have considered and really appreciate all of the different components of the application. And I think that this meets the allowable standards and restrictions at this point. So I would be leaning towards as well, making the design review findings as suggested and supporting the majority decision of the planning commission and denying the appeal. But I would be interested to see what council members Sobieski has to say. And go from there. |
| 02:05:21.79 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Council Member Sobieski. |
| 02:05:23.87 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. I took seriously this role. I visited the site, read all the associated material. uh, go through every point because you or my colleagues made points that I by and large, I'll agree with. So I'm... Sorry that the neighbors couldn't arrive at a neighborly decision. saved everyone a lot more time, but in In my role in assessing how I come out on the findings, I agree with the majority of the planning commission support the proposed resolution in the staff report to move forward. |
| 02:06:03.71 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Then do I have a motion to approve the resolution? |
| 02:06:11.30 | Cleveland Knowles | I will make a motion. Did we have a staff? Sorry, I'm just struggling with my agenda so that we make all the right findings. Brad, did you have a slide that presents us with the motions that we are making? And I think I've got it in front of me actually. I would make a motion, a resolution of the city council, the city of Sassolito denying an appeal of the decision of the planning commission for approval of design review permit 2018-00276. to remodel and construct a 5,120 square foot single family residence. plus a 1,465-square-foot subterranean garage, along with a spa model feature, landscaping and other associated site improvements at 99%. Wolfpack Ridge Road subject to modification and condition. We'll just ask the city attorney if that encompasses all of our approvals tonight. |
| 02:07:11.45 | Mary Wagner | Yes, thank you, Council Member. |
| 02:07:13.03 | Jill Hoffman | with the most |
| 02:07:13.72 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:07:14.36 | Jill Hoffman | Do we need to have also a motion that it's exempt from CEQA, categorically exempt? That's included in the resolution. Very good. Thank you. Okay. So there's a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? |
| 02:07:28.73 | Jill Hoffman | Council Member Sobieski or Council Member Blasen. |
| 02:07:29.86 | Melissa Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 02:07:32.64 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. Madam clerk, could you please call the roll? |
| 02:07:35.73 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. . |
| 02:07:38.55 | Melissa Blaustein | Yes. |
| 02:07:39.56 | Heidi Scoble | Councilmember Blaustein. Thank you. |
| 02:07:41.25 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 02:07:41.53 | Heidi Scoble | Thank you. Councilmember Cleveland Knowles. Yes. Mayor Hoffman. |
| 02:07:46.24 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. I will note that the motion passes 4-0, and thank you to everybody involved in this process for your very hard work. Okay, and I will then adjourn. this meeting and note that we will be back in 15 minutes to start our for the Housing Element Advisory Committee. Thank you to everybody. |
Linda Fairchild — Against: Opposed the project due to potential environmental impacts, risk to a heritage Monterey Cypress tree, lack of a fire truck turnaround, and concerns about excavation destabilizing the hillside and causing mudslides. ▶ 📄
Newton Cox (read by Laura's iPad) — Against: Requested consistent enforcement of rules, noting his own home was held to the EIR's size limits. Argued the project violates municipal code on scale, the setback waiver is unprecedented, and the large glass walls will be visible from public lands. ▶ 📄
Benjamin Graves — In Favor: Representing the owners of adjacent Lot 4, stated the project complies with all applicable agreements and codes. Urged the council to deny the appeal and allow the permitting process to conclude. ▶ 📄