| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.10 | Lily Whelan | LEAVE. |
| 00:00:01.03 | Eva Hugeland | Okay. |
| 00:00:02.12 | Lily Whelan | Yeah, please. |
| 00:00:03.04 | Eva Hugeland | Thank you. |
| 00:00:09.41 | Eva Hugeland | I am admitting all right now, and they're all coming in slowly. |
| 00:00:17.24 | Unknown | . |
| 00:00:18.75 | Unknown | Everybody seems to be in the room. |
| 00:00:20.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:21.71 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 00:00:24.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:25.02 | Kristina Feller | We could mute everybody at the moment while we get started here in two other meetings. |
| 00:00:34.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:00:34.46 | Eva Hugeland | Yep, hit and check your settings. |
| 00:00:37.80 | Kristina Feller | We're getting... |
| 00:00:37.90 | Eva Hugeland | We're good to go. |
| 00:00:40.34 | Kristina Feller | I could ask the commissioners to also unmute themselves and community development records. Please unmute. Okay. Okay. Great. Good evening and welcome to the special planning commission meeting of Wednesday, February 24th, 2021. Since this is a special meeting, we have a limited agenda that will only consist of two public hearing items. This will, there will be public comment accepted on all items on the agenda. However, since this is a special meeting, we don't have public comment sections for items not on the agenda. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Community Development Director Whalen, will you please call the roll. |
| 00:01:23.98 | Lily Whelan | Good evening Chair Feller and planning commissioners. This meeting is being held tonight pursuant to section three of executive order N-2920 issued by Governor Newsom last March and all members are joining this meeting telephonically through Zoom. And so I will now call the roll. Commissioner said. here. Janelle Luxembourg? |
| 00:01:46.14 | Morgan Pierce | Raul. |
| 00:01:47.03 | Lily Whelan | Commissioner Pierce? |
| 00:01:48.23 | Morgan Pierce | Here. |
| 00:01:49.53 | Lily Whelan | Vice Chair Crap. Sure. And Chair Feller. here. Great, all members are present and we have a forum. |
| 00:01:58.81 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. The first item on our agenda this evening is the approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda as is? |
| 00:02:07.30 | Morgan Pierce | Don't move. I'll second. |
| 00:02:09.06 | Kristina Feller | Second. Excellent. Director Whelan, can you please call the roll? I wish I was sad. |
| 00:02:14.63 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. Yes. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:02:17.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:02:18.83 | Lily Whelan | Commissioner Pierce? |
| 00:02:20.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:02:21.29 | Lily Whelan | They share a graph. All right. And Kara Fowler. Yes. Right, and that is a five zero. classes. |
| 00:02:31.67 | Unknown | Excellent. |
| 00:02:33.36 | Lily Whelan | the next item we're moving swiftly along to our public hearing items here so the Before we get to our public hearing, this is the time for any commissioners to provide any declarations regarding ex parte communications. |
| 00:02:49.35 | Kristina Feller | I can go ahead and start and ask my commissioners to follow me. Um, I'm going to declare more than just, um, ex parte, just to be clear on the record for this evening. regarding 181 Spencer I did drive by the site twice and I hiked by the site once to since it's quite a steep area on Spencer. I wanted to take some time to have a look at the story polls. Regarding 99 Wolfback Ridge, I visited the state or this hearing. on four separate occasions. on Friday, January 22nd at around 4 p.m. And I actually reported a down story poll to staff. The second was a site visit at Wolfback with three property owners on Wolfback at 61, 51, Wolfback and one Kanto-Gal. They were accompanied by Miss Berkus, who represents 51 Wolfback, and Mr. Rifkind on One Canto Gao, who represents One Canto Gao. That was on Tuesday. February 2nd at 9.30. Um, of course the, the project was discussed by the property owners, but we did not enter into any debate or discussion about the merits, um, other than a couple of questions of clarification. The third was a site visit to lot four with Benjamin Graves on Tuesday, February 9th at 9.30. We did not enter into any sort of discussion about the merits of the project. Mr. Graves was there representing the owner of lot four and just wanted to express his full support of the project and walk me around the site. The fourth was a site visit with Scott Couture, who is the architect for the applicant on Saturday, February 20th at 1130 a.m. We walked around the site, he pointed out a couple of the changes that were made, but we did not enter into any discussions or deliberations about the merits of the project. Um, I will further note that all the previous site visits I've made are on record with the other previous two hearings, so I'm not going to repeat those here. Thank you. |
| 00:05:09.16 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Pierce, do you want to go next? |
| 00:05:10.68 | Morgan Pierce | That will be hard to top. But I also have made prior site visits. But the most recent relative to this application was on February 2nd at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. when I met with Ms. Brackis, Mr. Rifkin, Michael Rex. and Mr. McMillan. and toward the site and toward their properties as well. And I feel that offered me a full Thank you. |
| 00:05:34.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:34.78 | Morgan Pierce | view of the implications. While they expressed views, I offered no opinion on the proposed project. |
| 00:05:43.96 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Pierce. |
| 00:05:45.60 | Morgan Pierce | Oh, and as for, I'm sorry, and 181 Spencer, sorry, since we're doing that as well. I also drove by, stopped by the site. to assess that I spoke with no one at the time. |
| 00:05:56.67 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Pierce. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:06:01.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I also visited 181 Spencer by hiking up there on two occasions, two different times that I did not talk with anybody. With regard to 99 Wolfback Ridge Road, I visited the site to view the story polls on January 30th with the architect for the applicant. On the same day, I visited 51 Wolfback Ridge Road with the Butters attorney and the architect to view the story polls from that location. And I also at the same time visited one Canto Gall. with the abutters and their attorney to see the story falls from that property. I also traversed lot four, which has an easement through the property to lot three, and did not meet with the owner of the property when I did that. I also looked at the project from lot 7, 8, 9, And then and from one Roosevelt, but did not meet with any representation. For all the people that I did meet with, I indicated I could not respond to any questions and just basically looked at the site for the perspectives of those properties. |
| 00:07:17.60 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg, Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:07:21.06 | Nastassya Saad | I do not have the notes from when I went previously when this was on an earlier agenda but I did go again this past weekend to the Spencer property. I did look at it on foot briefly and then I actually went yesterday up to Wolfback. I did not meet with anyone I just went on a. individual tour to look at the story polls myself and haven't engaged with anybody. |
| 00:07:47.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Voice chair graph. |
| 00:07:50.74 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:07:50.76 | Richard Graef | Oh, hi. Regarding 181 Spencer, no ex parte communications there. Although I did go by the side Um, Wolfpack Ridge, I've forgotten the date, but I did have a I'm going to have a brief meeting with Ms. uh, on site, not at 51, I guess it is, just to kind of see the view from the deck and And I was I had to get out of there. But that's it. I didn't keep track of the date that I did that. |
| 00:08:37.32 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you very much, Vice Chair, and thank you all commissioners for being so thorough with your preparations for this evening. I'd also like to take the opportunity, if it's so great, with our Community Development Director and thank all the individuals who made themselves available to us to come and look at the different views of sites and so on. So thank you very much, everybody, for your time. I think at this point, that is the conclusion of any declaration |
| 00:09:09.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You should. |
| 00:09:09.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. direct |
| 00:09:10.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I make another comment, Chair Feller? |
| 00:09:10.60 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:09:13.82 | Unknown | Please. |
| 00:09:14.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to indicate that I have reviewed the recordings for both of the previous hearings in their entirety, as well as the materials from those meetings, as well as the litany material we have now gotten for this meeting so that even though that I was not on the commission at that time that I'm prepared to participate tonight having looked at the previous hearings and the review from those recordings that were on the website. |
| 00:09:44.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you and for clarity i'm assuming you're referring to 99 wolf backridge. |
| 00:09:48.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Sorry about that. |
| 00:09:51.89 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:09:51.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:09:52.01 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:09:52.53 | Nastassya Saad | Yes I'd like to say I did not watch the recordings in their entirety. I did watch them partial but I have reviewed all of the material from the previous Planning Commission meetings when I too was not a commissioner. along with reading all of the material for this evening. So I'm prepared as well for this evening. |
| 00:10:10.53 | Kristina Feller | Terrific. Thank you both very much. Director Whalen, over to you. |
| 00:10:15.61 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. So our first public hearing item tonight is item 3A, which is a request for a design review permit. with heightened design review and encroachment agreement. a nonconformity permit and a treatment removal permit at 181 Spencer Avenue. And I am pleased to introduce to you our assistant planner, Mike Janusek, who's been with us since about November of last year. And I think this is his first presentation to the Planning Commission. So welcome, Mike. And you can take over here. |
| 00:10:48.52 | Mike Janusek | Thank you so much for the introduction, Lily. Good evening, commissioners. I'm here to present the staff report for 181 Spencer. As Lily mentioned, it's a design review permit. There's also a heightened design review. And I'll go ahead and share my presentation with you. |
| 00:11:16.08 | Mike Janusek | Okay. Can everyone see that okay? Okay, it's in presentation view or is it just my slides? |
| 00:11:25.71 | Kristina Feller | What's that? It's just your slides, Mike. |
| 00:11:28.46 | Mike Janusek | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:11:32.85 | Mike Janusek | Okay, so 181 Spencer, this is a proposed addition. The request is for a design review permit with heightened design review, encroachment agreement, nonconformity permit, entry removal permit. It's also known as permit number 2018-00193. |
| 00:11:55.40 | Mike Janusek | So site location, it's on the south side of Spencer Avenue. It's a trapezoidal lot, approximately 5,400 square feet in size. It's in the Hill neighborhood. As many of you alluded to, it's a very steep site. And there's actually the differential from the front property line to the rear property line is 32 feet approximately. And then there's another 14 feet. of fall to the center line of pavement on Spencer Avenue. The neighborhood consists primarily of single-family buildings, which is consistent with the R16 zoning The design review permit consists of a request, a development proposal to enclose the area under the existing carport for an attached two-car garage, above which will be 376 square feet of storage area. And on top of that will be a DACA which currently exists but will be reconfigured |
| 00:12:58.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:13:03.34 | Mike Janusek | This in and of itself does not typically trigger designer view, but because there are nonconformities that exist and will be partially maintained um, there was a trigger for design review. Um, in conjunction with the nonconformity permit. and because The proposal is the proposal design is within 80% of the maximum FAR and building coverage, heightened designer view is also triggered. The encroachment agreement consists of replacing a one and a half foot retaining wall at the edge of the driveway, regrading the driveway and widening the driveway. to accommodate both the attached garage and and a turntable. on the driveway. and the Planning Commission has the authority to recommend the City Council on the accroachment agreement. The tree removal request Thank you. I'm sorry, the non-conformity permit request consists of reconfiguring the existing to shift the following nonconformities. It will eliminate the side yard setback encroachment uh, slightly reduced the building coverage and shipped it. again, out of the setback and shift some of the non-conforming building height that is within the area of, within 15 feet of the front property line. |
| 00:14:47.18 | Mike Janusek | The tree removal permit proposes to remove a 10 inch DBH bay laurel tree. The bay laurel is not an undesirable species and The 10 inch DBH is the threshold for a heritage tree. the tree removal permit is needed and is subject to planning commission review. And an arborist report was prepared and is attachment C in your packet tonight. A bit of history. Some landmarks were this middle date was December 23, 2019. Um... The historic preservation commission had a hearing a couple months ago December 17, 2020 and they determined that the property does not qualify as a historical resource and this final advisory determination is forwarded to the commission tonight. On January 11th, story polls were installed. They weren't certified by a licensed land surveyor a day later. on January 22nd. The subject tree was tagged with red ribbon. On February 12th, public hearing notice was posted to the site and mailers were sent to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property. And as of tonight, actually no written correspondence has been received. existing conditions. Can you see my cursor? Yes. The single family home is currently 1873 square feet of floor area. The coverage including the deck is 1990 square feet and the existing setback on the side yard, which is from the point of the deck to the property line. The side property line is, um, is four foot one inch, I believe is the exact measurement and, um, there's a five foot required setback in that location. more existing conditions. Here's a photograph of the understory of the deck and there's a single car space below. Here's a shot of the steep ascent for the driveway. And The proposed development includes a two-car garage, and above that, as you can see in section view, is additional storage space. Here in site view, you can see the two car garage. You can see the encroachment agreement is needed. The property line is this diagonal. black line and the retaining wall is at the edge of the driveway here. It varies in height and at its maximum is a foot and a half tall. it, There's also going to be widening of the driveway. um, beyond the property line and into the public right of way. and some regrading as well. not only accommodate the second stall in the garage, but also this turn table and then the regrading will reduce the slope of the Go ahead. There's an existing 10-inch bay whorl. It's right at the top of the slope now. Okay. And it currently sits where the proposed garage will go, the exterior, the north exterior wall of the garage. I'll take there were, as you can see, there's quite a few findings for each action requested tonight and I will highlight, I won't go through all of them, but I'll highlight a few of them on each permit. So design review permit finding three states that proposed projects use consistent with the general scale of the surrounding structures and staff finds the proposed addition and increase in floor area is comparable to surrounding residences. And that was after analysis of surrounding properties and is below the maximum allowed for the zoning district. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with many surrounding residents in the neighborhood and that may contain attached two car garages or carports. The design review finding number four states the proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of any public and primary abuse from private property. staff finds that the proposed edition is designed in such a way that any view impacts from private property are minimized and the massing has shifted away from the neighboring residents on the side yard setback and additional floor area is tucked underneath the deck in filling the exposed understory of the existing carport. |
| 00:20:20.58 | Mike Janusek | design review findings. Criterion four states the proposed development presents no potential hazard to public safety. including vehicle traffic and staff finds that the parking space, driveway widening, and vehicle turntable will improve public safety um, The bay laurel tree to be removed was determined to be a potential fall hazard in the arborist Heightened Design Review Finding 6 states the site will provide adequate guest parking either onsite or within the immediate street frontage. Staff finds the proposed project will provide an additional parking space in the garage and relocate the existing tandem space on the turntable. increasing the onsite parking from two spaces to food. Encroachment agreement findings. All five required findings for encroachment agreement can be made. including B, which states encroachment will not adversely affect usability or enjoyment of adjoining parcels, staff finds. the driveway widening and the improved circulation. as well as the turntable to facilitate forward movement will prevent backing out of the driveway and therefore improve the usability and enjoyment of adjoining parcels. Encroachment agreement criterion D states the proposed encroachment will not adversely affect the public. circulation nor create and constitute a safety hazard. Again, that's a very similar finding that was made by staff that forward movement will improve safety. Nonconformity permit findings to states the existing nonconformance, the existing nonconforming structure has not resulted in a notable negative impact or nuisance to the surrounding properties and the district. staff finds there are no records that indicate a negative impact of the surrounding properties due to the existing non-conforming structure over the last 60 years. And six states if a nonconforming structure, which it is, the applicant has reduced the nonconforming to an extent reasonably practicable. Staff finds that the applicant has proposed to eliminate the existing encroachment out of the side yard setback, reduce the building coverage, by about 12 square feet and shift the non-conforming height away from the neighboring residents. So therefore the non-conformities have been but then minimize to the reasonable extent practicable. I'll also add that the proposed massing was is consistent with the original 1958 plans on file with the city and which i believe is correct here in one Onto tree removal permit findings. All three findings were made for number one, the criteria and states in order to grant the permit, it must be determined that any one of the following objectives can be met. staff found that A and D were And that's based on the... The Arborist Report, which analyzes the bay laurel tree, which exhibits heavy lean, it's located on the top of the slope. And the trunk is also split. And so with heavy lean and narrow trunks, it presents a potential fault. |
| 00:24:31.28 | Bruce McMillan | Thank you. |
| 00:24:33.52 | Mike Janusek | And, and also to pursue good professional practices if it was simply pruned or If it was topped, because of the split trunk, it could resprout. |
| 00:24:52.96 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:24:53.03 | Mike Janusek | Thank you. um So best practice would be to actually remove it. And that includes removing the stump completely. And then three, in order to grant the tree removal permit, any one of the following is satisfied and, um, a is satisfied the tree to be removed or replaced by a desirable. tree and it's satisfied. This criteria can be met as conditioned and you'll see in the draft resolution prepared. attached to the staff report that staff has conditioned the draft resolution to state that the The species is to be recommended for the replacement tree by the project arborist and to be selected for slope stabilization, attraction, of diverse pollinators in conformance with FireSafe marines list of fire smart plants and location to be determined based on rooting characteristics of the species to achieve slope stabilization. And so. The status recommendation tonight is for planning commission to approve the attached draft resolution. And that's approval for. All four actions requested tonight, the designer view permit, the nonconformity permit, the tree removal permit and the encouragement agreement. Alternatively, the planning commission May. may deny the application and direct staff to prepare a resolution with specific findings for denial or continue the hearing requesting additional information. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions you might have. |
| 00:27:00.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mike, for an excellent and thorough report and certainly all the work that you've done behind the scenes to get us to this point this evening. So thank you very much for that. Um, I'd like to open it up to commissioners to see if they have any questions of staff at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg, do you have any questions for staff? |
| 00:27:28.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Michael Boucher, I do again like I want to thank you also for the thoroughness of your report. I've got three questions. The first is in the the drawings, but also as reflecting your report, It indicated that the coverage from 1959 was 1978. And the proposed coverage was 1978 square feet. but it's currently 1990. Obviously, this has to be a reduction, not an increase. And so theoretically it's going down, but I can't reconcile the drawing that shows the 1959 which shows in pink a building bigger than bigger than what's being proposed. and what's current. So I'm confused of what if it was 1978 in 1959, and then the current would be less than 1990. So I'm having trouble reconciling that. So do you, maybe that's a question of the applicant of what that pink area in that drawing shows. |
| 00:28:38.01 | Mike Janusek | Thank you. |
| 00:28:38.02 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:28:39.31 | Mike Janusek | Yes, thanks for your question. You are referring to sheet A-1.2 and the building coverage speculations and there's some the original, the proposed and the existing. Yeah. |
| 00:28:58.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's correct. |
| 00:29:00.81 | Mike Janusek | And so your question is, why do Why is there not, why does the existing not match the original? Is that your question? |
| 00:29:15.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, it says in here that the coverage, the original was 1,978 square feet. And then it says that the current which is in the blue. is 1,990 square feet. And then it says the proposed is 1,978 square feet, which is what was originally, supposedly what was originally there. But what's confusing about it is it shows it in pink. and clearly the existing and The proposed are less than the original. So one of those numbers has to be wrong. And it's hard for me to tell And since one of those numbers is wrong, it's hard for me to tell whether the blue box and the green box, whether they're actually going up or they're going down. And that's all that matters, obviously, because if they're going up, it's a problem. And obviously, if we approve this, we want to make sure that they don't have a problem in the future. So I sent this question in prior, so I don't know if you've had received that. Thank you. |
| 00:30:18.04 | Mike Janusek | Yeah, so I think the applicant would be able to speak to it in more detail. but My understanding of the proposal is that there's a reduction of 12 square feet of building coverage and it'll be shifted. So it's the reconfiguration, they might be a little hard just to eyeball and And in such a small decrease, but I think it would be best for the applicant to speak to the actual plan sheet and perhaps there's a there might be So an errant number in there. |
| 00:31:01.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I'll ask that of the applicant after when they do their presentation. The other two questions I have is does the house have a fire sprinkler system? Because in your attachments to the document, In number 49, you indicate the fire system requirements that you're proposing we put in a resolution. And it says an automatic fire system shall be required to be installed throughout the structure and that's in bold. And then after that, it says a fire sprinkler system shall be provided for, and then it gives them criteria. So either one or the other has to rule here. So there's obviously something wrong with this boilerplate language. |
| 00:31:44.22 | Mike Janusek | Yeah, that was definitely boilerplate from the fire comments received. And so I think they might be trying to cover both scenarios and it's not clear which actually exists. you might be able to ask the applicant team what the current condition is and if there's fire sprinklers in the building in the residence right now. |
| 00:32:12.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but is the fire department requiring, regardless of whether they're there or not, are they required they be installed? If so, then the rest of that section just gets deleted. |
| 00:32:28.43 | Lily Whelan | Commissioner Luxenberg if I can here. Let me take a look back at the memo from fire and see if something got lost in translation with the formatting or. So let me go back to the original memo and then we'll get back to you on that, okay? |
| 00:32:40.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, the third question is simple. Does the turntable produce any noise? Is it a mechanical device or an electronic device? To get that right to the applicant question also. |
| 00:32:52.31 | Mike Janusek | Yeah, there was, there were product specifications in the, in the plan set of that vehicle carousel. So I'm not sure if it, It touched on many noises. but it was more on kind of a structural aspect of it. |
| 00:33:06.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | more on kind of the structure. |
| 00:33:09.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:33:15.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We'll see if the applicant can provide some clarity on whether there's any noise with Chair Fella, those are the questions I have at this time. Thank you. |
| 00:33:27.92 | Kristina Feller | Excellent questions. Thank you very much, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Pierce, do you have any questions? I have none, thank you. |
| 00:33:33.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:33:33.71 | Gary Panariello | I've done that. |
| 00:33:34.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:33:35.53 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Saad, do you have any questions? |
| 00:33:37.74 | Nastassya Saad | I have one, but I think it's actually for the applicant, so I may hold on. |
| 00:33:42.21 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:33:43.28 | Nastassya Saad | if that's okay. |
| 00:33:43.51 | Kristina Feller | It's okay. Yeah. Vice Chair Graf, do you have any questions? |
| 00:33:47.82 | Richard Graef | Oh. No, there will be for the applicant, but... None for staff right now. Thank you. |
| 00:33:55.68 | Kristina Feller | Okay. I think it's a good question. |
| 00:33:59.63 | Richard Graef | for. |
| 00:33:59.86 | Eva Hugeland | Thank you. |
| 00:34:00.05 | Kristina Feller | And again, these might roll over into the applicant, but I'll with you if I'm The first is when you were reviewing this application, did you look into the slope stability both current stability but also with the implication of what this new garage structure would be how that slope stability would have been assessed |
| 00:34:27.40 | Mike Janusek | Um, I believe that was part of Department of Public Works and engineering review. And so they reviewed the application and the applicant submitted a geotechnical report And so that would have fallen if, if they had comments or conditions related this stability that would have falling under that review. |
| 00:34:52.77 | Kristina Feller | So they've weighed into any recommendations that would have been put into recommendation for approval this evening? |
| 00:35:00.48 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:35:01.27 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Great. And then regarding the tree replacement, and I know that the applicant has their arborist here as well, but from the standpoint of staff and your interactions with the applicant |
| 00:35:14.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:35:14.20 | Kristina Feller | were there any species that they were recommending for replacement that you viewed as more favorable and that was in line with Southern Marin Fire. |
| 00:35:26.45 | Mike Janusek | There was at some I picked up the review in the middle of it, and so I'm not I can't really speak precisely to all of the species that may have been proposed. But I saw on some of the project plans of the toy entry. and I think staff ultimately felt that that was not, um, replacement for an appropriate species just given all of the criteria we are trying to implement. that condition and what we are trying to achieve policy wise in the city with the city. pollinators native species and and drought tolerant and not posing a fire risk. So that was, yeah, not, I think it'll take more work with the arborist to depend on exactly what species the city would like and planning would like to see there. |
| 00:36:31.37 | Kristina Feller | Okay. No, I appreciate the response. And then final question is just, again, to reconfirm on the record that you, that the city did not receive any comments or responses to any notices to any anyone in the neighborhood anyone within the the 300 foot radius. |
| 00:36:52.80 | Mike Janusek | Yes, that's correct. |
| 00:36:54.47 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you very much. Those are all the questions I had at this time. unless any other commissioners have questions for staff. we'll go ahead and ask the applicant and the applicant team to make their presentation. And the applicant team has 15 minutes to give that presentation. You are welcome to have multiple presenters and you're also welcome to reserve any time. Uh, at the end after we ask questions. So that's up to That's up to you. |
| 00:37:34.70 | Kristina Feller | So Zoom team, can you help get the applicant prepared for their presentation? |
| 00:37:44.18 | Kristina Feller | And can we set the clock? visibly at 15 minutes. |
| 00:37:58.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:58.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:37:59.12 | Marty Swick | Thank you. |
| 00:37:59.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:59.22 | Marty Swick | Thank you. |
| 00:37:59.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:59.32 | Marty Swick | Thank you. |
| 00:38:00.72 | Unknown | Marty, are you ready? |
| 00:38:02.12 | Marty Swick | I'm just about ready. |
| 00:38:03.52 | Unknown | Okay, let me know once I can start the clock. |
| 00:38:11.81 | Marty Swick | Hang on, I'll be with you in one second. |
| 00:38:19.67 | Kristina Feller | And as you're preparing there, if you could just introduce yourself as well for yourself, Mr. Zwick or anybody else from the applicant team presenting. That would be great, thank you. |
| 00:38:34.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:56.19 | Gary Panariello | Please move it. |
| 00:38:57.24 | Unknown | Mr. DeHuyse, I believe you're still muted. |
| 00:39:06.03 | Marty Swick | Hi, can you hear me? |
| 00:39:07.29 | Kristina Feller | Yes, yes, you're welcome to go ahead and get started. Maria will start the |
| 00:39:11.61 | Marty Swick | Can you hear me? You can start now. |
| 00:39:13.52 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:39:14.62 | Marty Swick | You guys have a long night ahead of you. Not on account of this project, but because of the other projects. So I wanted to say thank you for the wonderful staff report. It was very complete. There were a lot of pieces to the puzzle, but working together with Michael, we were able to address most of them. It's a small project with public benefits, I know you've all been by the site. And you can see how steep the driveway is and how backing out of that driveway takes your life in your own hands. So the turntable is the most important part of the project. We're increasing the parking from two to three. And We've had consistent and continual outreach to the neighbors. We have four letters of support in your packet. No neighbors in opposition. It's a unique situation in Sausalito. Um, given the, the, the anticipated after this, we're happy to answer any questions and reserve the rest of our time for rebuttal if we need to. I'd be happy to answer any questions. My name is Marty Swick. |
| 00:40:33.41 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mr. Zwick. Let's go ahead and pause the timer. Zoom team and Uh... turn it back to the commissioners to see if there are any questions of the applicant at this time. I know that there were a couple that came up. I know Commissioner Saad, you had one that you were saving for the applicant. Leave that to you right now. |
| 00:40:57.71 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. I just had one question, not about the design, it was actually about the tree removal permit. just regardless of this project on the whole, I think this in my opinion is quite straightforward But I was wondering if the tree removal was being considered outside of this given the arborist report. stating its condition, Obviously I'm not an arborist, but you can also see just from the images alone and the recommendation of the, of the level of the lean that it is, on where it is in a steep area I was just curious if the tree intended to be removed either way or if this is really specific to the construction of this project. |
| 00:41:47.52 | Marty Swick | We honestly didn't really focus on that tree until we started the project and found that we had a conflict with the construction. But now that we know the danger of the tree, I'd have to ask my clients, but it could be considered to be something to be removed regardless. |
| 00:42:05.91 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:42:05.93 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:42:07.30 | Kristina Feller | Any other questions, Commissioner? |
| 00:42:10.03 | Nastassya Saad | And that from me, thank you. Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 00:42:13.37 | Kristina Feller | Spice chair ground. |
| 00:42:14.99 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:42:15.01 | Richard Graef | Yeah, hi. I had a question about they I'm trying to find the section. Let's see, I guess... Um... Well, Hey. maybe 3.2 or somewhere around there. I'm not sure. when the new structure gets Bill. assuming it gets built. I'm not sure. It's not going to leave a whole lot of space for planting And so my question was, I'm not sure. uh, I guess there's room. I wanted to know where whatever new tree, was recommended would be planting. And also if there's any possibility because of the fact that there's a new structure, a new mass there if there is any opportunity to provide additional Um, planting, screen planting. |
| 00:43:29.87 | Marty Swick | The answer is that we're flexible about the location of the tree. We have James Lasko with us tonight. If it gets to be something more technical than I can handle, he's our arborist. He did the report. We do show a planter in front of the garage space on the downhill slope. It would be for low plants. It wouldn't be for trees. We're able to create a small planter in front to kind of soften that edge. |
| 00:43:50.03 | Scott Couture | Uh-huh. |
| 00:43:50.44 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:43:56.23 | Richard Graef | Where does that show? What sheet does that show on? |
| 00:43:59.72 | Marty Swick | It was in Michael's presentation. I'd have to search through our to find it. Okay, okay. I don't wanna- It was in the second. |
| 00:44:03.20 | Richard Graef | just threw up. |
| 00:44:11.09 | Marty Swick | It shows in the sections like A1.4, the height study. |
| 00:44:15.03 | Richard Graef | one point. |
| 00:44:15.77 | Marty Swick | law. |
| 00:44:20.70 | Marty Swick | It will be a part of the foundation and open to below so that it can drain. Okay. |
| 00:44:26.53 | Richard Graef | Okay. |
| 00:44:31.12 | Unknown | Mike. |
| 00:44:31.92 | Richard Graef | Oh yeah, okay. Yes, I see that. Yeah. And it shows that little retaining wall. Okay. Yeah, very little. |
| 00:44:43.43 | Marty Swick | Yeah. Oh, wow. |
| 00:44:45.59 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:44:45.96 | Marty Swick | um, |
| 00:44:46.40 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:44:46.41 | Marty Swick | Thank you. We're planning to We hope that the trees on the downslope side will remain intact and continue to provide the screening that they already do. Okay. |
| 00:44:56.72 | Richard Graef | Yeah. That's the only question I had was my concern about the new tree and the planting. At this point. Thank you. |
| 00:45:09.06 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:45:09.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, vice chair. Commissioner Pierce, do you have any questions? |
| 00:45:13.07 | Morgan Pierce | Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zwick. I do have a question. So on sheet A1.7 of your submittal, you call for an area of dense brush to be removed along that steep slope to increase visibility. Have you proposed a way to maintain slope stabilization there once you remove all that dense brush? |
| 00:45:31.22 | Marty Swick | The dense brush will be replaced by the widened pavement. at the bottom of the slope. |
| 00:45:39.79 | Morgan Pierce | I see it's a little vague on the diagram. I just want to make sure we're not eviscerating all of the plant material from that steep slope where there's no pavement just for a cleanliness approach because it does help to stabilize that slope. |
| 00:45:42.17 | Morgan Pierce | I just want to make sure that we're not here. |
| 00:45:44.21 | Marty Swick | Sure. |
| 00:45:44.39 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:45:44.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:55.40 | Morgan Pierce | The impacts could be deleterious if it was all removed. |
| 00:45:59.30 | Marty Swick | We totally agree with you. The vagueness was not intentional. take my word for that. It's just the only area where we would increase the visibility would be at the bottom of the slope where it's widened. Thank you. |
| 00:46:10.82 | Morgan Pierce | that's it. Thank you. That is the only question I have presently shared. |
| 00:46:14.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:46:15.33 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. |
| 00:46:18.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have three questions. First is the house have a sprinkler, a fire sprinkler system. |
| 00:46:25.91 | Marty Swick | It does. |
| 00:46:27.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. some conditions on the sprinkler system. And I didn't want to be making a requirement that the sprinkler if it didn't meet the certain criteria. So they just need to clean up the boilerplate language on that. The second is this turntable, is it mechanical or electrical? |
| 00:46:47.00 | Marty Swick | It has an electric motor, but it's mechanical because it's a piece of machinery that moves. So I don't know how to answer that more accurately. |
| 00:46:47.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | AN ELECTRIC VOTER. |
| 00:46:54.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So it's not like a cable car turnaround where they manually rotate the car. No. You push a button and it goes, right? |
| 00:47:04.50 | Marty Swick | You push a button and it goes. I didn't think of the manual idea, but I like it. |
| 00:47:04.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but... |
| 00:47:09.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And does it make any noise or is it just a low? |
| 00:47:12.45 | Marty Swick | If it makes a slight noise, it's going to meet the sound criteria easily. |
| 00:47:13.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 00:47:16.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and the final question is, it's just a clarity on your A12 sheet. The micro piece says that the original square footage from 1959 was 1778, and then it says the proposed coverage is 1778, and it says the existing coverage is 1990. And I was confused of whether the pink area on your drawing was the 1959 microfiche, and if so, both of the existing and proposed would be less than that, but they wouldn't be the same as that. So I was trying to reconcile the numbers just for the record in case somebody down the road says no, this increased the square footage because I don't think it is, but I was confused by that note there. |
| 00:48:09.44 | Marty Swick | It, it, the note is confusing. The easiest way to think about it is that we're reducing the square footage of the deck by 12 square feet and sliding it over slightly to improve the situation with the garage and the neighbors to the side yard setback along the left hand side facing the house. |
| 00:48:26.61 | Unknown | I'm Taylor. |
| 00:48:28.72 | Marty Swick | The 1958 drawings are inaccurate as to what was exactly built. And there may have been some additions or modifications later than that, so we can't really speak to anything other than what we can see on the 1958 drawing and what we measured when we went to the site. |
| 00:48:47.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Did you measure the 1959 microfiche with some And is that what's in pink? |
| 00:48:55.52 | Marty Swick | What's in pink on A1.5 is our measurements. |
| 00:49:00.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm talking about A1.2. |
| 00:49:03.20 | Marty Swick | Hang on, let me turn. |
| 00:49:13.41 | Marty Swick | We measured what was in pink on A1.2 from the microfiche. That's a copy of the microfiche. So we did the best way estimating what |
| 00:49:19.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:49:20.85 | Marty Swick | they had proposed in 1958. |
| 00:49:23.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Then what was in 1958 is 1978. And what you're proposing has to be less than that because it's closed in the box. So the green box is smaller than the pink. So that's why I was confused, because we have it as the same number. |
| 00:49:39.85 | Marty Swick | I understand the confusion. |
| 00:49:41.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know. |
| 00:49:42.06 | Marty Swick | I don't think I can resolve it for you right this second. |
| 00:49:44.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. All right, thank you. |
| 00:49:49.03 | Kristina Feller | Any other questions from any commissioners? I just I had a couple as well and I'd like to hear a little bit more from your arborist about ideas for tree replacement So if your arborist is available, Mr. Swick, to help with the presentation or help answer some questions, |
| 00:50:11.12 | Marty Swick | I believe he is. I don't know how to get him to be heard, but the answer is look for James Lasko and authorize him to speak. And you'll have them. |
| 00:50:20.39 | Kristina Feller | And he, |
| 00:50:21.79 | Marty Swick | have access to him. He's here tonight. |
| 00:50:23.46 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. I will ask for the help of staff and the Zoom team to track him down on this Zoom meeting. see that he is unmuted and has a video on so we can engage with some questions. and |
| 00:50:42.53 | James Lasko | Whoa. This is James Lasko. Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. Marty Swick and others. |
| 00:50:51.64 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for joining us this evening. I wanted to get into a little bit more detail And hopefully you can help us regarding your proposals for tree replacement both in terms of species and location and talk a little bit about Um, regarding the location, the viability of a tree on such an area and a slope. |
| 00:51:18.39 | James Lasko | Well, yes, I'd like to address that. As mentioned prior, the The subject tenage bay. has significant hazard and risk of collapse in its present condition. regardless of the proposed development. It has a heavy lean. Uh, chronic structural defects and the intense intensity of the slope. is also a very large concern. Uh, And where will we get the difficulty in replacement trees and replacement plantings is if we use the frontage at all, I'm limited by what the replacement trees mature height and weight would be. because there's a fine line between what the roots are going to help to stabilize that slope And if a tree gets too large, it's going to destabilize the slope. So, we have some difficulty in terms of determining which is the best species. Now there's also other criteria in terms of attraction to you know, beneficial insects and that. But I think the major concern is gonna be what is gonna help stabilize the slope as opposed to what's gonna destabilize the slope. in that front area. So that's going to take some massaging and some coordination with the city and to find out which is going to be best. Um, And I. would like more input from them in terms of what they feel it would be. Uh, because normally I would go with something that was more, I mean Toyon is a native, It's not considered highly flammable. Thank you. It doesn't grow to large heights, but it doesn't have any of the flowering and things like that that we would like. But, uh, The bay tree is a native, but it's sometimes considered undesirable because it's high oil content and inflammability. And so I think there's going to be some, We're obviously open to whatever species the, is appropriate. That was something I just mentioned because it seemed to meet my criteria of that most important part, which would be slope stabilization as opposed to creating more risk to that slope. |
| 00:54:02.97 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate the input, but I'm not sure I got an answer to the part of where would you recommend the location of a replacement tree obviously the bay, if the bay is removed, and something else is built in its place, you can't put it right there, but I'd like to solicit what your expertise is and what you would be advising your client about. in terms of any, the location and the species if it can't be a toyon. |
| 00:54:36.21 | James Lasko | Right, well, at the end of the driveway, there is some small trees that are unprotected. that we could put a more sizable tree that's a little on a that's on a more flat area of the of, of the frontage. And that's where I would recommend it. So we're actually removing an unprotected tree and putting this replacement tree there. And that would be like a small, undersized bay. which is also Um, may be considered problematic to the site. and put a more beneficial tree. |
| 00:55:18.99 | Kristina Feller | Mike, do you have the ability to share your screen again with the photo of the area that we're talking about here? I think it would be helpful. not just for this commission, but for the public that might have questions or anybody else here, if we could maybe look at that in tandem with the discussion. |
| 00:55:38.16 | Mike Janusek | Just give me one second. |
| 00:55:39.53 | Kristina Feller | Sure. Thank you. And while Mike is pulling that up, Um, I don't I don't know, Mr. Lascott, if you look at the |
| 00:55:48.34 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 00:55:52.93 | Kristina Feller | Are you suggesting that the trunk is ground out so it doesn't really Flower. |
| 00:56:02.38 | James Lasko | The bay, the 10 inch bay, is that where you're asking? |
| 00:56:04.84 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, or even leave the trunk and the roots in place for stabilization, or are you recommending removing all of it? |
| 00:56:07.51 | James Lasko | Oh. |
| 00:56:12.57 | James Lasko | Well, normally we would recommend removing the stump Uh, just because The sprouting of the bay may create multi-trunk trees that, a multi-trunk tree that with narrow attachments and we may run into the same problems that we have with the current tree. But it would it would address not destabilizing the slope. |
| 00:56:34.89 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:56:40.58 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I see what you mean. So hopefully everyone can see Mike's screen here. Um, And so if I'm understanding what you're explaining to, to us, there are a couple small trees at the end of the driveway. sort of at the Spencer intersection that I think Mike's cursor is almost over there. those are okay or everything there is being removed. |
| 00:57:10.77 | James Lasko | Uh, I... Thank you. |
| 00:57:12.05 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 00:57:12.12 | James Lasko | Five. That would be more of a A question from Marty, maybe Marty can answer what |
| 00:57:24.67 | Marty Swick | There are no details on the drawing. Those are some small existing Eucalyptus to be removed. Michael has the cursor right on the note. |
| 00:57:33.64 | James Lasko | Oh, those are silver dollar eucalyptus polyanthemis. |
| 00:57:39.47 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So part of why, I mean, this is helpful to look at with a drawing and thank you for both of you for helping describe this, You know, one of the interesting things about this site, and certainly it's incredibly steep, Treacherous driveway, I agree. these turntables are, you know, a godsend in many ways to these type of difficult sites. And I appreciate. my fellow commissioners asking about it, I'm not as concerned about the noise, having dealt with these before, But all of a sudden, the school. you could drive by this particular driveway and area and completely miss it. Um, because the trees Um, you know, really block a lot of what that elevated structure is currently. And so what I'm interested in is understanding what your proposed solution is to help sort of mask what would otherwise be a very tall a triple decker type of structure here. Um, so that it, you know, is, is, um, works with the neighborhood. It is somewhat inconspicuous like it is now, which is desirable. Otherwise it's quite an imposing structure much closer to Spencer Avenue than it is today. So I'm trying to figure that out. And if there's any architectural um, character to to the garage, the storage above or what have you. that would make it blend in your home better rather than just be, through the term of boxy, that would be helpful to understand as well. And then what are you putting in that proposed planter that I see just on the north side of the car park. |
| 00:59:41.28 | James Lasko | Can I? I jump in. This is James Laszko. Can I just jump to make one comment? |
| 00:59:46.59 | Kristina Feller | Please do. Yes, please. |
| 00:59:48.26 | James Lasko | Yeah, as far as I understand the conditions of approval, they're requiring a tree protection plan and a landscape plan. a replacement landscape plan. So I think a lot of that's going to be addressed within those uh, at that time because it's a very sensitive situation in terms of what is going to be the best. And I believe that's part of the conditions. If Michael could speak to that. |
| 01:00:20.34 | Kristina Feller | Well, it's also part of our concern with the design review as well and i don't know if any of my fellow commissioners have questions about this as We're just trying to decipher and figure out what we are looking at to approve this evening and. you know, if all of the vegetation on this very steep hill here is going to be removed, we want to have some idea what the strategy is or what your design vision is for how to replace that both from an aesthetic standpoint, but also from a stability standpoint. |
| 01:01:02.36 | Morgan Pierce | And I would echo Chair Feller's the sentiments there, you know, obviously, the driveway is being widened considerably and we understand the rationale for it. It makes perfect sense over the existing hedges and trees. as has been noted, provide considerable screening of the existing structure and without them it will be this looming behemoth over Spencer Avenue. Without a landscape plan, we really have no reference from which to judge how this issue will be mitigated. So I would say we would at least need a landscape plan to be submitted with this. |
| 01:01:45.16 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 01:01:45.19 | Marty Swick | Can you hear me? |
| 01:01:45.83 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 01:01:46.42 | Marty Swick | Thank you. |
| 01:01:46.93 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:01:49.19 | Marty Swick | Um, My client would like to speak, but I'd like to say that the existing slope where the topography is shown will not be denuded of the existing vegetation. It's such a steep site that Only low level plants provide enough screening when you're at Spencer Avenue. It's only when you get up higher that you could possibly see the building. Morgan is correct that in the area of the lowest portion of the driveway where we're widening it, you'll see some of the existing house more easily than you do now. But in truth, when you're coming down Spencer, you already have that view through the gap in the trees. The trees are much lower there. But Gary Panariello would like to speak, so if you could somehow authorize him to speak, that would be I would be very grateful. |
| 01:02:48.45 | Kristina Feller | I'll ask the Zoom team to help out and And while they're doing that, Mike, if I could also ask and impose on you to share your screen again with the photographs. So we're not just looking at the plan, let's look at the photograph and so we can help be more specific Thank you. |
| 01:03:09.41 | Mike Janusek | Chair Feller and just to clarify the photograph of the existing tree or of the front edge and the steepness of the slope and the driveway and the existing vegetation. |
| 01:03:19.54 | Kristina Feller | No, no. You had a really good photo across Spencer from the driveway, looking up at the home and driveway and carport area. |
| 01:03:25.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:03:27.62 | Mike Janusek | Okay. Sure. |
| 01:03:29.87 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:03:37.41 | Kristina Feller | Okay, well Mike is pulling that up. Did the applicant want to make a presentation or and we will be able to help answer some of the |
| 01:03:50.47 | Marty Swick | I think he wanted to answer some of the specific questions. |
| 01:03:53.32 | Kristina Feller | Great. |
| 01:03:56.38 | Gary Panariello | Commissioner this is Gary Panariello thank you for the chance to speak to you this evening My wife Karen is here with me. We also share your concern about the screening, the ultimate development of the site. I think if you look at this as compared to 175 Spencer, the immediately adjacent neighbor to us where the entire front of the site has been opened and turned into parking. We specifically did not develop this in that kind of vein. Right. And so the whole approach that we've taken here is to do the minimal amount of change to the side of that slope that we can. What you do see if you walk up the driveway is there are plantings that run up the face of the lower elevations of the building to soften it and screen it because it is a tall box on there. Marty's planter that sits in front of that garage is designed to run additional planting up that wall so that we screen it and keep it that way. right? We would anticipate that anything, you know, that the minimal amount would be removed and then that much is replaced and made healthier and the general view of it remains the same. We don't want this to look any different when we're done than it does generally now. So we do understand exactly what you're trying to get to, you know, in that. And I think you can see, and certainly if we went back to all the versions that we've worked with staff through of the ideas, then this is a perfect picture, right? Um, If you see on the right hand side of the picture, you see a planter that's in front of the concrete foundation wall, and there's some vertical green screening. If you see up towards the stairs with the next incident, again, there's plantings that run vertically up there. This view becomes a couple of feet wider down here. But we anticipate screening along that again, and actually increasing the stability of that slope. Both the structure that we intend to place in there plus the planting will make this more stable. And that's my opinion. I happen to be a structural and a civil engineer. So when I'm saying that, I'm saying that with that lens. |
| 01:06:10.03 | Morgan Pierce | towards it. I have a quick question while we're looking at this photo for the applicant and for their arborist. Is that eucalyptus that we see on the left, is that one of the ones that's slated for removal? |
| 01:06:24.03 | James Lasko | that. |
| 01:06:24.52 | Marty Swick | That one remains. |
| 01:06:25.74 | James Lasko | Thank you. |
| 01:06:25.75 | Marty Swick | Thank you. |
| 01:06:26.36 | James Lasko | No one remains. That one remains. And I think that's why we're choosing a toy on. There's actually other areas along the lower slope that we can put a toy on. without removing those trees. |
| 01:06:40.06 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I would say that from a, from the commission standpoint, it's difficult for us to ascertain from this view what exactly of the existing Laurel hedge is being removed. I mean, I understand that the driveway is to be widened by two feet, but obviously there is some significant impact on visibility of the house and its relationship to the street from this perspective. So it would be really helpful if we had a better idea of what that relationship was intended to be once all the work is done. Thank you. and what is proposed for replacement should some of these plants be removed. |
| 01:07:18.54 | Kristina Feller | Well, well put Commissioner Pierce. Thank you for being concise about it. Um, Are there any other questions or comments. from from any of the commissioners at this time for the applicant. |
| 01:07:37.37 | Marty Swick | from the applicant. to the commissioners we'd be happy to work with staff to produce a landscape plan during the construction documents phase that would be suitable for their review and approval. |
| 01:07:54.74 | Kristina Feller | Do the commissioners have any more questions for the applicant? at this time. |
| 01:08:03.17 | Eva Hugeland | None for me. |
| 01:08:03.92 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. All right. So, Let me just check. We're going to, we're going to go here to public comment for just a moment and then we can bring it back up and you'll have an opportunity and I would like to thank the applicant Mr. Zwick and Mr. Panarello and Mr. Zwick. and anybody else on your team to make any Any comments, any other, anything else from the commissioners at this time? No. |
| 01:08:32.11 | Gary Panariello | No questions. Thank you. |
| 01:08:33.30 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:08:33.63 | Gary Panariello | No questions. |
| 01:08:34.16 | Kristina Feller | All right, let's go ahead and open this up to public comment. And I'd like to ask our community development director to come forward and remind the public how to raise their hands through the Zoom application or if they're on the phone, public comment is limited to three minutes per per individual. And our Zoom team will help identify that on the comment timer that you can see on the screen here. So Director Whelan? |
| 01:09:13.64 | Lily Whelan | At this time, we'll take public comment. You'll have three minutes to provide your public comment. And if you're calling in on a phone, I think we have a number of folks calling in on a phone. You can press star nine on your phone to raise your hand in the Zoom application. If you're on your computer, you just go to participants list and down at the bottom, it says raise hand. So. At this time, if you could raise your hand, letting us know that you'd like to provide some public comment on this particular item. I will... unmute you and start your video and allow you three minutes. |
| 01:09:49.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Director Whalen. Let me give everybody a minute or so here. would like to make a comment. |
| 01:10:01.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Zoom team, I am not seeing any hands raised. Um... Staff, do you see any hands raised at this time? |
| 01:10:12.82 | Lily Whelan | I don't see any other, I don't see any hands raised for this item. So I think we can close public comment. |
| 01:10:18.44 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, let's go ahead and close public comment. and bring the discussion back up here to the virtual dais. Who would like to start us off this evening? |
| 01:10:30.46 | Morgan Pierce | I guess I have a question for staff, if I may, Chair Feller. And it has to do with the application in its entirety. You know, I understand and I respect the fact that the applicant would like to move |
| 01:10:34.71 | Kristina Feller | Please. |
| 01:10:45.31 | Morgan Pierce | forward with development of documents. And again, this is hypothetical because we've not considered Thank you. the merits of the project as presented. But is there a scenario where we could approve the findings that would allow for continuation by the applicant of development of construction drawings, permit drawings that would happen concurrently with development of landscape drawings that would be reviewed by this body. I don't feel comfortable allowing staff to review landscape drawings for a project that's under heightened review. particularly based on the circumstances we've outlined previously. |
| 01:11:25.62 | Kristina Feller | Excellent question. Director Whelan, could you help us with that? |
| 01:11:29.99 | Lily Whelan | Sure, so a suggestion, Commissioner Pierce, and one that we've used, I think, fairly recently with the um sanitary district where we had a subcommittee of planning commissioners um formed to review some particular Um, issues I think it had to do with landscaping as well. So it might be a route if the commission is open to that to point to Planning commission members to serve as an ad hoc subcommittee for a particular issue. And then it wouldn't have to come back to the full planning commission, but it would have that increased review by two planning commissioners. Thank you. |
| 01:12:09.28 | Morgan Pierce | Yes. I will offer that as something for us to discuss as a commission. While I have the mic, I might as well add any other commentary I have. I do appreciate the the applicant submittal, you know, this is these are challenging applications from the standpoint, areas of town that have been developed prior to the adoption of contemporary zoning codes and obviously there's some anomalies. Thank you. |
| 01:12:34.30 | Morgan Pierce | there. |
| 01:12:34.68 | Morgan Pierce | I appreciate the sensitivity that the applicant has approached this project with from the standpoint of trying to minimize the existing non-conformities of the site and add usable space essentially under more or less existing building footprint in a sensitive way that minimizes impact to their neighbors. And I guess, I would offer, I think Chair Feller mentioned this. I know Commissioner Luxenberg had a question about the turntables. We've designed many of those turntables on projects that I've developed. They're relatively silent, any of the ambient noise. nearby from the road or elsewhere would pretty much drown it out. So it shouldn't be of a concern. Um, to any of the neighbors. And I want to be able to find for this, make the findings of this project, because I do believe it's been a very modest and sensitive approach to handling what are some different parameters applied to it. you know, over the time of this property's existence. I do have that concern about the landscape. The landscape is a critical element to the success of this building and to the marriage of it with its surroundings. You know, obviously we've seen neighboring properties that maybe haven't had such a daft touch, and I applaud at least the intent of this applicant to be a little bit more responsible. But I do want to make sure that we give that to the due process and review it accordingly. And if my fellow commissioners feel that a subcommittee that handles that review would be appropriate, I would be happy to get on board with that. But if they had other recommendations, I do want to consider those as well. |
| 01:14:02.88 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 01:14:22.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Pierce. Very well put. Anybody else have some comments on this particular application to add? Nice chair. |
| 01:14:33.15 | Richard Graef | Hi. I would also like to thank the applicant I think it's a good project. I think it's a really interesting and well thought out solution Um, to their problems. And so the, you know, my initial response, I think has been addressed And that was the landscaping in front of the addition or the new construction with the tree removal and so on. I think I certainly could make findings And I would support the idea of having us at a committee level, subcommittee, taking a peek at the landscape Um, proposal before they get a final approval. But again, I think I'm quite happy with the way this project has been conceived and delineated and thanked the applicants. |
| 01:15:38.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Graff. Commissioner Saad |
| 01:15:45.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you chair Feller yes I concur with my fellow commissioners I do think overall that this is quite straightforward in my opinion I do now listening to this discussion definitely understand the concerns around the landscaping that. both Chair Feller and Commissioner Pierce have brought up I would completely support a subcommittee as well. if that's a decision we take as a group, I do hope we can make a finding so that the applicant can move forward and if that's part of it I think it would be a really great approach. Otherwise I think the nonconformities It all makes sense given the project and it is thoughtfully done. thank you to the applicant and the arborist. I think the tree was my main concern given the, uh, Thank you. Given that I think we're quite protective of our of our foliage and our trees here in Sausalito but I think the arborist report shows that that tree that it does make sense for for removal. |
| 01:16:45.62 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 01:16:49.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I concur with what's been said. square footage, it's clear that it's less, although the, the, error on the plans I think is a non-issue as long as the square footage is less. I do like the idea of a subcommittee because this will allow the applicant to move ahead and finish the with drawings that they need to get done and they can deal with the landscape with a subcommittee rather than coming back. So I think that would be a good solution. I do think this is that is a very dangerous driveway so I do think this is an excellent approach a very dangerous driveway, so I do think this is an excellent approach that the architect has come up with for this. I'm on board with that as well. |
| 01:17:30.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, Well, again, I want to thank the applicant and his team. I think it's probably a good thing that you're a structural engineer and a civil engineer. with this driveway to contend with. So you've come up with a very clever to overcome some of those challenges. Um, I think that's a good question. I appreciate we're always trying to find a way to come up with a a way with which we can move projects along because we know it takes quite a lot to get to this commission for a hearing I do have a concern about the subcommittee and I, I do want to voice it and see what everybody else thinks about it. To me, the landscape is absolutely Essential. But I don't know that you can look at the landscape in isolation of whatever the structure would look like, because we're relying on landscape to mask it to a certain extent. Soften it, if you will. and create a more mature foliage. And without really understanding what those elevations truly look like, It's hard for me to say whether or not landscape in it, you know, on its own can overcome some of the challenges. Regarding the four finding or the four major approvals we have to look at and all the findings underneath them, the subcategories, three of the four seem to be very straightforward to me. The nonconformity permit, the tree removal permit and the encroachment agreement. Those I think we could, I think they all make quite a lot of sense and goodness knows It's a very challenging site and a slope. um so the encroachment agreement makes all the sense in the world for a a safer ingress and egress for for the property particularly on a primary artery out in and out of Sausalito Bing-Spencer Avenue. but I'm not convinced that we could move to a subcommittee for for the design review, particularly because it's a heightened design review and not just a straight design review. So I'd love to get everyone's thoughts on that. |
| 01:20:01.15 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I'll go ahead and throw out there. Since you have a landscape architect on the commission, and I would obviously volunteer to be part of that two person committee, I totally respect the chair's concerns, but at least having one professional and having another representative of the commission on that, I feel that we would do more than adequate and obviously a respectful job representing the commission's views on you know making certain that any landscape proposed achieves the intended goals that we would set forth which would be similar to other projects in town which would be to obviously mitigate scale and offer screening and and provide a consistent Uh, ecological approach to, you know, the landscape of the broader community. making sure that it doesn't become this albatross that stands out and is intended to become a monument unto itself, but is woven back into the fabric of the street skate. It does so successfully now, and I would like to think that we would review it through that same lens and make certain that what is being proposed would achieve over a reasonable amount of time of growing to retain that same effect. So with that in mind, I believe that a subcommittee structure could work successfully. for this project regardless of the height and degree. |
| 01:21:28.58 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Can I ask a procedural question of staff? And that is there are two questions I have. One is. If we go the subcommittee route, Can that subcommittee scope and remit include any elevation design in addition to the landscape? |
| 01:21:57.44 | Lily Whelan | I think the planning commission could give some direction in terms of some Um, parameters that you would like to see and any modifications that can be made to the facade of the structure. And then we could process those changes through the the section of the municipal code that allows for changes to an approved project. And so it would kind of that. you know, tie the bow on that. reach back out through the community engagement process. It's not through the planning commission. notice that goes out to neighbors to let them know of changes that might be coming minor changes to plans but I think we could layer on the subcommittee and do a review of any of those minor changes. |
| 01:22:40.35 | Unknown | MEN. |
| 01:22:42.14 | Mary Wagner | but I think we can. |
| 01:22:48.94 | Lily Whelan | That's the commission's desire. |
| 01:22:51.35 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And regarding my second question is, are you aware if PG&E has earmark Spencer because it is a primary artery for undergrounding any of the utilities. since there was a poll right at the driveway entry. |
| 01:23:13.16 | Lily Whelan | Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that question. |
| 01:23:16.31 | Kristina Feller | And do we know if DPW commented on that specifically, that poll? or a company. |
| 01:23:23.98 | Lily Whelan | I don't know. I can ask Mike if he recalls or if he's looking at the DPW comment letters. |
| 01:23:32.36 | Kristina Feller | It would just be good for clarification if we can understand that. |
| 01:23:36.94 | Mike Janusek | Yes, I can take a look and follow up with you. |
| 01:23:41.15 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 01:23:41.59 | Mike Janusek | It may take a bit to rifle through it during the meeting. |
| 01:23:48.32 | Kristina Feller | Okay, that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Okay, back up to the virtual dais here. from a procedural standpoint, it sounds like we can do a subcommittee that would include a larger remit than just landscape And, but I think we need to give some design direction specific to the garage storage, deck. that element. So I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on that. Vice Chair Graff, yes. |
| 01:24:27.97 | Richard Graef | Um, |
| 01:24:28.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:29.28 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I think you made a good point about in the presentation of the landscape I don't know. plan to provide the context for the landscape plan that is, elevation. elevations and or sections of the building and kind of showing Um, to some degree, colors and materials, I was just looking and I I couldn't. that I think is a great thing. track down like a cardboard or materials board are page. on this, so I could be just missing something. But I think that, you know, that context would be very helpful. I agree. But I do think the committee certainly can handle this. |
| 01:25:22.74 | Kristina Feller | So from the standpoint of design direction, do you have any, anything you want to weigh in on? Certainly as one of our resident architects here. |
| 01:25:33.39 | Richard Graef | Well, I think I, I would trust the landscape architect I'm sure that they understand what our concerns are and our intent is. And so, and I think there's been I'm going to go. discussion about it. I would leave it to them to you know, make a proposal. Um, I don't have much more to offer in that in that regard at this point, because I think we've sort of covered it, I think we basically want to try to maintain and restore and and supplement of existing plants. screening and appearance and mitigate the, appearance of the new structure. essentially um That's where we're going, I think. |
| 01:26:33.65 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Any other commissioners have any comments specific to if we're moving to a two person committee anything you'd like to add regarding your ideas or important elements to consider for the actual structure, not the landscape, but the actual structure. |
| 01:26:55.45 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I guess I'll add, Chair Fowler, as you bring it up, while we have a material palette, it is slim at best, and I assume that most of the work is being proposed is to match existing finishes as seems to be alluded to. However, there are wood panels on the upper level of this that really aren't called out anywhere and there's no color rendering on the elevations that suggests what goes where specifically, nor typically the project of this magnitude at height and review, we would be getting some sort of three-dimensional rendering indicating materials, colors, et cetera. So I feel like this application is a bit lean. in that regard. So, I, Well, the palette is simple. Not everything is answered there. So while I could presume that things are going to be done based on what I imagined in my head, that doesn't seem like that is the reasonable nor rational answer to providing Um approval. And so perhaps we need to ask the applicant, maybe in concurrence with going back with uh, provides more landscape information actually to provide some rendered depicted elevations indicating what this new change will look like, because it's really not well conceived or well communicated here. |
| 01:28:32.05 | Kristina Feller | Well, this is why I'm moving for a continuance with absolute specificity of what we're looking for. |
| 01:28:34.61 | Morgan Pierce | Right. Yeah. |
| 01:28:37.88 | Kristina Feller | Because unfortunately, as straightforward in some ways as this project is, The solution is not articulated and we're not here to approve just sort of, you know, the idea of widening a driveway and adding more parking because it's a very difficult driveway. So, I will go back to say I don't have an issue with the encroachment agreement, the tree removal permit, the nonconformity permit. |
| 01:29:05.80 | Unknown | tree. |
| 01:29:08.63 | Kristina Feller | but I'm not real clear what it is we're actually approving tonight from the standpoint of a design and a solution. So I would move to continue this. That is my thoughts about it. And we can help really articulate to to the applicant here exactly what we actually need. We need to have this to be able to approve it. We want to approve it, but we really can't without this information. It's an incomplete submission. |
| 01:29:39.12 | Morgan Pierce | Well, thanks Chair Feller. Based on that discussion, I would move to concur with your observations. |
| 01:29:45.77 | Bruce McMillan | Thank you. |
| 01:29:45.79 | Morgan Pierce | Hear, hear. |
| 01:29:47.48 | Kristina Feller | And he, But let's |
| 01:29:48.79 | Morgan Pierce | Let's hear from Commissioners Luxembourg and Saad as well. Thank you. |
| 01:29:53.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... I guess the only thought I had a moment ago was, given this conversation, it would be worthwhile to suspend the rules and allow the architect to comment on whether he has some clarity or whether he needs some clarity on what we're looking for. |
| 01:30:12.15 | Scott Couture | We, |
| 01:30:12.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:30:12.38 | Morgan Pierce | We typically do that either right before we make the motion or after we make the motion to make sure that they have enough information to move forward. |
| 01:30:12.74 | Scott Couture | to the next episode. |
| 01:30:12.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:30:19.02 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, we'll bring the applicant back |
| 01:30:19.42 | Morgan Pierce | Okay. That's a great question. Yes. |
| 01:30:24.20 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:30:25.92 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think Chair Feller after hearing this discussion I do agree with you and agree with the nonconformity and the tree removal so I think at most basic level Um, I can understand that it would move forward in that regard. But based on the concerns that I'm hearing I agree that I think a continuance may make THE FAMILY IS may make sense for the rest of the design And I'm still in favor of the special commission for the landscaping just. to be on the record for that. |
| 01:30:57.64 | Kristina Feller | Well, it seems like there's some consensus to continue this, which of course can be to a date certain or a date uncertain. Um, And again, with specifying to the applicant exactly what we need to have in an application to be able to actually, excuse me, take an action |
| 01:31:14.20 | Unknown | and it's not. Mm-mm. |
| 01:31:19.36 | Kristina Feller | here on the Planning Commission specific to the design review, I did not hear that anyone had Any concerns about the other three actions that we had regarding this particular application |
| 01:31:28.98 | Unknown | that we have. |
| 01:31:33.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:34.09 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, let's go ahead and if we could bring the applicant back up to make sure that this discussion and our direction is clear to them, and then we will take a motion after that. So is the applicant |
| 01:31:53.82 | Marty Swick | I'm here. |
| 01:31:54.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Mr. Zwick. So I'm assuming you've heard the debate and conversations that we've had |
| 01:32:01.78 | Marty Swick | I heard the debate, I heard the direction, And I'd like to propose a compromise and think that we would have the basic massing and the basic, design agreed to, even you agree to that. And with the help of the landscape architect and another member of the committee, None of that would change. The materials would be under review. We would do 3D renderings. We were capable of doing that. And we could work with a subcommittee much faster while we were starting with the construction documents for the rest of the design. Because the rest of the design is kind of a given. Everybody seems to be behind that. I would like to try and convince you to go with the initial proposal of a subcommittee. |
| 01:32:44.09 | Kristina Feller | One of the things that we wanted to clarify with you and why we've asked you back up here is to make sure that in our discussion there was clarity in terms of what we need to have in order to take an action on the design review permit and approval. And we wanted to make sure that was clear to you. And in doing so, we can also identify or you could help us identify if you wanted to continue this to a date certain or to a date uncertain, because we don't know and we don't want to impose on you, a timeframe that's not realistic to your ability to turn information and documentation around regarding the design. of this three story Structure. And, um, and understanding what those elevations look like. So that's what we wanted to make sure what's clear in terms of our direction. |
| 01:33:45.60 | Marty Swick | I think the direction is clear. I'm just pushing back gently to try and say, can we have the two member subcommittee and continue with the rest of the project? Because that's not likely to change. The turntable is what it is. The driveway is what it is. The basic massing is the same. The pallet of materials on the surface, we're willing to work with the subcommittee to identify something that is not, that is something that blends into the existing fabric fabric and the screening we would apply would be consistent with the existing nature of the building as it is we're not trying to make it project and make it all about us we're trying to blend into that so with your permission I'd like to propose that we work with the subcommittee instead of going back to a date certain or uncertain and come back with the landscape and the design palette together as a unit. |
| 01:34:36.26 | Kristina Feller | Well, it's not just a design palette. It is actual elevations in an actual design that we have. |
| 01:34:40.95 | Marty Swick | And 3D renderings as well, I understand. |
| 01:34:43.99 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Pierce. |
| 01:34:45.10 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you Chair Feller and Mr. Zwick. As an architect, I can presume a lot of what these things might look like. But again, I work with fellow commissioners who may not have the same experience that I do. And I feel we would be remiss if we were not allowing them the same opportunities to review uh... the materials, particularly the wood panels suggested for the level above the garage, which we have no visual reference of in these rendered and whether as rendered elevations or 3D depictions to really have a full understanding of what those elements are. With that being said, I can no longer stand by the committee approach and demand that you come back for a recent middle. |
| 01:35:31.79 | Marty Swick | Amen. |
| 01:35:34.71 | Morgan Pierce | I have no reassessment. |
| 01:35:34.75 | Marty Swick | for a reassessment. I have no choice but to comply. |
| 01:35:39.94 | Kristina Feller | We certainly recognize your position and |
| 01:35:41.63 | Marty Swick | is. |
| 01:35:44.87 | Kristina Feller | And we are eager to help and assist and we see the merit in this project. So don't misunderstand or asking you to come back as anything Unfortunately, the information isn't here for this body to take any action on regarding the design review permit and we are eager to do so. And, and, um, So we are, if you, we can continue this hearing and the application to a date certain, or to a date uncertain meaning We can either schedule it now when that hearing would be or wait to hear back from you when you would have materials ready for to come back to this commission. And so we would like to ask you What would be the preference for you? |
| 01:36:40.09 | Marty Swick | I think we should make it a date uncertain to let us do a careful job of making the materials readable and demonstrably understandable to all the members of the committee. and then we will schedule a time when we are ready. |
| 01:36:54.02 | Kristina Feller | Okay, very good. I appreciate that input. look forward to hear back from you as well. So with that, thank you, Mr. Zwick. I think let's bring it back up here to the virtual dais and at this point if I could I'd like to entertain a motion. Mr. |
| 01:37:17.62 | Morgan Pierce | Should I just ask a quick question, if I may, Chair Feller? If staff wanted to offer to the applicant the particular logistics with making that recommendation, how they will communicate such? |
| 01:37:35.10 | Kristina Feller | Good suggestion. Um, director Whalen. Could we ask you to... come back. |
| 01:37:42.12 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. |
| 01:37:43.28 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:37:43.30 | Lily Whelan | Here she is. I'm here. Sorry about that. Commissioner Pierce, do you mind repeating the question for me? |
| 01:37:48.33 | Morgan Pierce | I just wanted to, if you wouldn't mind, spelling out the applicant, the process by which you would be in contact with them to arrange for the Asania gate for this continuance? Oh, sure. |
| 01:38:02.50 | Lily Whelan | Oh, sure. Yeah. So we're continuing to a date uncertain. And then we will be reaching out. to Mr. Zwick and his client to ask them what, how much time they think it'll turn to turn around the documents and then what an appropriate date will be. Thank you. Yeah. So we'll do that for each other. |
| 01:38:18.06 | Mary Wagner | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:38:20.39 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Thank you, Director Whelan. And we look forward to that. to the next hearing on this project. So thank you so much, Mr. Zwick. Um, Commissioner Luxenberg. Did you have a... |
| 01:38:33.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I suggest a sort of alternative compromise to this approach, which is that we do do the continuance as is being suggested. But as part of the motion, we set up the subcommittee and allow that subcommittee to meet with the applicant And so that when this comes back to us, at least two members have seen this and had some input into this so that we're not in a situation where we, what the architect thought we were looking for as far as what is the middle and what level of design detail was not enough. So if we could, yeah, I think it might be helpful to, not, you know, to one, to expedite, but also to give clarity to the applicant. If we could do the subcommittee, I'm suggesting we do the continuance that's being proposed, but that the subcommittee gets set up and that they have the opportunity to meet with the applicant to make sure that whatever the submittal is, uh you know that's what i'm throwing at is that being i don't know if i'm being clear about what i'm looking for |
| 01:39:43.21 | Kristina Feller | I certainly understand what you're saying. I'll just ask Director Whalen from a procedural standpoint. I know that's no violation of Brown Act. Is that acceptable? to community development. |
| 01:39:57.57 | Lily Whelan | Yeah, of working with two planning commissioners with the Um, with the submittal of this application. |
| 01:40:05.34 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:40:05.91 | Lily Whelan | Yeah, definitely. |
| 01:40:07.33 | Kristina Feller | great. Excellent. So I'm assuming that you've also volunteered yourself as the second member. |
| 01:40:10.25 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. |
| 01:40:15.95 | Kristina Feller | Um, |
| 01:40:16.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not an arborist, so I don't think I'm really the right person for that part of it. The design part would be okay, but I don't really think I'm the right person for that. |
| 01:40:24.27 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. I'm going to offer, this is a little unconventional from the standpoint that we're offering a continuance to a date uncertain, at which time the applicant will be able to come back and present all the updated information if they choose to. include landscape in that they can and they really don't necessarily need input from us if they've heard. the direction we've offered today. And so I would suggest maybe we wanted to ask the applicant whether or not they feel that it would be necessary part of the process or would they feel comfortable just moving forward and being prepared for this next presentation? |
| 01:41:02.00 | Marty Swick | I think that we would like to do two things. go for a date certain with the subcommittee. If we had the subcommittee in your house, We would appreciate that. |
| 01:41:11.81 | Mary Wagner | Madam Chair, may I weigh in? I'm sorry, sorry, Mr. Zwick. I thought you had paused your sentence. |
| 01:41:12.26 | Marty Swick | You hear me? |
| 01:41:13.48 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:41:16.36 | Marty Swick | poster sentence. Thank you. |
| 01:41:17.19 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:41:18.20 | Kristina Feller | I'd like the city attorney to weigh in on this, please. |
| 01:41:21.92 | Marty Swick | of course. |
| 01:41:23.18 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. And again, my apologies, Mr. Zwick. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. I'm not sure. I would like to be able to explore a potential due process issue with having two, um, two members of the Commission work with the applicant and then come back and have to make a decision on the information that's being presented to the full commission. so Well, I applaud the idea and I like the streamlining approach. I really just need to give it a little more thought. and if that's something that is workable in the future. So if you don't mind, and kind of given the input from. Commissioner Pierce, perhaps we research that for you, bring it back and not utilize it at this point with a project that's coming back to you. |
| 01:42:06.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:06.55 | Kristina Feller | I'd feel more comfortable with that. |
| 01:42:08.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:08.42 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:42:08.78 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:42:09.57 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:42:11.04 | Mary Wagner | Bye. |
| 01:42:11.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And to that end, could I just add a comment? In exploring your due process, if you could look at, this is to Mary, actually, through the chair, through the chair to Mary. If it was not a subcommittee, explore also if it was not a subcommittee of just one or two members, so it doesn't have to be two. It was not a subcommittee. It was just somebody helping to guide what level of design detail and whatever, and they could sit through a meeting, whether that, look at that as well in the due process analysis. |
| 01:42:11.31 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:42:11.33 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:42:46.76 | Kristina Feller | Sure. I think that I'd like Mary to weigh in on that, but that's also what the planning department is for. to guide them, Mary, your thoughts? |
| 01:42:57.19 | Mary Wagner | Similar reaction, Madam Chair, that they would be looking to the the staff for that kind of input. But definitely I think it's a creative suggestion in a good way. to try and streamline things. I just want to make sure that we're We're not creating a legal with that. Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg, members of the committee. |
| 01:43:18.94 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, thank you. City Attorney Wagner. Okay, I think at this point, I'd like to entertain a motion. from? from the commissioners, or it sounds like a continuance to a date uncertain. |
| 01:43:34.10 | Morgan Pierce | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:43:37.54 | Kristina Feller | any, you |
| 01:43:38.32 | Morgan Pierce | I'll make a motion that we continue |
| 01:43:38.35 | Kristina Feller | Oh, |
| 01:43:41.54 | Morgan Pierce | uh, application DREANPTRP2018-00193 to a data uncertainty. |
| 01:43:53.37 | Kristina Feller | Do I have a second? |
| 01:43:57.89 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair. Director Whalen, could you please take the role? |
| 01:44:02.33 | Lily Whelan | Commissioner Saad? Yes. Commissioner Pierce? Thank you. |
| 01:44:06.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:44:07.02 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 01:44:10.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:44:11.59 | Lily Whelan | Vice Chair Graff. Yeah. And Chair Feller. |
| 01:44:15.78 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:44:16.54 | Lily Whelan | That carries five zero. Hmm. |
| 01:44:19.02 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you to the applicant as well. Okay. On to our next agenda item, Director Whelan. |
| 01:44:30.31 | Lily Whelan | Thank you, Chair Feller. So this is our second and last item this evening. And it's the, A design review permit for a new single family home at 99 Wolfpack. or lot five hold back estates. And contract planner Brad Evanson will be giving the presentation. |
| 01:45:03.27 | Brad Evanson | Oh, there we go. OK, good. I'm awake now. Uh, good evening everyone. Uh, chair Feller commissioners. So my name is Brad Evanson. I'm a contract planner with the community development department and, uh, This is a project design review 2018-00276. for a new single family residence at 99 Wolfback Ridge Road. And with your permission, I will go ahead and share my screen. And, start the presentation here. Cheers. |
| 01:45:44.66 | Brad Evanson | Okay. Ugh. Again, this is... design review for new single family residents. Yeah. Come on. OK. The design review request, it's a permit to construct a new 5165 square foot two story residence with four bedrooms, five bathrooms, a home theater, a gym and a prayer room. A new 1425 square foot sub training garage including maneuvering room storage for recyclables and space for three vehicles. and to construct a shallow water feature and spa. The project location is at the southern end of Wolfback Ridge Road, east of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. up in the Wolfback Estates subdivision. The existing conditions on the site, the property is in a regularly shaped parcel that wraps around one canto gal and extends down the Eastern slope across Wolfpack Terrace Road. The only really viable building site is the graded pad at the southwest portion of the site between one canto gallon one rose bowl. The Wolfpack Estate Settlement Agreement has established increased setbacks on Lot 5. and the declaration of restrictions imposed height restrictions over portions of lot five to reserve views from 51 Wolfback Ridge This was negotiated by the buyer and current owner of 51 Wolfback Ridge. and the seller of that property, who was also the subdivider of Wolfback Estates. As you can see, we've got the building pad for 99 Wolfback Ridge. outlined there in yellow. Lot four is still vacant and owned by the subdivider. 51 Wolfback Ridge is behind that. And then there's the other properties nearby, one Canto Gal, one Rose Bowl, and 34 Wolfback Terrace. all. within this request. There are several. findings and governing development controls that apply to this project. The first are the design review findings, and these come from South Dakota Municipal Code section 10.54.050. that the Planning Commission must make all of the following design review findings. And I won't read them all, but these are straight out of the municipal code, all the findings for the design review, Oh. that run through all of the criteria, the prominent building profile, blending to the landscape, ensuring privacy, adequate light and air, safety for circulation, vehicle movement, pedestrian movement, preservation of trees, a heightened design review. This does not apply to this particular project. within this because With the Wolfpack Estate subdivision, the city is party to the Wolfpack Estate Settlement Agreement This established architectural standards applicable to projects within Wolfpack estates. These standards staff has reviewed in the staff report again. a lot of what you would expect. design of residential accessory structures being subordinate to hillside and ridgeline forms. avoiding use of still designs. prohibiting reflective glass, I'm not sure. subdued use of subdued building materials and colors to blend into the natural landscape THE END OF THE END OF THE not creating prominent Ridgeline profiles. I'm not sure. minimizing the roof surfaces and roof appurtenances. Oh. keeping swimming pools tennis courts accommodated totally within site grades. And the last unique development control on this property is not one that the city is party to. These are the declaration of restrictions negotiated during the sale of 51 Wolfback Ridge to protect views from 51 Wolfback Ridge of the San Francisco panorama. And what that did. uh, is established on the building pad portion on the eastern half of it. The buildings that would be constructed are limited to a single story, no higher than 14 feet in height. And on the western half of that building pad, The proper buildings would be limited to two stories with a maximum 26 feet in height. The city again is not a party to these standards, given the significant interest in this project. We have gone ahead and reviewed the proposed project against this standard as well. Um, There is a lot of history of this project. Many of you have heard this. In November 2017, Community Development Department issued a formal determination of the front property line for lot five. This was appealed through the planning commission and the city council. And ultimately the council adopting a resolution in 2019, the determination of the front property line as being the one closest to Wolfback Ridge Road. and that is the property line used in this project. November 6 2019 this project came before the planning I'm not sure. The residence at that time was larger than what is being considered now. issues raised by the public and the commissioners included visibility, visual impacts to both neighboring residences, as well as from Golden Gate National Recreation Area. View blockages affecting the three closest residences 51 Wolfback Ridge, one canto gallon, one rose bowl. The intensity of excavation and off-haul. and concern for the health and vitality of the Monterey Cypress and Monterey pine trees on the site. At that time, the planning commission continued the item to a date uncertain. That date wound up becoming October 21st, 2020. at which point the applicant had presented a project with a reduced project size, reduced floor area building coverage and impervious surface coverage. So, um, Thank you. The visual impacts to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area were reduced through a reduction in the glass area. adding automatic window shades, Low reflectivity glass specifying all interior ceiling lights will be downward facing and shielded. I'm not sure. reducing the visibility of the garage by recessing and shrinking it. reducing the parking area canopy increasing the setbacks, reducing the building heights, The result of these changes as presented by the applicant eliminated the view impacts to one Rose Bowl and one Canto Gal and minimize the impacts to 51 Wolfback Ridge. the Monterey Cypress and Monterey Pine trees had been assessed based on the redesign per the applicant and that they would be preserved and protected. through these changes. and that the applicants are also sourced a local operation to receive and reuse the excavation spoils while also reducing the total off haul. The issues raised at that time by the planning commission included slope stability concerns pertaining to the pool at that time at the corner of the property closest to one Canto Gale. also a general proximity to the february 2019 landslide that went across sausalito boulevard privacy concerns affecting one canto gal due to the elevation difference and proximity between the two homes Still concerns about visibility of the residents from Golden Gate National Recreation Area, especially from the various trail points along the hillside below the ridge. of. potential construction impacts to the Monterey Cypress and Monterey Pines. and the adequacy and accuracy of the applicant's arborist report The size of the proposed home in contrast to the size range Oh, God. 2000 to 4000 square feet that was anticipated by the Wolfpack States EIR as a conceptual future home within the development. and also the accuracy of the applicant's story polls. Again, the planning commission had continued the item to a date uncertain. And we have now come back with the project today. There are very minor changes to the October 21st, 2020 proposal. There's no real change in the floor area. The changes from October 21st include eliminating the pool and replacing it with a shallow water feature that is expected to be more of a buffer from one canto gal for both noise and privacy it will have a uh and then we're going to have a kind of a white noise water feature. There's a concrete wall. that is being added along the base of the hedge between lot five and one canto gal The kitchen and pantry area has been cantilevered to avoid the root systems of the nearby Monterey Cypress and the roofline has been lowered to provide further clearance from the Monterey Cyprus. setbacks have been increased by shifting portions of the building away from one canto gal And the applicant has proposed adding four new oak trees along the west and southwest portions of the property to provide additional screening of the residents from GGNRA. And here we have the zoom in of the site plan. showing the It white the overlay of the footprint of the house onto the aerial image of the property. And at the top of the screen, you can see a portion of one Canto Gale And to the right, you see a portion of one Rose Bowl. So that's how close those homes are. Here is the lower level floor plan. Bye. primarily you can see the garage in there and, this is primarily maneuvering room to come in because this is a single width uh garage door to make the turning radius and minimize visibility impacts. Oh. And here is the main level, the upper floor plan. This is where the master bedroom suite is. the kitchen, dining area, Thank you. the primary living spaces of the residents. There is an upper vehicle parking area for guests. And, Here are some images that the applicant has put together, bird's eye view aerial images. You can see Here in the foreground, this is one Rose Bowl. TODAY. up here this would be one canto cow and right here is uh the rendering of the proposed residence . set in with the the materials weathered and patinaed in. Here is another view looking from the West. I'm not sure. This does not show the new oak trees. This image was prepared prior to the applicant adding the oak trees. So they are not really shown in this image, but they would go in this location and then down here in this corner. Here is from the north. and you can see The garage door drive entry as it loops around the driveway here, this driveway continues down to one canto gal. So, And this is where the sub training garage will be entered from or for the proposed residence. And here is a view from the east Looking at, you can see on the left, is one Rose Bowl and the right is one Canto Gale, And in the upper right corner, you can see the kind of closest edge of 51 Wolfback Ridge Road. And the project analysis through the general plan, the land use, the property is very low density, residential land use designation. This is consistent. the the community design project meets the objectives and policies of the general plan, including Objective CD 1.0 scale and architectural diversity. in that the design and the scale of the proposed resident are consistent with other residences in the vicinity. the natural environment of Wolfpack Ridge and forms of design and material selection for the project. Policy CD 1.3 neighborhood compatibility. The project would improve a vacant parcel, complement the slope and vegetation of the existing site and be complimentary to the other residences. No trees are proposed to be removed with this project. Policy CD 3.1, private views. As part of the overall subdivision process, development restrictions were imposed on the subject property to minimize potential view impacts to adjacent parcels, more stringent than those in the underlying R1-20 zoning standards. building envelope areas and height restrictions were identified to accomplish this and the proposed project does comply with these restrictions. In the zoning, the subject property is subject to the development standards for the R120 single family residential district. The enhanced lot restrictions imposed via the Wolfpack estate settlement agreement and the height restrictions imposed by the declaration of restrictions recorded against lot five. In this case, the floor area ratio of building coverage and impervious surface coverage are all well within the R120 standards. There is only one dwelling unit proposed. There's no guest house or ADU proposed with this. and the parking standards are complied. Building height is restricted per the deed restriction, the declaration of restrictions against lot five. to a maximum height of 14 feet on the eastern half of the building site and 26 feet on the western half of the building site. Those are both far less than the maximum of 32 feet allowed under the R120 standards. the proposed project. I'm not sure. in, presents a maximum height of 13 feet, six inches on the eastern half. and 17 feet six inches on the western half. which complies with both standards. The R120 district requires setbacks of zero feet to the front. 10 feet to the sides and 20 feet to the rear. the Wolfback estate settlement agreement adds 10 feet to each set pack for 10 feet to the 20 feet to the sides and 30 feet to the rear. that's not going to be a Within South Slito Municipal Code, Section 10.40.070D1, increased setbacks are required for buildings where the building lengths parallel to a side lot line are longer than 40 feet. In these cases, the minimum setback shall be increased at the rate of one foot for each five feet. Such length exceeds 40 feet. Based on the proposed building design, the setbacks are increased for the east side to 33 feet, seven inches. on the north side to 28 feet, the south side to 29 feet, 10 inches. As designed, the proposed residence complies with the front rear setbacks but only provides 20 feet or the east side where 33 feet 7 inches is required and provides 23 feet, six inches, for the north side where 28 is required, and 28 feet four inches for the south side, where 29 feet 10 inches is required. Section 10.40.090d provides allowances for walls to project into the setback under certain criteria including average yard width and depth is at least equal to the required depth no more than 50% of the wall encroaches into the setbacks. The yard is not less than three feet wide at any point. the proposed projections into the setbacks are approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the design review permit. The applicant has prepared exhibits demonstrating compliance with the criteria contained in section 10 .40,.090D. They are included in attachment seven to the staff report. Staff concurs that the technical criteria in parts one through three have been met and those are subject to review by the planning commission. As part of the Wolfback Estate Subdivision and Environmental Impact Report was created, circulated and adopted and certified by the city. The EIR is not a technical document, but rather speaks to potential significant environmental impacts and describes mitigation measures, which could minimize or eliminate such impacts. BEIR provides conditions of approval and mitigation measures to guide future development at Wolfpack Estates. including measures and controls on architecture, landscaping, etc. These measures and controls are considered and incorporated into the settlement agreement and regulated at a more stringent standard through designer view process. One specific point while the EIR does reference a conceptual future residents of a certain size and configuration, Those specific criteria were not included as conditions of approval or mitigation measures within the Wolfpack Estate subdivision approval or the EIR certification. For the design review findings, the design review, the planning commission must determine whether the project is in conformance with the findings contained in the Sausalito Municipal Code and listed earlier in the presentation. staff has determined that all the required findings can be made and these are outlined in the staff report. Some specifics include the project is consistent with the general plan, applicable specific plans, design guidelines such as the Wolfpack estate settlement agreement and the zoning ordinance, which is Sausalito Municipal Code, Chapter 10. The project is consistent with the general scale structures in the neighborhood. While the size is at the upper range, or the upper end of the range of surrounding homes. It is within the range of nearby homes, such as the 5,500 square foot residents at 51 Wolfback Ridge and the 4,350 square foot residents at one Canto Gale. The project has been designed and located to minimize obstruction of public views and primary views from private properties. To the former, the inclusion of portions of the residents downslope and subterranean helps minimize visual impact from public viewpoints within the GGNRA, And to the latter, the project has been designed to comply with the deed restrictions imposed on lot five by the buyers of 51 Wolfpack Ridge Road. Specifically, the buyers of 51 Wolfback Ridge negotiated areas of height restriction on lot five, much lower than those allowed within the city's R1-20 zoning district to minimize potential blockage of their panoramic views. the proposed project complies with these more restrictive requirements. The project provides a reasonable level of privacy to the site and adjacent properties by using appropriate landscaping, fencing, window and deck patio configurations. specifically the residents replaces a proposed pool with a shallow water feature that would act as a barrier to prevent people from approaching the property line with one canto gal and the white noise from the water feature would further mask neighboring noise and the construction of a wall at the base of the hedgerow would further enhance the privacy between the two properties. So, The proposed design preserves protected trees and significant natural features. and minimizes site degradation from construction and other potential impacts. The African has commissioned both a tree assessment and an arborist report to assess the health of the Monterey, Cypress and pine trees on the site. to guide alterations to the project designed to avoid impacts to the trees from the completed residents and to establish best practices to manage the construction process and protect the trees during construction Finally, the proposed project avoids added scrutiny of heightened designer view due to the size of the residence relative to the size of the property. within the settlement agreement, The project is subject to the Wolfpack settlement, Wolfpack estate settlement agreement. which establishes several architectural and development controls applicable to the property. As the city is a party to the agreement, the planning commission must determine whether the project is in conformance with the architectural standards within the agreement. staff has determined that all the standards can be met these are outlined in the staff report And a couple of specifics include Excuse me, the architectural design for a side slope and ridge top crest residential structures should be visually adaptive and sensitive to the hillside topography. The proposed project meets this by employing style, materials, colors, and earthwork to integrate into the color palette of the hillside and minimize the above ground silhouette. The project avoids the use of stilt design and restricts development activities to within the existing graded areas of the project site. Hillside ridge top design should incorporate a combination of small volume and varying surface planes to create visual interest and avoid large bulk structures and box like masses. And this project meets the standard by utilizing significant articulation. and varying surface planes to break the building into smaller sections. The project also utilizes materials and colors that are subdued. and integrate into the visual palette of the hillside and the GGNRA. Specifics include the cord and steel and exposed concrete that would quickly patina into subdued finishes similar to some of the military equipment and other improvements historically found in the area. and the project specifies non-reflective glass and shielded lighting. and conditions of approval have been included requiring these. THE END OF THE END OF THE Staff site visit. Staff visited the project site several times over the course of this project. January 28th staff visited 51 Wolfpack Ridge Road and one Canto Gal to meet with the owners and representatives of both properties. They were able to explain some of their concerns and help staff better understand them. Granted, this was all what we were trying to swim away from a flood that was coming down. It was amazing rain. Staff did attempt to take photos from the deck of 51 Wolfback Ridge, but the weather did not cooperate and staff went back on February 10th to take additional photos which have been included in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the draft resolution for design review permit to construct the new 5165 square foot two story residence construct a new 1425 square foot subterranean garage. and construct the shallow water feature in SPA. Alternatively the Planning Commission may deny the application and direct staff to prepare a resolution with the specific findings for denial or continue the hearing for additional information and or project provision. and staffs available if you have questions. |
| 02:07:55.68 | Kristina Feller | Well, thank you. What a comprehensive and excellent presentation and staff report. So thank you so much for all the time it's taken you to put that together. Thank you very much. At this time. I'd like to ask the commissioners if they have any specific questions for staff. |
| 02:08:25.80 | Kristina Feller | And it just... |
| 02:08:30.88 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Luxenberg, do you want to start? |
| 02:08:33.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Brad Johnson, M.D.: Sure, and if Brad can you bring back the site plan and it's about in the middle of your presentation. |
| 02:08:40.60 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 02:08:40.63 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:08:41.31 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 02:08:41.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oops. |
| 02:08:41.98 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 02:08:42.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So uh i'm new to the commission so i hope you can bear with me as i ask our questions and i do have a number of them I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO I will have comments on the project, but I'm going to wait until after the public hearing portion of tonight's hearing. Go back one. That one, yeah. And so I'll say those comments until after the hearing part. I do have to say this is the strangest subdivision plan that I've ever seen. I've THE LATEST PART OF THE HEARING PART. I DO HAVE TO SAY THIS IS THE STRANGEST SUBDIVISION PLAN THAT I'VE EVER SEEN. I'VE REVIEWED A NUMBER OF SUBDIVISION IN MY CAREER. THE LAYOUT OF THESE LOTS LACK THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS And that is unfortunate. Lot five especially is problematic given its U-shape. and that it is combined with the slopes, it makes it far from an ordinary lot. So this is not in any way an ordinary lot, and it makes the development challenging. But we are where we are, so we got to go forth from here. There's obviously a lot of history here, and I've tried to review it and understand it all, but I realize some of the other commissioners may have more background and experience on both this project and other projects in Sausalito. with similar issues than I do. But with that in mind, I have five questions. I'm sorry because they are a little lengthy. And they relate to setbacks, FAR, height, and the general plan. So the first one, which is a setback question, is if I understand the history correctly, the city council determined that lot five fronts on Wolfback Ridge Road, which is on the downside of the slide that, you know, on the bottom of the slide that's there. And given that, and that this is the building site. So this site is about 15,000 square foot of the 40,000 square feet. And it has this driveway that goes on the left side there. SITE. THIS SITE IS ABOUT 15,000 SQUARE FOOT OF THE 40,000 SQUARE FEET. AND IT HAS THIS DRIVEWAY THAT GOES ON THE LEFT SIDE THERE AND AROUND TO ONE CANTO GALL. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, WITH THE FRONTAGE ON WOLFBACK RIDGE ROAD, and this road going around it. According to the definitions of the zoning ordinance, a side property line setbacks are those that extend between the front I'm reading now from the ordinance between the front and rear property lines which this line that separates one canto gal from this property clearly is not a side yard setback and if you think of this property as this 15,000 square feet that line is a rear yard setback. Although rear parapetly lines are ordinarily a line of a parcel that's opposite and most distant from the front line, As mentioned, plot five is not ordinary, and it makes basic sense that if the front yard is on Wolfbeck Ridge Road, the rear yard is, there's a rear yard between this and one canto gall. And when you look at city council decision resolution 5836, the only thing they specified was what the front property line was. And although Couture architecture attached a plan and has a little wishful thinking that this is a rear yard, I'm sorry, a side yardES THE SETBACK A REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, NOT THE 33.7, BUT 30 FEET. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WAS THIS AREA EVER CONSIDERED A REAR YARD? IF NOT, WHY NOT? WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, THE ORDINANCE, would dictate that this line separating lot five is a rear yard. |
| 02:13:07.37 | Brad Evanson | Through the chair actually it has not been considered a rear yard because the way the zoning code defines the the yards and i'm looking for the section right now it is only. The once a front yard is established on an irregularly shaped parcel, um the applicant has the ability to deem the other lot lines or the other property with boundaries as side yards I forget I'm trying to find the section of the code but there is a section to that effect if that one actually could be considered rear yard, but the applicant proposed it as not. And staff has accepted it since before I came on board with the project. That is the consistency we've maintained. |
| 02:13:56.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I've looked at the zoning at length and it doesn't say that. I mean, it just doesn't say that. It says side yard property lines are those that are neither front or rear lines, which extend between front and rear property lines. And there's no way that this line extends between a front and a rear property line. And then you go to the rear property line and it says ordinarily, and again, this is not an ordinary lie, that it would be the most distant line. But there's nothing that says that the applicant can make up the side yards. It does say the applicant can request what the front yard is, and that's the decision that the council made. But once they made that decision. I don't think that this is a It does simplify this a lot if this is a rear yard. I mean, even if it's not, it's in the planning board's commission's determination what they want that setback to be. But I would argue that this is a rear yard. And when you look at this lot, it's 15,000 square feet. And I was trying to figure out why this just seems not quite right. And it's because if this lot was just the 15,000 square feet, and again, it's surrounded by a road, the FAR would be like 0.45, and it wouldn't meet any of the requirements. And so this thing is crowding that line and trying to make it into a side yard is questionable. I mean, and I have a further question. My second question later is setback as if it was a side yard and you, the longer you make the house, the more discretion the Planning Commission has to reduce the setback, which seems crazy to me because you can go 50% in if it is a side yard. So am I reading this right? That the longer you make the house, so the bigger you make it, the more you can violate the setback. Is that correct? Thank you. |
| 02:16:02.33 | Brad Evanson | through the chair. the more potential you would have to violate the setback, but that is subject to planning commission approval. So if the planning commission, As the the authority in in regulating these or passing approval on these type of activities. If you find that it does not meet the criteria to justify such an increase, then you would rightly deny it. Um, it conceptually, yes. Say with, with just looking at it on paper, could you do X? Yeah, you could. But in this case, that's why the, the, this type of an action is subject to planning commission review, meeting of certain findings and criteria. Um, And, uh, 1040 070 of the municipal talks about Um, Any parcel that does not have a front parcel line fronting on a street shall provide required rear yard along that. If a rear parcel line has not already been established, the owner may elect any parcel line as the rear parcel line provided such choices, not injurious to adjacent properties. So as you said, typically it is ordinarily, it is the furthest most property line. This is a kind of a standard that's typically applied to like flag lots where one property wraps around another And those are typically classified as side yard setbacks, unless it is a true rear. And that has been the interpretation that again was in play on this project since before I took it over. And we've simply maintained the consistency in that interpretation. |
| 02:17:46.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What section are you reading from Brad? |
| 02:17:49.24 | Brad Evanson | 10.40.070 setbacks in yards in the municipal code, the general development regulations. |
| 02:17:49.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | MR. |
| 02:17:57.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This is not the definition section. Thank you. |
| 02:17:59.97 | Brad Evanson | Yeah. |
| 02:18:00.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 02:18:00.63 | Unknown | No. |
| 02:18:06.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 10.4. |
| 02:18:12.12 | Kristina Feller | So do you have a couple other questions? |
| 02:18:14.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Now let me get my other ones very quickly. On the FAR question, I... If this lot was just this portion, the FAR would be something in the neighborhood of 0.41 and the building coverage would be 42.5%. So of this thing that's surrounded by this road that they're going to build, My question is this, have you had any discussions with the applicant or his architect to consider a smaller building, especially one with a greater setback from one canto gal and a greater setback from these Monterey Cypress trees? |
| 02:18:55.45 | Brad Evanson | I'm not sure. Through the chair, I have not because this project had gone through multiple rounds of reviews prior to my, again, taking over the project. I know that there have been numerous discussions asking for a smaller residence on that property. further setback from the trees, further setback from one canto gall, one Rose Bowl. Yeah, those discussions have been had, and this is what the applicant has proposed, and this is generally what they've stuck with. reduced it from their original proposal. I'm not sure. But the absent has expressed an interest in in not doing a smaller project. project that they want to do. And this is what we brought forward. |
| 02:19:41.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And you're saying that that's what the applicant has told you, or that that's what the applicant told your predecessor, and you have not had this conversation? |
| 02:19:51.99 | Brad Evanson | I've not actually asked him, hey, would you be willing to cut it in half to bring it down to? 3,000, 2,500 feet or anything like that. THE FAMILY IS NOT A |
| 02:20:04.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not suggesting cutting it in half. I'm suggesting bringing it so that the setbacks are a little bit, I'm not suggesting bringing and cutting in half. I know what you're doing. |
| 02:20:12.98 | Brad Evanson | I know what I mean during the previous hearings of which I have been involved in one of them. The planning commissioners have expressed concerns and the public has expressed concerns over the the setbacks of proximity to one can to go. proximity to the trees, Thank you. general perception by members of the public that This lot or this proposal is too large for the lot, too large for the subdivision. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE And so there have been those discussions in terms of, well, this is what they said. What are you going to do? Well, we're going to shrink it down a little bit, but here's what we're going to come back with. So, In a way, yeah, we've had those discussions, but I I mean, the applicant has been very clear this is what their client wants. They want this larger home and they're not interested in entertaining something smaller. |
| 02:21:09.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Aum. Okay, let me ask the other two questions. One relates to height. And then it seems like the longer you make the building, the average grade on the back sides of it go down, which allows you to increase the height. And there's some of these sort of anomalies of, is that correct? I mean, the average height is determined by the average grade of the final grade, and then you measure height from that, correct? |
| 02:21:30.49 | Unknown | every |
| 02:21:38.80 | Brad Evanson | Through the chair, yes, that is correct. |
| 02:21:41.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the longer you make the house, the higher, they're under the height limits, I understand. Michael Boucher, noting that there's sort of when you look at the the West facing side faces the Golden Gate National Recreation area it's really a 25 foot high because you that's those windows are fully visible. And on the The garage entrance side, there's a 27 foot, six inch Hi. Those are still within the within the requirements, but in the ring, within the requirements for 51, the project next door. However, the height is not really 13 feet and 17 feet. I mean, there's sort of a misperception there. |
| 02:22:26.48 | Brad Evanson | Okay. |
| 02:22:26.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:22:26.75 | Brad Evanson | All right. |
| 02:22:26.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know. |
| 02:22:27.05 | Brad Evanson | Mr. Chair, |
| 02:22:27.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Chair. |
| 02:22:29.56 | Brad Evanson | Through the chair, I believe the argument is that to get those as you point out those taller heights that involves excavation to accommodate the lower level development of the garage and and the lower level of the living area. So as. the project. um, sits on the land surface uh, It is... Thank you. at that height based on the graded pad. It's when you get down to excavating down into those portions that yes, you have the, I'm not sure. perception of the increased height. |
| 02:23:13.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, my final question is on the general plan. And in looking at the general plan, maybe I'm just misreading this, but I think policy CD 31, 3.1, Uh, is relates to height. The climate regime is... It runs to 1.3. relates to maximum height limits. And it talks about establishing a maximum height limit for all structures in Sausalito while recognizing that maximum height is not guaranteed for development proposals where view preservation, shadow impact, and scale are an issue. And so I'm not sure. You refer to a different one point three that I see. Can you go back to your general plan part of that? |
| 02:24:18.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You were talking about neighborhood compatibility, but this says maximum height limit. I don't know if I can, I don't know if you can see it with, I can't do this with a virtual background. It says maximum height limit, which I think is important for this, this particular criteria is important for this particular project. So it's not about neighborhood compatibility unless I'm misreading the. The text. |
| 02:24:44.09 | Kristina Feller | If I could just interject here in hopes that I'm being helpful, I think there's a possibility we've just approved a new update And those numbers might have changed. The issue with neighborhood compatibility has not changed. It just might be called a different number. as we updated that is, we've only, we approved it about two weeks ago. Um, um, our recommendation went to city council for approval and it was approved So that could be the right. |
| 02:25:16.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If it's elsewhere, that's fine. But I also think they should add in a review of policy CD 1.3 maximum height limit, because that seems would be applicable here. with because that's in, and then they should correct the numbering on their policies, I would think. |
| 02:25:41.06 | Lily Whelan | I don't want to delay this conversation. Commissioner Luxembourg are you looking at the policies are you looking at the new general plan or the old general plan? |
| 02:25:51.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the approved general plan. That's what we have right now. |
| 02:25:53.36 | Lily Whelan | Yeah. We're evaluating this project based on the prior general plan as this project was deemed complete. before the new general plan was adopted. So the numbers that you're seeing, that's the issue with the numbers is you're looking at the new general plan and the numbers from the old general plan. |
| 02:26:11.74 | Morgan Pierce | Okay. |
| 02:26:14.07 | Lily Whelan | The height, I'm not looking at the height, I'm not sure. policy right now. But what you read to me seems like it's saying that the city needs to establish maximum heights, but those maximum heights are not guaranteed And the heights may be lowered to preserve private views. |
| 02:26:34.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is that kind of policy? Yes, and scale is an issue as well. So I think part of this issue has to do with scale. |
| 02:26:34.54 | Lily Whelan | That kind of thing. Yeah. |
| 02:26:36.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:26:41.34 | Unknown | So. |
| 02:26:42.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, So you're saying that even though This project is, this project will never be reviewed under the new plan. under the current plan. Is that what you're saying? because it was submitted before. |
| 02:26:58.45 | Lily Whelan | the project that you're reviewing right now? is reviewed under the old general Yes. |
| 02:27:03.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | under the old general plan, even though that's not currently the plan of the city. |
| 02:27:11.83 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. |
| 02:27:11.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:27:11.98 | Lily Whelan | Correct. It was a serious attorney jumping on, but the project was deemed complete well before the adoption of the new general plan. So it's subject to the standards that existed at the time when it was deemed complete. |
| 02:27:21.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:27:21.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:27:27.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So is there not a provision that I just described in the old general plan that talks about maximum height and so this has been newly added to this plan? |
| 02:27:37.38 | Lily Whelan | I have to take a quick look here, I can get back to you. But it sounds like something we had in the the or, If it was in the prior general plan, it sounds like something that could be applicable to this project and we can get the, |
| 02:27:51.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, so I'm just suggesting you find it in the old plan and use the old plan references |
| 02:27:51.64 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. |
| 02:27:57.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um... you know. in that regard. |
| 02:28:01.23 | Brad Evanson | Through the chair, I did find it. It is policy CD 1.5 maximum height limit. |
| 02:28:01.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Through the chariot. |
| 02:28:06.47 | Brad Evanson | Establish a maximum height limit for all structures in Sausalito while recognizing that height is not guaranteed where view preservation and scale is an issue. |
| 02:28:16.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so yes, if you could add that to your report and also make a note that that this is referring to the 1995 general plan as opposed to the current general plan. Um, Those are the questions I have at the moment. Can you just give me that reference again in the zoning that you said on the side here? Thank you. |
| 02:28:40.26 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah, that was... |
| 02:28:40.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, that was Thank you. Where was that? |
| 02:28:43.57 | Kristina Feller | It's 10.40.070. |
| 02:28:43.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then... Yes. Chair Fellow, those are my questions at this time. Thank you. |
| 02:28:52.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner. |
| 02:28:53.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And thank you to Brad as well. |
| 02:28:55.44 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Great. Vice Chair Grapp, do you have any questions for staff at this time? |
| 02:29:03.56 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Let's see, Brad, what is your backdrop there? |
| 02:29:11.44 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. I've been waiting for someone to ask me that. That backdrop is actually, the Jonas Salk building in La Jolla at UC San Diego. |
| 02:29:21.68 | Richard Graef | I thought so. OK. My question. My real question is, Um, I'm not really clear on this whole on the setbacks. So that diagram, the site diagram that we were just Looking out. that one. There are That's one of them. There's the... I'm going to go. |
| 02:29:45.97 | Lynn Augustine | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:29:46.75 | Richard Graef | the so-called side yard setback line. And then there's the, Uh... Uh... . side yard setback that's further and then there's the 33.7 increase side yard setback. And we have these various setbacks And I, I'm still not real clear about Um, how those affect the the plan of the of the building, in other words, If we're looking at the the Thank you. I guess we'll It's called Side Yard, but You know, it's really the backyard. If that 33.7 increased side yard is real, then the building is is way into that. yard. So. I'm having a hard time determining what's real and what's not. What governs the plan and what doesn't? Can you clarify that? |
| 02:31:00.40 | Brad Evanson | Okay. Yeah. |
| 02:31:01.33 | Richard Graef | I'm going to go. |
| 02:31:01.35 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. Sure, sure. OK, well, first of all, you need to hear my voice and understand that's really a side yard setback we're talking about here. That's what it says. |
| 02:31:11.03 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. |
| 02:31:12.60 | Brad Evanson | That's that's what we're going with. That's that's the interpretation that we've been working on that since I've been involved with this. So that's that's fine. the interpretation I'm coming from. So the first number there, the really thick line, that's the property line up here between one Canto Gall and 99. This first line, the 10 foot setback, this is the setback within the R120 district. Just by itself, any other R120 property has a 10 foot side setback. And that's this. The next one, because of the Wolfback estate settlement agreement that the city's a party to for the Wolfback estate subdivision. That provided an additional 10-foot increase to every setback. within the subdivision. So in this case, Um, That is the standard 10 foot side setback goes to 20 feet. |
| 02:32:06.50 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:32:06.66 | Brad Evanson | The standard 20 foot rear setback goes to 30 feet. and the standard front setback of zero feet goes to 10 feet. So, that is what that number is. The 33 foot 7 inch increased side set back wrapping through part of the building there. within uh section uh 10.70.090 i believe it is of the code uh there is a stipulation that for buildings that are longer that have like a a profile or a side that are longer than 40 feet For every five feet of length beyond 40 feet, you increase the setback by one foot. And this building length is, I believe it's 108 feet and that worked out to be an additional 13 feet, 7 inches of increased side setbacks. So that's where we jumped from the 20 foot setback to the 33 foot seven inch setback. |
| 02:33:06.97 | Unknown | So, yes. |
| 02:33:07.14 | Brad Evanson | So yes, that does encompass a good chunk of that wing of the building there. |
| 02:33:11.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:11.89 | Brad Evanson | And the reason that we are still considering this proposal is because section 10.40.090 allows for projections into required side yard setbacks. if, They meet certain criteria. in terms of Thank you. The overall amount of the side yard available, the average depth of the yard, maintaining a minimum of three feet for the entire side setback. I'm And based on the Information that the applicant has put together and submitted staff felt as though that it met those criteria. which then brings it to the Planning Commission that it's the Planning Commission's option during a design review process to Consider a request for a projection into a side setback. THE FAMILY. and determine if the criteria are met and thus whether to approve the projection into the setback without going through a variance process. |
| 02:34:22.04 | Richard Graef | Okay. Um, |
| 02:34:29.08 | Richard Graef | Then another question I had that came up in some of the information that's been going back and forth |
| 02:34:29.32 | Unknown | And another question I had that came up |
| 02:34:35.90 | Richard Graef | is |
| 02:34:36.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:36.03 | Unknown | this |
| 02:34:36.35 | Unknown | here. |
| 02:34:36.62 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 02:34:37.42 | Richard Graef | the requirement for the fire truck turnaround, Is that a real? |
| 02:34:44.88 | Brad Evanson | Well, |
| 02:34:44.94 | Richard Graef | Well, that's what happened. |
| 02:34:45.94 | Brad Evanson | Um... |
| 02:34:46.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:47.63 | Brad Evanson | Well, through the chair at one point it was. I have actually been in touch with representatives from Southern Marin Fire. And That particular requirement within the Wolfpack Estate subdivision was established prior to the Sausalito Fire Department being annexed into Southern Marin Fire District. So that was a city requirement that SMFD did not take on And we do have a resolution. The city council adopted a resolution in 2002 declaring that the improvements to Wolfpack estates had been satisfactorily and the security was released. Bonds were released. And that was determined that everything was done. That was signed off. I forget who it was in the public works department that signed off on it and the city council adopted the resolution. I'm not sure. whether or not it was installed that way. The city determined that it was satisfactorily dealt with. When I spoke with Fred Hilliard with Southern Marine Fire, He had mentioned that, um, It wasn't their requirement to have that in there. And that because the turnaround is primarily located on lot 9, If a development were proposed on lot nine, which is across the street, across Wolfback Ridge Road, then they would go ahead and look at, Um, imposing the request for a turnaround there. But at this point, they have determined that they are not requesting a turnaround be linked to this particular project. |
| 02:36:41.11 | Richard Graef | Okay. Thank you. Clear that up. And then, um... of the other issue seems to in my mind, and it seems to be pretty much out there as a point of contention. is the EIR and the various different agreements and everything. as to what truly governs and what's enforceable and what's not. I don't know if we wanna get bogged down in that nuanced. that has always been kind of a elusive to me in terms of getting a real understanding of of, uh... Oh. you know, how much, what bearing those those documents have on this project. So. |
| 02:37:39.48 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 02:37:40.34 | Richard Graef | Um, If you could clear that up in 25 words or less, I'd love it. |
| 02:37:44.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:44.71 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:37:44.75 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:37:46.16 | Brad Evanson | Sure. Not a problem. Just remember, I'm not a lawyer. Nor am I. |
| 02:37:50.74 | Unknown | Or am I? |
| 02:37:51.78 | Brad Evanson | Well, then we're going to get along great. Yeah. Um, no, I, I, in all honesty, um, my read on this is that. Um, because the the adoption of the subdivision, the certification of the EIR. made a point to include the architectural standards that are in the settlement agreement. as applicable to all development within this project. that those were considered conditions of approval or mitigation measures for the subdivision through the EIR. because there wasn't a formal inclusion of the idea that there's an expected range Uh, size range of the home from 2000 to 4000 square feet. There's really only one reference to that in the EIR anywhere, and it's not listed as a mitigation measure or as a condition of approval specifically for the subdivisions. Um, It has been staff's interpretation that This was a a little more than a simple conceptual project identifier put together to establish a baseline project. I'm not sure. But that wasn't a restriction in terms of I'm not sure. limiting development to that particular range. |
| 02:39:27.99 | Richard Graef | more like the thing I buy or wish this. OK. |
| 02:39:34.75 | Kristina Feller | Great, Vice Chair Graff, do you have any more questions? |
| 02:39:35.92 | Richard Graef | Thank you. So that's it for now. Thank you. |
| 02:39:40.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Um, let's see. Karen Hollweg, Mr pierce. |
| 02:39:45.74 | Morgan Pierce | Yes, thank you, Chair Feller. I just have a couple. So obviously we've been through a lot of the analysis here, and I just want to ask. A simple question of Brad. |
| 02:39:55.68 | Unknown | Oh, good. |
| 02:39:57.52 | Morgan Pierce | Does the project as designed and as we're looking at today meet the requirements of the settlement agreement, specifically the height and setback requirements? |
| 02:40:06.88 | Brad Evanson | It does meet the height requirements. Yes, it does not meet. the setback requirements without planning commission approval. And that goes back to the- |
| 02:40:15.42 | Morgan Pierce | And that goes back to the- |
| 02:40:18.68 | Brad Evanson | I'm sorry? |
| 02:40:19.29 | Morgan Pierce | And would you mind highlighting just specifically where that, those conditions occur? |
| 02:40:23.35 | Brad Evanson | Um, Yes, here along the THE CITY IS A LITTLE BIT OF I think that's the east side. I'm looking at it sideways. THE FAMILY. South, portion of the South and then a portion of the West. There are I'm not sure. into some of the setback areas. The primary one obviously is here. on the east or the south, I forget how it's oriented there. Which one were we calling? |
| 02:40:55.00 | Morgan Pierce | based on that diagram ensures that it's behind that setback. So that's where I'm confused. |
| 02:41:00.04 | Brad Evanson | I'm, Well, as I mentioned earlier, here's the 10 foot R120 setback. Here is the increased setback for the Wolfpack Estates. accommodation. this this would be the governing standard right here. This 20 foot except except for per section 10.40.070. We have this portion of the zoning ordinance that stipulates that buildings that are longer than 40 feet in length Um, have to have an increased side yard setback. based on a threshold or a ratio of every five feet past 40 gets you one more foot of setback required. |
| 02:41:49.03 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you, but I'm purely interested in the Wolfpack estate. So if this building were only 10 feet long, but it could still butt up against that 20 foot, |
| 02:41:49.05 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:41:57.48 | Morgan Pierce | West Wolfpack estate setback and not be in violation of the Wolfpack settlement agreement. Correct. |
| 02:42:01.82 | Brad Evanson | Correct. |
| 02:42:02.39 | Morgan Pierce | Thanks. Right. And so was there somewhere along the south? where you said it was violating it. |
| 02:42:07.46 | Brad Evanson | Well, the south back here against Rose Bowl, one Rose Bowl, right here, if you can see my cursor on the screen, there's a little bit of – THE CITY OF THE CITY OF a This is where the setback increases to 29 feet, 10 inches. And there's a slight intrusion into the setback or projection into the setback right here. |
| 02:42:34.35 | Morgan Pierce | And that's from the world. |
| 02:42:34.73 | Brad Evanson | to walk back. |
| 02:42:35.33 | Morgan Pierce | States. |
| 02:42:36.06 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 02:42:36.31 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 02:42:36.38 | Brad Evanson | guidelines or that's from city guidelines? Well, the 20 foot Wolfpack estates criteria is here and it complies with that standard. It's again, due to the building length that, because the city's a party to this, they both apply. |
| 02:42:48.70 | Morgan Pierce | because he's a party to this. Got it. And so the proposed projections So, While they may violate the Sausage Mutual Municipal Code, they do not violate the intent of the Wolfpack's estate's settlement agreement. Is that correct? |
| 02:43:06.55 | Brad Evanson | Um, yeah, I guess I guess yeah, if if the building was not as long as it as it's proposed to be. then yes, there wouldn't be that intrusion or that projection into the setback. So Uh, yeah, that would, uh, that would be the case. |
| 02:43:27.00 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. And then my other question at the moment is how much square footage is above grade, and how does that compare to the neighboring structures? |
| 02:43:35.07 | Brad Evanson | I would have to... Honestly, I'm drawing a blank on it. Less than 4000 square feet. I would defer to the applicant to come up with the precise number above grade, but if I remember correctly, it's less than 4000 square feet. Um, which, uh, then would actually fall within that perceived or that conceptual 2000 to 4000 square foot range. Um, Most of the residences in the adjacent areas do have above grade sizes within that general range. Thank you. |
| 02:44:13.87 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Those are all the questions I have present with the Chair Feller. |
| 02:44:16.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:44:20.35 | Nastassya Saad | I think quite a few of my questions have been answered. I had a lot of questions around the setbacks. Thank you to other commissioners for asking, and thank you, Brad, for clarifying just now. I still am a little bit confused on the EIR and I'm looking specifically at at What am I looking at? I think I am looking at the attachment 15C in the agenda. and there is a portion on page three about the EIR being enforceable. And I won't, read it all the way through and I know you touched on this, but I'm still uncertain if the EIR really is a, is a ruling document here or simply a, a guidance because that attachment from, Having some excerpts quoted makes it sound as though the EIR is actually a controlling document in the settlement agreement and to be looked at in that regard. |
| 02:45:25.47 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Saad, I see that our city attorney has come up on the screen here. |
| 02:45:30.92 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 02:45:31.58 | Kristina Feller | But before I ask her to interject, she also provided quite a detailed explanation of this in our last hearing in October. And if she could recreate such a description and explanation, I think it would be most helpful to everyone here on this virtual meeting. Thank you. |
| 02:45:52.18 | Mary Wagner | Sure. And let me see if I can understand the question. So I think the question is, what is really the impact of the EIR? |
| 02:45:59.35 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 02:46:00.43 | Mary Wagner | And is it also related to this house size question, or is it an overall question? |
| 02:46:06.56 | Nastassya Saad | I guess it's more overall. I'm looking at it in the eyes of the housing, $2,000 to $4,000 limit. OK. |
| 02:46:15.01 | Mary Wagner | Okay. So the EIR does apply and specific provisions of it were referenced in the settlement agreement. And actually, I apologize, I'm trying to pull up the settlement agreement while I'm talking to you. But I agree with Brad on the specific question that the size of the homes, that 2,000 to 4,000 square foot reference, is in the project description and it's included as kind of a general sense of what the projects, what the housing sizes might be. It is not a limitation. |
| 02:46:38.62 | Unknown | IN THE CITY. |
| 02:46:47.36 | Mary Wagner | It's not a mitigation measure. It's not a condition of approval. But the EIR generally does apply. And if you guys can give me a moment, I can go back. I can pull that document up and give you a more detailed explanation. But I wanted to make sure that I jumped in as well to concur with Brad and the information that he was providing to you in that response. |
| 02:47:09.52 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, Mary, if you can pop back up when you have that in already, I think it's an important subject too. I'm not sure. to discuss on this hearing tonight. While you're doing that, I'll ask Commissioner Saad if she has any, further questions other than the EIR. |
| 02:47:27.24 | Nastassya Saad | I think all my setback questions have been answered. So I'm thank you, Chair Feller. I'm okay now. |
| 02:47:32.77 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, I have a couple of questions, Brad, if, if I, if I could. at this point. along the lines of what Commissioner Pierce was asking. Is this project specifically pursuing or having experiences? |
| 02:47:52.87 | Brad Evanson | I'm sorry I couldn't hear that last part. |
| 02:47:55.06 | Kristina Feller | Is, is this project, is this applicant specifically looking for any variances? |
| 02:48:00.82 | Brad Evanson | No. |
| 02:48:02.61 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And have you spent some time discussing issues regarding the two existing evergreen trees on the site with the arborist. |
| 02:48:16.83 | Brad Evanson | I have not spent time discussing them with the arborist. I've reviewed both the initial tree assessment that was prepared and the arborist report that... laid out some of the construction management best practices to preserve and protect the trees. But no, I have not actually spoken directly with the arborist. I read the report. that we were able to do in. did what what everyone had been looking forward to do, which was provide guidance to I'm not sure. where the design of the house could be altered to better accommodate preserving the trees and then establish criteria for how best to the trees during the construction. Those have traditionally been the the two points that we've always looked at. in new development, how to around and then how to protect during construction. It seemed like these documents did a sufficient job of addressing that. |
| 02:49:23.73 | Kristina Feller | the movie. And then I wanted to ask if you're aware of any specific declarations of restrictions on lock Four. So in other words, the lot in between 51 Wolfback and lot 599 Wolfback here is lot 4. which is a much higher elevation, of course, than lot five so I'm wondering if there are any declarations of restrictions on that from that site. |
| 02:49:54.07 | Brad Evanson | My understanding is there there are I'm not sure. Similar restrictions, I do not know exactly what they are. I've not seen them. THE FAMILY. some documentation that I'd seen reference that I think it was during the original negotiations on When the owners of 51 Wolfback were negotiating the purchase, that they negotiated for the development restrictions to go on to both lots four and five because at that time. The seller of 51 also owned and still owns four, but also at that time still owned five. So that was My understanding is that there were restrictions placed on both parcels. |
| 02:50:44.51 | Kristina Feller | And just remember, Lot four is not owned by either the owner of lot five or the owner of lot three, correct? |
| 02:50:54.04 | Brad Evanson | Correct. |
| 02:50:54.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Um, All right, those are my questions for staff at the moment. I see that Mary has had a chance to pull up her information. So I'd like to ask her to comment on the EIR. |
| 02:51:10.71 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for your patience while I went back and pulled up the language in the actual settlement agreement that I was looking for, and I think that this may be what Commissioner Saad was referring to. So the settlement agreement itself states that The EIR that was certified by the city that the parties to the settlement agreement agreement extracted specific provisions of it, included them in the settlement agreement. Some of the development standards that you're talking about tonight. kind of the extra setbacks, all those limitations that you've been discussing. with Brad, but it also says that to the extent that any provisions of the agreement are unclear, any provisions of the settlement agreement, incomplete or at variance with the FEIR, then the FEIR shall be the overriding document and shall prevail. So it does apply. even provisions that might not have been expressly incorporated if in fact it's inconsistent with or different than the agreement. But back to this 2,000, 4,000 square foot issue. I don't think that was a controlling condition or mitigation measure in the EIR, it was not. It was just a part of the project description. we talked about this at length. at your last hearing. I'm happy to expand further if it would be helpful. |
| 02:52:34.08 | Nastassya Saad | That was really helpful. Thank you, Mary. |
| 02:52:36.29 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:52:36.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:52:36.35 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:52:36.37 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 02:52:36.40 | Mary Wagner | Sure. |
| 02:52:36.59 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:52:38.14 | Kristina Feller | Any more questions for Mary specific to the EIR or any other settlement agreement matters. Thank you. Thank you. Um, any other questions for staff? at this time. |
| 02:52:58.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:58.66 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:52:58.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:00.65 | Kristina Feller | Don't see any. Brad, I want to thank you again for an excellent presentation. Thank you for... answering some questions. Certainly keep those slides handy because I'm sure we'll need to come back to them for reference. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to ask the applicant team to provide their presentation. The applicant is allowed 15 minutes. uh, for that, that does not include any questions that the commissioners might be asking. and you are welcome to save some time. on the clock if you want to use that later on. and you're welcome also to have multiple individuals from your team present. So I'm not sure who's presenting for the applicant. I'm assuming it's Mr. Couture. If he can be unmuted and his video turned on. |
| 02:54:02.06 | Scott Couture | All right, can you hear me now? |
| 02:54:04.00 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 02:54:04.90 | Scott Couture | And is my video on yet? |
| 02:54:08.03 | Kristina Feller | Your video is on and if I could ask the Zoom team to please show the comment timer. |
| 02:54:16.42 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:54:17.91 | Kristina Feller | Just a moment. |
| 02:54:21.70 | Kristina Feller | There we go. All right, over to you. |
| 02:54:27.81 | Scott Couture | Okay, I just, I want to start by, there was in part of the staff presentation, the floor plans and the rendering shown were actually of the last version of the project. And it showed still in the other pool. So I just want to kind of point that out that those plans are not of the current submittal. They're actually of the previous submittal for that. And then I'm gonna make a presentation. I do wanna do a screen share. And I do know that Some of the commissioners and new commissioners in particular have a lot of questions about just some of the nature of this project. It is kind of a little convoluted and very complex and I'll save some time afterwards to answer their questions on those specifically and address those. But some of my presentation will address that. Am I able to do a screen share now? |
| 02:55:28.55 | Kristina Feller | There you go. |
| 02:55:29.49 | Scott Couture | Okay, can you see that? |
| 02:55:30.96 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 02:55:31.97 | Scott Couture | Okay. Well, good evening, commissioners. My name is Scott Couture. I'm the project architect. I wanna start off by recapping just kind of a few items that came up the last hearing. The first item was the questions on creating shadow and lumen and privacy impacts to one counter gal along that side property line. This photo is actually of the hedge that separates the two properties. The storyboard isn't included. You can see them up here in the corner. And as you can see, the hedge already creates the shadow and above and beyond what the proposed home will do. This next photo was taken just in front of the Juan Canto Gall garage, and the story poles are in place. However, they're not visible above the hedge. This photo here is along that same property line. It's on the kitchen patio. And again, the story poles are in place, however, they're still not visible. This photo is from far edge of the living room patio. It's on the Eastern side of the house. Here only the tops of the poles are visible in the center. These poles are actually the dining room roof. This is on the opposite side of the property. The story poles for the eastern portion of the house, the master bedroom wing, are not visible at all. We kind of contend that if you can't see the story polls, then the proposed home can't shadow. It really can't loom and it really doesn't create any privacy issues. There is one area that we will agree with Mr. McMill and one of his concerns was along, there are areas at the base of this hedge that are porous. We have agreed to and added a low solid wall along the lot five side of this hedge, just runs right along in here. This will add a solid privacy screen. It's about four feet tall along the base of this hedge. Also, at the request of Mr. McMillan, we've changed the pool out to a simple water feature. This will eliminate the noise generated from the pool use. Now we left this water feature here because this prevents the lot five occupants from standing along the edge of the hedge and looking over at the lot five outdoor spaces. This water feature is actually kind of a benefit to the privacy of one Kanto Gaal. |
| 02:57:57.49 | Scott Couture | The second item that I want to review is just the size of the proposed home. The reason we developed these aerial montages is to show the home as it is, as it really is in context with its site and with its neighbors. Now most of the home, most of the above grade portion of the home is pushed to the west to avoid crowding of one Council of Gaul and one Rose Bowl. And as you can see, the visible portion of the home is actually smaller than the neighbors. This is not a rendering tray. The above grade portion of the proposal is less than 3,400 square feet of floor area. This is smaller than the neighboring homes. The mass of the house is sunken into the landscape. The exposed portion is shaped and minimized to minimize its visual bulk. We've worked extensively with the Park Service on the materials and the new landscaping. and they currently have no objections to the project. What you see in the montages is what the home will be. It is a home sunken into the landscape. It's shaped and shadowed with overhangs and offset forms. It's surfaced in darker weathered materials. It's topped with a green roof of irrigated succulents. And it is screened with existing and new landscaping. The third item I want to kind of review is the view impact to 51 Wolfback Ridge Road. Now, 51 Wolfback Ridge Road has a vast panoramic view from every room, every side of the house, and every level. They look right through the lot four bank and right through the lot five property. Lot five is part of their view shed. We know whatever we put there, they will see. We also know that the zone ordinance does not guarantee a completely unobstructed panoramic view. The proposed home sits quite low on the site. It is only 13 1⁄2 and 17 1⁄2 feet above grade. This is only 32-foot height maximum zone. From the perspective of 51 Walk Backridge Road, most of the home is hidden below the Lot 4 bank. Again, we developed these photo montages to show the home in real photos as it will be. The view impact we feel is minimal, particularly in comparison to the vast panoramic viewshed of 51 Wolfback Ridge Road. The fifth item I wanna go through, the fourth item is at the last year and the commissioners had some questions, concerns about the potential impacts to the health and vitality of the two Monterey trees. Now we've taken many measures to assure the preservation. The excavation around them is actually minimal. the kitchen pantry pop out the closest portion, Just can't leave it out to avoid any root loss. And from the beginning of the design process, we consulted with Bob Mori and Marin Arbors to help guide us Now, to further address the commissioner's questions and concerns from the last hearing, we went out and hired the second arborist. to peer review our project artworks. We're James McNair. Those who recall 654 Sosso Boulevard will know that this is who he hired to peer review and beat up The garbage report for 654 Sarsilville Boulevard. James is tough. He reviewed the current health of the trees and found them to be in good condition. He reviewed any impacts the proposal may have upon the trees would remain healthy. He also came up with some additional measures for construction and post-construction to assure the tree's vitalities. And we incorporated all of these into our approval. |
| 03:01:38.50 | Scott Couture | This item that came up the last hearing was the Commissioner's question of the visibility from the marine headlights. Originally, we had not generated these photo montages from the headlands. However, since it came up as an issue, we hiked out to the trails. We took these photos and created these photo montages you see here. Again, we wanna show you the proposal in real life, renderings and actual site photographs with real shade and shadow, with real material depiction, and existing in new landscape. Included is a location map showing the limited area that the home is actually visible from within the park. It's outlined here in yellow. you will know that the proposed home is not visible from anywhere within Sausalito city limits, except for the adjacent property. Now, we've always known that the home would be visible from the park. This is why we worked with the Park Service from the beginning of the project, so that we could assure that we could mitigate any of their concerns. We understood by shaping the home with overhangs and offset forms that the home would create shade and shadow upon itself. We understood by covering the home in materials that were subdued and would weather, the home would recede and blend into the landscape. We've also included additional landscape around the base of the house, below the house on the bank, as well as four New Coastal Live Oaks, all to help promote screening These renderings show just this. Its visibility and its visual brightness is far less than some of the surrounding halls. Now these views are from a quarter mile, a half mile, and over three quarters of a mile away. Yes, this home will be seen. It is designed to become part of the visual landscape. To be invisible from the park is not a detriment. The southern portion of the Marin Headlands has numerous visible structures. Wolfback Ridge is dotted with homes that are visible. The Cape Hard Military House, and horse stables, the Marin Mammal Center, World War II bunkers, and of course Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. This is the very nature of your experience in this portion of the headlands. I think it is important to note that the Park Service, the very folks whose mission is to protect the integrity of the park, has no objections to the current proposal. It has been a very long journey to get to this point. It's been four years, we've had three planners with two community development directors and one very extraordinarily patient family. The St. Dharmas are longtime residents of Sausalito. They've wanted to make this property their home for over a decade. It took them many years to convince Alan Patterson to sell it to them. And for the past four years, We have done everything within reason to try to appease the neighbors. We've made numerous revisions and compromises, revisions made before we submitted for design review in 2018, and revisions we made during the Planning Commission hearing process, including this very submittal. This design goes well above and beyond any requirements of the design review findings. The height is almost half the allowable. The floor area is 60% of the allowable. The above grade mass is smaller than any home around it. It's less than 3,400 square feet above grade. This is on a one acre site, just shy of one acre. Our proposal does conform to all R120 zone requirements. It does conform to all the Wolfpack Estates development agreement requirements. Now, we're in the camp that 2,000 to 4,000 square feet is not a limitation. It's not part of the Wolfpack Estates agreement. How do we know this? Lot 6, Wolfpack Estates, which is 34 Wolfpack Terrace, currently has 4,215 square feet of floor area plus 775 square foot of garage. Lot 1 of Wolfback Estates, which is 61 Wolfback Ridge Road, was approved and built at 4,650 square feet of floor area and 540 square feet of garage. Lot three of Wolfback Estates, 51 Wolfback Ridge Road, has a current application in by Rex Architects for 5,465 square feet of floor area, plus a 795 square foot garage. All these properties are part of Wolfback Estates. All are over 4,000 square feet. This 2,000 to 4,000 square foot limitation is not a limit. What is designed for the St. Diamonds will have a beautiful and elegant presence on the hillside. We believe it meets all the conforming requirements and it's ready to be approved. Questions, please ask as many as you wish. Standing by, I also have James McNair, the project arborist, and Eva Hugeland, the landscape architect from Shades of Greens, and Paul Pospisil from Cuesta, who designed the septic system. All right, thank you. |
| 03:06:31.36 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation. Um, Very thorough. Incidentally, do you have a site plan that you might be able to pull up that is the current site plan as well? |
| 03:06:42.58 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:06:43.70 | Kristina Feller | And while you are doing so, I will turn to the commissioners and ask them if they have any questions of the applicant. |
| 03:06:49.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:49.47 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:06:49.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:54.82 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Pierce. |
| 03:06:56.22 | Morgan Pierce | Yes, thank you, Chair Feller, and thank you, Scott, for the... the presentation. I appreciate the quality of the graphics you provide. It's very helpful and in assisting in our deliberation. I have a couple questions and I do want to preface it with I am generally an advocate for this project and I do believe there's been a great attempt made to make it synthesize with landscape as much as possible but I still have some concerns and those really |
| 03:07:06.77 | Unknown | I get |
| 03:07:21.62 | Morgan Pierce | uh, regarding the impact to the GGNRA. And I know you've addressed a number of them, But I unfortunately have to envision this project in a landscape that is completely absent of the plant material because while I have full understanding that the intent is to preserve the Monterey Pines and the other vegetation. There will be a time when they're not there. And what will this building look like? from the GGNRA, not only to humans but to the wildlife that lives there and during the day during dusk during dawn during low light conditions when this thing is going to be still be a glowing beacon while i admit that the uh the selection of the materials are definitely much more nuanced and and will be integrated to the landscape there are still big expanses of glass um that i would like to see reduced not necessarily the size of the glass, but by some sort of screening method. And my question is, would you be willing to consider further screening of those glass areas, not to necessarily restrict views, but to restrict the view of them from the landscape? |
| 03:07:51.37 | Morgan Pierce | It's a great day. |
| 03:08:26.47 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:08:26.48 | Scott Couture | The simple answer to the question is yes. So, and we've been discussing that. We've added, as you see, we've added four coastal live oaks to the project. And the one thing that we noticed The two trees that are out there, the Monterey Cypress and the Monterey Pine, I'm not sure. don't actually provide a lot of screening material to the project itself. the full canopy of the Monterey Cypress tree is actually above the roof line. What you see, what is screened in the house is basically just the trunks. There's a multi-trunk in there. But the full canopy of the evergreen canopy of the Monterey Cypress is actually above the roofline. The The tree that's a little further down the hill, which is actually on a lot nine property, the Monterey Pine, is similar to that. It is, a good portion of it is above the roof line And there are some smaller branches that do stick down below the roof line and do help provide a little bit of screen, it's not much. The majority of the screen in from those two trees is actually the saplings that are underneath the Monterey pine. And, The one thing that we've noticed is that when you do go out onto the trails, the Bordeaux Valley Trail and the SCA Trail, and even down on Volcker Road, and you look at this home, It's the screen from the bottom up that is the most important, because your angle of how you see this home is from the bottom up. And we've added those curved planters at the base along that rocky ledge there. We've added a bunch of those on there to do just that, to sort of fill in the base of this rock ledge, create these planting areas in there where we can elevate and create some surface area to put in some shrubs that you know can be four to five or six or eight you know eight feet tall um we we are cognizant of the implication of putting you know the oak trees on there that it's not our intent to have them grow above the roof line and create additional view blockage from the neighbor at 51 wolfback ridge Road. I know that is a concern of theirs. So we've also looked at, this is very early on in the project, if we took out the Monterey Cypress and the Monterey Pine Tree, there was a conversation we had early on with Mr. Rex, who is representing 51 Wolfpack Ridge Road, that, you know, those trees are view blockage to them. And they asked us if we would take them out. And it's not something that we wanted to do. We understand why they would ask that, because it does block the view in there. We feel the importance of those trees is it creates kind of an anchor to the whole site. If there wasn't a strong, powerful, vertical force there, this is sort of just good design principles or good Feng Shui principles, that all that good energy that sits on that site would just flow down the hill. out down the valley, out into the ocean. And so we talked a long time ago about proposing putting a new large tree there, like a 60-inch box oak tree. And We never went down that road. We thought it was safer, particularly with UDNRA and maybe the planning commissioners, to leave the existing mature trees that were there. The conversation came back up on proposing or having a large replacement tree intact. It came up from a conversation I had with Chair Feller over the weekend. who relayed a story to me about another project that promised to leave an oak tree and somebody accidentally backed into the oak tree with some equipment and they had to take the tree down. And we've been promising, we've had two arborists out saying, yes, we could keep those trees there. The home is closed, but the impact isn't gonna affect the trees. And it's sort of a promise we're making. And I know that if, it's not something that we can guarantee, but if, we contemplated saying, okay, we could, add in there as a condition of approval that, if anything would happen with those trees that we could say, okay, then the old property owner would be responsible to replacing them with something significant, not a 24, 30-inch box tree, which really wouldn't do much there, but replace it with something that's actually very substantial. And a 60-inch oak tree is probably 18 feet tall and 18 feet wide and would actually provide really kind of a nice canopy because it would be below the roof line and wouldn't block the views of 51 Wolfpack Ridge Road. So we are open to options there. It's kind of a fine balance between we don't wanna put something that's gonna block the view of 51 Wolfpack Ridge Road, but we also don't want to expose the full house to, you know, the park side. And from a design standpoint, again, we feel very strongly that that point needs a very strong vertical anchor point, which is really kind of a large scale train. Thank you. |
| 03:14:14.92 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you for that. Again, I agree. You'll get no argument from me regarding the inclusion of trees. However, obviously we need to be concerned about potential view impacts to 51 and from lot four once that's developed. As you yourself stated, the lower plants tend to have the best impact |
| 03:14:15.04 | Scott Couture | And again, |
| 03:14:24.13 | Gary Panariello | I have to go. |
| 03:14:32.94 | Morgan Pierce | on masking the property from GGNRA visitors and obviously I think that's going to be important I do want to be cognizant of the fact that, you know, someday in the future, you know, a new owner might hire the same gardeners that work on one Rose Bowl next door. And subsequently, this thing needs to react from strongly from an architectural perspective to be subordinate to the landscape and not rely on landscaping that may or may not exist in the future. So that's why I'm requesting. I believe the articulation of the building has been handled rather successfully. |
| 03:14:49.60 | Morgan Pierce | I used to. |
| 03:15:04.75 | Morgan Pierce | I would like to see some way to reduce the mass of the glass. Again, not necessarily by reducing the glazing itself, but providing some architectural screening that, again, allows for the views but protects the views from the site inward towards your building. |
| 03:15:24.22 | Morgan Pierce | And I think there's probably some things you can explore with that. And I'm just asking for you to consider that. And if you will. |
| 03:15:31.28 | Scott Couture | Yeah, my viewpoint on the glazing is, my office is down on Caledonia on second floor and I faced West and I look up on the hillsides and I spend quite a bit of my days on the phone, looking out the window up onto the hillside that's above Caledonia. And one of the things that I notice is, what is visually bright up there? And this is a term that you'll hear me say many times. And the visual brightness of a building, and it's not always related to the size and sometimes the materials. And what I see when I look up the hill and, you know, in the early morning and through the late afternoon and then even into the sundown and into the evening is that the glass area tends to recede the most during the daylight hours. And this is specifically only the glass areas that doesn't have a white shade behind it or white blind behind it. And even some of the darker wood-toned materials when the sun is on them, they become reasonably bright, certainly brighter than the glass area is. And so a lot of what I've done with the shape and material of this home is to sort of play upon that, The materials that you see, the quartz and steel is non-reflective, it will weather and patina nicely. But in the glass area, I think will continue, will recede, particularly during the day. The shade and shadow that is part of this is actually key. The things that receive the most are the things that are in the shadow, and the things that pop out the most are in the sun, even the darker materials. I do understand the concerns that, will this thing be a lantern at night? The vantage points that you see this on are pretty far away, a quarter mile, up to three quarters of a mile, and maybe even further. |
| 03:17:06.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:17:06.81 | Unknown | and, you know, |
| 03:17:06.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:17:47.86 | Scott Couture | And it would take an extraordinary high level of lumens to become a lantern on the landscape. So we're certainly not going to design it that way. It's a horrible way to live inside a space if there's far too much light in there. And you want to create light inside a home like this so that you don't create reflections off the interior of the glass, which means you want to keep the lighting level low inside at night. Um, Even if the glass is lit up, let's say, it's only probably four hours during a 24-hour cycle that the light is on. We're in the daytime that the siding is in the sun at least 12 hours a day. And so that's sort of a balance that we try to take. And I think the glass is actually a less visible, less visually bright material when you consider the full 24-hour cycle of a building's life |
| 03:18:44.97 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. |
| 03:18:45.19 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 03:18:45.54 | Morgan Pierce | Well, again, and we respect the design intent and the intent of your clients, which all seem admirable. However, we have to plan for the future that doesn't include those. And the future owners that purchase the white shades behind the screens and the 5,000 Kelvin temperature bright lights that keep them on 24 seven. So that's what we need to mitigate because |
| 03:18:58.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:18:58.64 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:18:58.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:01.69 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 03:19:05.03 | Scott Couture | be able to do it after the fact. |
| 03:19:06.35 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:19:07.18 | Scott Couture | I'm pretty sure if the Satan Thomas can get themselves in the house, you will never get them out. |
| 03:19:13.01 | Morgan Pierce | I will, that was a long answer to an important question. I will take a break here and let some of my fellow commissioners ask some questions, but I'll have a couple more later. Thank you. OK, thank you. |
| 03:19:24.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Pierce. Thank you. Let's see, Commissioner Saad, do you have any questions for the applicants? |
| 03:19:31.66 | Nastassya Saad | I was just curious as you probably heard some of the concerns around the potential setbacks. It sounds like the neighbors have some concerns as well. Um, Is there any... desire to appease some of those concerns and and shrink the property a little bit to not have basically mitigate those some of those setbacks and some of the concerns from the from the neighbors and potentially from the It just says, |
| 03:20:04.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:05.09 | Nastassya Saad | It is a strange property, I think, My fellow Commissioner Luxembourg said that it is a unique lot in its own. And I do think personally, just the design is, It's a really interesting design. I think it's well designed, but just wondering if it has to be at that scale for a particular reason other than they your you know the potential owners just want to be at that scale. |
| 03:20:33.16 | Scott Couture | A lot of it is the way we look at the setbacks is the impact to the neighbors. If you look at the building portion that's along the one Kanto Gaol portion of the site, it's essentially a one story building. I think it's 53 feet long. It is, at this point, the minimum is 20 feet away from the property line. It is over 50 feet away from the garage itself. And most of the overlap between the one-canto gal house and the proposal along the master bedroom there is really just at the garage area. If you walk down the existing driveway that goes to One Cantocal, you walk in front of the One Cantocal driveway and then you walk into the front door, There was almost no point along there where you actually see the proposed home. And with that, we feel that if you can't notice that what we're proposing is there, it really can't have that negative impact. The side... setbacks are really designed to promote light and air between adjacent properties, adjacent structures. And when we evaluate, you know, are we, what we're proposing, does it impact the light and air to one canto gall And it goes back to some of the photos that I had shown in my presentation in front of the driveway and in front of the kitchen patio, which is on that same side. When you look up at the bank, you see the hedge, but you don't see the story poles. So if the story polls aren't visible, it's hard to see how what the proposal has, has an impact on there. There's been some, you know, there's been a lot of claim about, or building it is so much longer than the normal up that's on there. And It's really not quite true. Our proposed building length is actually shorter than the one Council Gal building length. It is almost identical to the length of one Rose Bowl, and it's actually shorter than the length of 51 Wolfpack Ridge Road. So there's nothing really exceptionally long about our building, particularly in this neighborhood. The reason that we have sort of pushed the building to the west and pushed the building to the east is to create, there's a little patio in between the master bathroom and the dining room. And when you look at the building from the park side, What you see is you see the end of the dining room, and it's a small section, it's a one room, and then you see the end of the master bedroom, and then you see a space in between them. And what that's doing is breaking up what could be a continuous wall, and separating the two pieces, and creating a recess in the middle there, which is that patio, And that helps create you know, two smaller volumes of building a recess in between and shade and shadow Thank you. that will make the building smaller, break down at those points. The property is one acre. I mean, this is an expensive piece of property. It was purchased as a one acre piece of property. The size of the building that we're proposing, 5,165 square feet. It's a big building, but this is a very big lot, just under an acre. The exposed portion of the building, particularly on the, you know, above that graded portion, I think it's like 3,325 square feet of floor area above grade, that's it. That's actually smaller than all the three homes around it. We've achieved the higher floor area by basically digging down, which is something that I think is supported or should be supported by, you know, the reducing the impact of having that home there. So I don't know if that answers your question, Enough. |
| 03:25:10.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you Scott. Commissioner Saad, do you have any other questions for the applicant? |
| 03:25:14.78 | Nastassya Saad | Not right now, thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 03:25:17.06 | Kristina Feller | Great. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 03:25:20.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. I'm trying to figure out how to phrase this. I guess I have concerns about the setback on the backside. Whether or not it's a rear yard or a side yard, doesn't matter. A rear yard makes it 30 feet and a side yard makes it 33 feet, seven inches if the planning commission isn't willing to vary it. So I think that this, I'm concerned about the garage because in essence, And then you have this canto gall, the easement, which also goes over the lot three. It goes into one canto gall, forms a T intersection. And then you have this garage coming out, and you have this and very quickly turning around a curve. And when you come around that curve, when you're coming from Wolfpack Ridge Road, it's like almost like a canyon. There's this big hill there. And so I disagree with you that you can't see this house. When you see the garage, it's a two-story building that towers over that driveway. And you've got cars coming out quickly turning left, which I think is unsafe. |
| 03:26:15.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:26:34.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | difficult to make the findings on safety. And so I am sort of asking the same question that Commissioner Saad said, which is if, you know, if your client needed to pull this thing back off that thing, the 30 feet or 27 feet or some number and needed to relocate that garage, I mean, this is a very attractive, you've done an excellent job with the design of this building. It's a very attractive building. I'm not so concerned about the length, I'm concerned about the length as it gives you some license to go into this set there. So I mean, the length is fine if it was set back from that, what I'm calling a rear yard setback, or you can call a side yard setback. So I guess my question is, is if your client had a choice of getting a rejection or possibly working out a design that pulls it back a little bit from that setback, what would they do? |
| 03:27:40.33 | Scott Couture | Well, clients always like approvals, as you know. I want to address this kind of two issues. One is the rare yard issue that you had brought up. Was that a rare yard or a side yard? um as you know is you know you're quite familiar with how to design a property and realize that this is you know the wolfback estates is designed in such ways that would confound anybody as to why they made these decisions these are you know the shape of this property is not something that we picked um it just happens to be what we were given um and you know we certainly would not have done it that way but this is this is what we we came up with how we determine the front and the the It just happens to be what we were given. And we certainly would not have done it that way, but this is what we came up with. How we determine the front and the rear property lines was basically straight out of the code But it really wasn't us that decided this. We sat down with staff, with Calvin Chan, who's a senior planner. He's been a planner in Sausalito for many, many years. And We worked out what the front would be and what the sides would be and what the rear would be. The rear we selected from basically from the code language, which says the opposite and most distance from the front property line. And, you know, I understand the tendency to want to look at this property as just that flat graded portion that the part that sort of the leg of the sea down that goes across one count of ground down the hill can easily be visually discounted. Thank you. However, That's not really fair to the property owner. I mean, it's taken away a lot of the property owner rights ownership of that land that's down there. I think instead of discounting that and saying, this is only a 15 or 1700 square foot size parcel, I think recognizing the fact that it is an almost a one acre parcel. And our development of that one acre parcel was strictly limited to the area that had already been denuded and regraded and gravel. And that the rest of the property that does spill across one count of gravel, Down the hill contains a lot of trees, a lot of native vegetation down there. Um, that it's actually an asset and an attribute to the project that We don't touch any of that. And I think it's fair to the property owner that this be considered as a one acre parcel and that the property line is truly, the rear property line is truly at the backside of the bottom of that hill. And we have in our design of a new house here, we're bringing forward to you a brand new house in Sausalito and we're taking out zero trees and we're hardly taking out any existing vegetation. In fact, we're adding far more than exists there now. With regards to our permitted projections into the setbacks, This is something that Calvin and I had, Calvin Chan, the senior planner, and I had a long discussion about how to interpret and how to utilize both the increase inside your setback section of the code and the permitted projection section of the code in this you know odd C-shaped lot because it doesn't fit the norms as you know and We looked at it two ways one is what's the the strict wording of the code in the zone ordinance? And Calvin has been using the same zoning ordinance for, I don't know, a decade. I've been using this ordinance. I've been here for 25 years reading Sausalito Municipal Code. I used to work at Donald Olson's office. And I think, in fact, I was the only guy in the office or the first guy in the office to actually open up the zoning code. |
| 03:31:46.67 | Unknown | the, outing. |
| 03:31:48.86 | Scott Couture | But we looked at it in two ways, the strict interpretation of the language that's in the zone ordinance. And the second was, once we made a determination of how that was to be interpreted, What was the results of that? And when We have this, you know, the prayer room, the master bedroom, the whole master suite. that portion which is into the increased setbacks, it does meet the calculations allowable by the permitted projections. The other criteria we looked at is does it meet the intent of of the side yard setbacks. And the intent of the setbacks is to provide light and air between adjacent properties, adjacent structures. And when I look at this, and I encourage you to, you know, kind of look at it the same way, and this is a, it's a one story structure that spans 53 feet, that is in essence, about 50 feet away from its adjacent neighbor. And, You know, these are big different distances. These are, there's plenty of light and air between the two structures. And I, you know, I'll go back to, and contend to some of the slides that I've shown that you you can stand in the driveway at one console gallon, you won't be able to see this house. And if that's the case, Is that projection into the side yard setback Um... Does it go against the intent of setbacks in the first place? And we strongly feel it doesn't. If you can't see it, no harm, no foul. |
| 03:33:30.23 | Unknown | you know, |
| 03:33:33.69 | Scott Couture | So I kind of encourage you to look at it like that, or if you think that that section of the home is imposed on one count to a gall, I'd love to hear which portion and maybe perhaps why. We'll get a better understanding. |
| 03:33:50.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, having been out there in person, on paper it looks great, but looking at this in person, standing there looking at where that garage is going to go, which is part of the driveway into one kind of go. And also, by the way, I looked at this section of the zoning ordinance that they're referring to. It's referring to landlocked parcels. And as soon as the city council made a decision that there was a front property line, this section of the code is inapplicable. This is designed for parcels that don't have frontage on a road. They gave you frontage on a road by that, and I think they may have overridden what the Planning Commission recommended, actually. But they made a decision that Wolfback Ridge Road is a front property line. And the provision that Brad's referring to says any parcel that does not have a front parcel line. So the rest of this whole section is irrelevant. And so I would suggest that this is really a rear yard. But regardless of whether it's a rear yard or a side yard, when you stand at the point of where that garage is going relative to the house for one canto gal, it is going to feel canyonous. It's going to, it's not that this is that high. It's only one, it's only one story above ground in the back where you're talking about through the, the, the hedge, but where the garage is, it's very large. And so my suggestion is the building should be pulled back from that somewhat, and it should be, and the garage should be probably on |
| 03:35:12.93 | Unknown | weird. |
| 03:35:30.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | on the, I guess, is the north side of the building. as opposed to |
| 03:35:36.02 | Kristina Feller | I suppose. |
| 03:35:37.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 03:35:37.49 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Luxenberg, is there a question for the applicant? I don't want to get into a debate. |
| 03:35:42.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, my question for the applicant, which he hasn't answered is, if his client had a choice between getting a rejection on this because we couldn't make the findings or and it's the same sort of question I think Commissioner Saad was asking, would they be willing to pull back from that line or pull back the score footage to do that or whatever a little bit in order to address these issues that are being raised? That's the question. |
| 03:36:11.83 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. Scott, did you want to end |
| 03:36:17.24 | Scott Couture | Yeah, if I could add a follow-up question to that. I'm looking at... the garage, I'm a little confused as maybe as to what what your question or recommendation is on there. So the garage itself is, the wall of the garage, the roof of the garage is basically, there's a little planter that's on, the planting area that's on top of the garage. So the garage actually has at that point, a green roof on there and it is about, 10 feet tall. And then, the The portion that's actually the master bedroom suite is not on top of that. It's much further away. It's probably a good 15 feet away from that. So are you saying that we should push the garage further to the west? |
| 03:37:06.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I'm saying the garage should be, the garage really should be where your exterior parking is. That's where the garage should be because as you come out of that garage and turn left, out of the garage and make around that curve. There's a general standard I looked up somewhere. I think it's twice the width of the driveway plus 15 feet is the distance you should be from an intersection. In essence, you've got this, you go around a curve and then you're going to turn into something. It's just not a safe place to have the garage. I mean, as much as it's nice because it's tucked in under the building and all of that kind of stuff, I think it's a safety hazard. Just standing there envisioning somebody getting hit. I mean, maybe there's not a lot of people out in this part of Sausalito, a lot of people walking down this road. So maybe it's but it's still it's like a blind corner as you come around. So I think, one, the location is a problem. And number two, when you're standing in front of the garage, you have the garage. and yes, the building is set back, but... as you come around. So I think one, the location is a problem. And number two, when you're standing in front of the garage, you have the garage and yes, the building is set back, but you're still have a height of 28 feet. And that meets the code. I'm just saying it would be better if the thing was 30 feet or 33 feet or whatever. |
| 03:38:07.24 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:38:20.99 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I think at this point, We don't want to design for the dais. And the road that you're talking about is actually a driveway, not a road. |
| 03:38:26.89 | Unknown | it. |
| 03:38:31.75 | Kristina Feller | But do you have any other questions for the applicants? |
| 03:38:36.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I do have a question. It's not a road, but it's a driveway, but they're widening it. And it also connects into 51 Wolfbeck. Is this road, is that easement go away after this, or will cars still be getting the 51 Wolfbeck from this easement? |
| 03:38:54.91 | Scott Couture | No, the easement to 51 Wolfpack Ridge remains in Canto Gal. That's written in there. And I do want to just say one thing that we did work with the neighbor on, put in the garage where we have the guest park in there, Originally we had looked at, we had a structure there, and we were requested by by the neighbor at 51 Wolfpack Ridge Road not to have an above grade structure in that area where we have the guest park because that's one of the reasons we didn't put it there. That is, as you know, the most obvious place to put a garage. I agree with you on that, but we did, that was one of the requests that we did comply with with the neighbors, because that does, putting a mask, putting the garage there, it does impact their view. |
| 03:39:54.12 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Any other questions, Commissioner Luxenberg, for the applicant at this time? |
| 03:40:01.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh i'm i'm good at this park uh commissioner fell in the |
| 03:40:04.70 | Kristina Feller | Great. Great. Vice Chair Graff, do you have any questions for the applicants? |
| 03:40:10.27 | Richard Graef | Um... Well, I have a question. Maybe this is a good time to ask it. And it has to do with the glazing. um, and I'm not sure if you're Um, Oh, Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm having a lot of pain and my mind is a little, jumbles. But, the issue of the glass and the reflectivity of the glass I was just wondering if you know of or have looked at or are willing to explore other than reducing the square footage of some of the glass other measures that might help there, like, maybe angling it. I don't know. vertically instead of horizontally or, whatever, I think that one's gonna be remain concern and I think it's an issue that that, uh, I'm You know, may not get resolved. this evening, but I I think that's one that I would like to know more about. How? |
| 03:41:29.35 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 03:41:30.07 | Richard Graef | how to really effectively reduce the impact of glare Uh, and light on reflected and through the window. |
| 03:41:44.80 | Scott Couture | There are a couple things we can do, which are willing to look into. One is using low reflectivity glass in there. There are certain percentages that you can get on there. The other is we've done this in other projects where we've actually added vertical, sort of horizontal louvers on there, which particularly in an elevated situation like this where the owner and the inside of the building wants to look straight out and the view to the building is actually at a lower angle. So if we had a bunch of horizontal louvers on there, then that would help, I think, significantly take care of some of that. And we could certainly look at doing that in certain areas, as well as just the specific glass type and any kind of reflectivity film to make sure that it is very low reflective on there. The one thing that we are going to put on there is use aviary glass so that the birds see the glass. It actually has a, I think it's like a UV pattern on there that the birds see that people don't. And I know enough about it to entertain somebody, but not specifically enough about it to know how much I can, you know, we can control the, you know, the non-reflectivity of the glass on there. So we can look into that. But yeah, we're open to options like that. |
| 03:43:19.64 | Richard Graef | Uh-huh. because I've had some limited Excuse me. Um, limited experience with non-reflective glass, like in museum situation. And it's really amazingly effective. Yeah. But I sort of wonder how well something like that works out when it's exterior. how well that finish holds up and what kind of maintenance it might require, |
| 03:43:49.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:43:51.53 | Richard Graef | I think that's a you know, certainly, definite thing that probably should happen Um, along with whatever else. But what more do you know about that that might illuminate, so to speak. uh... that issue |
| 03:44:07.40 | Scott Couture | Mm-hmm. I'm not sure I know much more than that. |
| 03:44:10.87 | Richard Graef | Okay. That's it for right now. |
| 03:44:15.94 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you, Vice Chair Graff. I have a couple questions of my own. And I'll ask the question as I did of staff, are you speaking any variances. for this project. |
| 03:44:32.73 | Scott Couture | No. |
| 03:44:33.96 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And regarding the landscape and regarding the two, the cypress and the pine tree. Can you explain a little bit better what you mean about how you're, not excavating around the roots. I wasn't sure I understood that. |
| 03:44:54.95 | Scott Couture | So there's a small portion where we are excavating around the roots. And there's a deck that's off of the living room. And below that, there's like an exercise area down in there. It's about 11 feet away from the tree. And it's sort of a kind of a corner. It's like a pie-shaped excavation that we'll do that's within the canopy line. And we expect that there's probably a root or two that's in there. Um, The rest of the house, the pantry area, is actually cantilever it out on the floor plan. And I don't know if you saw at the site, there's some yellow tape that's actually on the ground And further back, it's probably about nine or 10 feet from the edge of the tree is we have a foundation line that marks the edge of the pantry and kitchen, that sort of dividing wall that's between the two. And that's where the actual foundation line is. The whole pantry portion is actually can't leave it out towards the tree. Um, That portion where we do have the foundation, I met with the arborist and we spoke about that. We can actually cantilever the whole foundation across any roots that may be there. So we can probably anticipate that on the kind of the Eastern side that there would be no root loss, no root intrusions on there. |
| 03:46:28.83 | Kristina Feller | So thank you for that. So would you be willing as a condition of approval for a more scrutinized sort of monitoring and reporting of that work to ensure the safety and health of those trees. |
| 03:46:41.82 | Scott Couture | Yeah. |
| 03:46:46.23 | Scott Couture | Absolutely. I think it's actually written into the Arvish reports, conditions, suggestions in there. I think he is, or he or somebody else, he's recommended someone come out during construction to do that. |
| 03:47:00.86 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay. And then the, I guess it's the Western Hill, you know, heading down onto Wolfback. the planters that you've sort of shown in your renderings there. Can you just explain a little bit more what that material is, I'm happy to see it because I think it helps the stability of of that hill, you know, based on just sort of the the rock formations in that area. It's very rippable church. So it's good to stabilize, but I want to understand what's in those planters. |
| 03:47:39.03 | Scott Couture | So I'm going to give you a two-part answer to the question. I'm going to have to pass the second part off to Eva Hugelin, the landscape architect. She can explain plants better. So we've worked with vilybutts of One Rose Bowl, and we're going to develop a program where we're going to clean up some of the slough that falls off that hill. There's a lot of loose debris that's on there. It falls down into the roadway and deteriorates the asphalt in the roadway and it doesn't look particularly nice. If you went around to the side of Villiers House where it's Raja, you'll see that I think her father-in-law at one point in time, many years ago, broom cleaned the whole side of it, and it maintains it's actually very stable and it doesn't fall apart, doesn't crumble. very much at all. And so what we're going to do with her is to carry that all the way around to the Wolfpack Ridge side of that bank. And then In there we're going to build in these planters that will will be able to backfill put some soils in there and then we'll put some planting materials in there. I would like to see if we can get Eva on audio here so she can explain what the material is. |
| 03:48:56.85 | Kristina Feller | Sure, if staff wants to unmute her. And while they're doing that, if we could sort of continue on because you are also, I guess, improving |
| 03:49:01.76 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 03:49:01.78 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:49:01.85 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 03:49:01.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:10.17 | Kristina Feller | The driveway. |
| 03:49:11.47 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:49:12.01 | Kristina Feller | Area. And although I actually think that the garage is location is Excellent. I'm not worried. It's not an intersection like a highway or anything. It's the neighborhood intersection off a driveway, a common driveway, but I am worried about the downward slope. Um, You know, it can get so foggy certain nights or even days up there that it's like, um, you can't see. five feet in front of you. Um, as a condition of approval would your client be willing to install some sort of robust guardrail or something that is Um, not necessarily industrial looking, but that is Thank you. nice looking that can work with the architecture in that area and sort of use some natural materials there. |
| 03:50:04.90 | Scott Couture | Yeah, I think we would. Now, I don't think we'd put up a Caltrans silver galvanized guardrail up there. I think we'd probably come up with something that looks quite nice. And I know also, you know, Bruce McMillan, the owner of One Count of Gal, would probably want to have some say into the how and the what and the where of that also. And I think we could work with him to... to come up with something that would work. |
| 03:50:30.76 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 03:50:31.62 | Kristina Feller | Great. And, you know, there's also certain types of, you know, very rudimentary technologies that can be used that if somebody is coming and going out of your client's garage. Yeah. |
| 03:50:42.00 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:50:42.36 | Kristina Feller | There is a non-intrusive, again, non-Caltrans-like |
| 03:50:44.03 | Unknown | and you |
| 03:50:46.20 | Kristina Feller | light that can go on just to kind of alert any other drivers, anybody else, and it would not be to one canto gal or shine in anyone's windows or what have you, would your client be willing to consider that as a condition of approval? |
| 03:51:03.18 | Scott Couture | Yeah, absolutely. And those types of devices are all over San Francisco and some of the garages that come out over the sidewalks. We wouldn't do the annoying buzzer that you hear, but I think, yeah, there are certainly, definitely things that we can do. It could be a light, it could be mirrors and whatnot. I do say, I didn't grow up in Sausalito. I grew up in the East Coast where we have big wide streets you know, why, you know, turn and raises and all that I will, I will say that the drivers out here are astoundingly astute coming around blind corners on these terribly narrow streets to stop and get out of everyone's way so. I don't see that. Coming in and out of the garage is going to be an issue. One of the reasons that we did a garage where you could pull in straight and pull out straight was to make it as safe as possible. So we didn't put a two-car garage that you would have to drive in straight and then back out. and not be able to have a clear sighted distance on there. So that's one of the reasons the driveway is as it is. |
| 03:52:09.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:52:09.26 | Kristina Feller | one of the reasons. |
| 03:52:09.58 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:52:11.86 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. |
| 03:52:12.27 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 03:52:12.30 | Scott Couture | Rogers as it is. |
| 03:52:13.28 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 03:52:13.80 | Kristina Feller | Perfect. And then just real quick on the Um, side rear, whatever yard it is that is common with one Canto gal. Can you just explain one more time you're putting a a concrete wall, low concrete wall, On the on the applicant side of the existing hedgerow there. |
| 03:52:38.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:52:42.00 | Kristina Feller | Karen Hollweg, And you also putting a wall down on the property line, which is I'll call it down the hill sort of on the one canto gal side to |
| 03:52:42.02 | Unknown | Go ahead. |
| 03:52:51.55 | Kristina Feller | No. |
| 03:52:51.64 | Scott Couture | No, the actual property line is really at the bottom of that slope. It's right along the edge of the driveway at one canto. The wall that we'll coordinate is really, it's just a kind of a privacy screen wall. It's gonna be on the lot five side of that hedge and the height of it will not be as tall as the hedge. You'll still see the hedge on the top of it. But it will run from ground up to about four feet. The ground slopes over there, so the height changes a little bit. And It'll fill in any of the gaps that woody area at the bottom of that hedge. That hedge is actually, it's probably five feet thick, five or six feet thick. The under part of it is woody because the sun and the leaves just don't grow down there. So that'll kind of fill that gap in there. And I think it'll also help with visual privacy, but also some of the sound that may transmit through. |
| 03:53:36.19 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:53:49.96 | Kristina Feller | to him. And is your client, you know, as a condition of approval also willing to right into the condition of approval that should any of those existing hedges along the Canto Gao side. be compromised because of any construction or any detriment to it, that those would be replaced with, mature, like-sized uh, vegetation to ensure that that is maintained, that, that, that barrier is maintained. |
| 03:54:23.05 | Scott Couture | Yeah, absolutely. That hedge is actually instrumental for One Canto Gall, and it's instrumental for the 99 Wolfback Ridge. 99 Wolfback Ridge sits above One Canto Gall, One Rose Bowl, and if that hedge wasn't there, all they would see is roof on both houses. So having that hedge between their one council of guile in their home when one Rose Bowl is a huge attribute to attribute to the 99 and Wolfpack Ridge Road. So if that hedge was gone, they'd replace it right away. Well, I'm also |
| 03:54:38.07 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:54:38.08 | Scott Couture | THE END OF |
| 03:54:38.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:54:42.67 | Unknown | having that hedge, |
| 03:54:58.27 | Kristina Feller | But I'm also, as a sidebar, just amazed at the sound and the noise that reverberates up from 101, it's actually quite- |
| 03:55:07.51 | Scott Couture | Yeah. |
| 03:55:08.12 | Kristina Feller | Wow. |
| 03:55:08.85 | Scott Couture | Yeah, you hear it. |
| 03:55:09.98 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, you definitely hear it. Okay. And then, you know a couple of my fellow commissioners have mentioned issues regarding your punched opening and glazing and stuff and And, you know, I don't know that we've gotten to a resolution there, but would your client be willing as a condition of approval to incorporate some type of Marcia Bia or some kind of that type of treatment on the exterior, which is more akin to sort of Asian continent kind uh screening devices and design that are are are very lovely. |
| 03:55:50.27 | Scott Couture | What did you call it? |
| 03:55:51.81 | Kristina Feller | Marcia Bea. |
| 03:55:53.13 | Scott Couture | I'm not familiar with that I think I'm missing something |
| 03:55:57.35 | Kristina Feller | I don't know if you are, but I guess the point is that I think that, you know, a couple of us and I include myself in this, you know, we just want to be mindful that whether this is solved through |
| 03:56:05.99 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:56:10.12 | Kristina Feller | technology, through, you know, architecture, through glazing specifications. whatever it might be or a combination thereof, that there is a resilient solution that would withstand multiple owners in the future. |
| 03:56:27.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:56:32.85 | Kristina Feller | of how to handle some of that glazing. and perhaps sets the specification of the glass, I don't know, but I think that So we need to resolve this somehow Otherwise, I think your design is incredibly successful. |
| 03:56:46.87 | Unknown | Uh-huh. |
| 03:56:50.82 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate the evolution of it. and all the concessions that you have made both for this commission as well as the community and the neighborhood. Um, you know, we still have a couple of tweaks here, but I appreciate you and your client being responsive to us. I think at this point, Um, |
| 03:57:20.02 | Kristina Feller | the That just about wraps it up for me. Are there any other questions from any other commissioners at this time for the applicant? |
| 03:57:30.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Not for me at this time. |
| 03:57:31.95 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Pierce. |
| 03:57:34.92 | Morgan Pierce | I know there's been some concerns raised earlier. regarding potential future for an ADU. And I wasn't sure how this commission wanted to address that. And I'm not sure if there was something that the city attorney would comment on relative to Um, the feasibility of that, well, not really the feasibility, the allowability of that, because I wonder if there's a condition of approval that we would want to consider that we would want the applicant to consider that would, the addition of an ADU in the future. And again, I'm not sure if there's the legality of that as a condition, so I just wanted to have Mary way in. uh, about the validity and then if it were valid, then ask the applicant. |
| 03:58:20.08 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Commissioner Pierce, members of the I think that any condition of approval that would be prohibitive. future housing units that might would otherwise be allowable. |
| 03:58:35.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:58:35.31 | Mary Wagner | is could be problematic. |
| 03:58:37.08 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:58:37.52 | Mary Wagner | You know, they're, they're, so many changes in state law, you know, about the ability to have them. We've even had to look at prior conditions that were imposed when we didn't allow ADUs, which was quite a while ago, but we have some conditions that still exist and had to look at potential modifications to those. So I would be cautious about a condition like that. |
| 03:59:01.47 | Morgan Pierce | Perfect. Thank you, city attorney. And I will withdraw my question from the applicant. |
| 03:59:06.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:59:06.83 | Kristina Feller | I'm glad you asked it. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:59:08.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a quick question of the city attorney based on that question that was just asked about the ADU? |
| 03:59:08.91 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 03:59:15.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are you saying that somebody, I haven't fully versed myself in the ADU new ordinance that you just adopted, are you saying that this applicant could on the other part of this U put an ADU potentially in the future? |
| 03:59:33.08 | Mary Wagner | If it met the qualifications of the zoning regulations, I don't know if it's actually feasible. And I would have to look to the the applicant about that. I know there's been discussions about the other of that lot. Thank you. |
| 03:59:46.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:59:46.96 | Mary Wagner | So I was talking on a more, you know, Generic. broad level. I don't know the feasibility of the site. you know, we would have to determine if it would qualify for and ADU, excuse me, under our existing regulations. |
| 04:00:01.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But I mean, ADU does not have to be attached to the existing building. It can be a separate building. |
| 04:00:07.08 | Mary Wagner | Oh, yes, sorry, Commissioner Luxenberg. I didn't understand your question. |
| 04:00:09.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I mean, I was always thinking that if they built a house here, they wouldn't be able to use the other part of the lot. But I forgot about the ADU. ordinance, which would allow them to build a separate building. or an ADU, potentially. |
| 04:00:23.11 | Mary Wagner | So to answer that specific question, correct? ADUs do not have to be attached. |
| 04:00:27.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:00:27.70 | Mary Wagner | Okay, thank you. That was the question. Thank you. |
| 04:00:29.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:00:31.53 | Kristina Feller | And Scott, did you have your landscape architect available just to answer the question about the planters? |
| 04:00:38.77 | Scott Couture | Uh, yes, she here. |
| 04:00:44.95 | Kristina Feller | I don't know. What her name again? |
| 04:00:48.05 | Scott Couture | Eva? Eva Heuglund? She's muted. |
| 04:00:53.82 | Kristina Feller | So Zoom team, could you please unmute Ava so we can hear from her? |
| 04:01:03.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:03.64 | Eva Hugeland | Hello? |
| 04:01:05.52 | Kristina Feller | I can hear you. |
| 04:01:08.10 | Eva Hugeland | Can you hear me, you said? |
| 04:01:09.53 | Kristina Feller | Yes, we can hear you. |
| 04:01:10.28 | Eva Hugeland | Okay. Yeah, so... So in those planters on the hillside, we have oak trees in three of them. And so under them, we have mostly succulents and kind of grasses. So drought tolerant plants that could do well under there. |
| 04:01:33.11 | Kristina Feller | And was there any discussion with Southern Marine Fire about any of this? |
| 04:01:39.20 | Eva Hugeland | Um, we have... We have followed the guidelines for wildlife interface. So we haven't met with them, but... Well, if they have any comments, we will, of course, uh, |
| 04:02:00.02 | Kristina Feller | No, but the species that you're recommending is in line with Southern Marin Fire? |
| 04:02:00.11 | Eva Hugeland | Thank you. |
| 04:02:05.49 | Eva Hugeland | Yeah, yeah. |
| 04:02:05.59 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF THE END OF THE Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, great. |
| 04:02:08.46 | Scott Couture | And GG and RA also. Thank you. |
| 04:02:10.70 | Eva Hugeland | Yeah. Okay, good. Yeah, an interesting thing was that they They wouldn't. They recommend for us to not use native plants so we could to make sure we didn't kind of mix with the park's local native plants. |
| 04:02:28.83 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:02:29.47 | Eva Hugeland | Yeah. |
| 04:02:31.85 | Kristina Feller | Does anybody else have a question for the landscape architect? Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you both for hanging in there to answer some of our questions. I think at this time, I'd like to open up a public comment on this agenda item. And I'd like to ask our community development director join me to explain to the public |
| 04:03:00.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:03:02.63 | Kristina Feller | how to raise their hand and how to make comments I will also note that each member of the public has three minutes. for their public comment time. the comment timer will be visible to you so you can help time yourself And, um, We just ask that everyone please adhere to that three minutes respectfully. Thank you. |
| 04:03:28.94 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. Thank you, Chair Feller. Now's the time for public comment on this agenda item. If you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application. So a little raise hand feature under participants. Or if you're calling in on a phone, you can press star nine. and each speaker will be notified when it is their turn to speak, like the chair mentioned, we will have three minutes. And then if you do go over, we will let you know you've gone over and we will ask you to refrain from continuing. |
| 04:04:02.32 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much, Director Whelan. I see that there are so far eight participants that have their hands raised. and I know many of you have had your hands raised from the beginning of this part of our agenda. So I'm going to go sort of what's on my screen and I'm going to go left to right. The next person is Jeffrey Keith. If you can unmute and just state your name for the record and you have three minutes. |
| 04:04:32.00 | Jeffrey Keith | Thank you, commissioner. My name is Jeffrey Keith and I've been a, and thank you for your time, please. I have been living and working on and off in the Bay area since I moved there to go to school in the early seventies. And I'm currently a partner in a business based in San Francisco. And it was brought to my attention that the lots, that there were lots above the Golden Gate Bridge that had been bought and their plans to build a series of large houses on the ridge above the bridge. So I went to the Sausalito Planning Commission website and I read the Planning Commission agenda And I saw that the architectural drawings and I'm here tonight to voice my opposition. These large glass houses that will be lit up like Christmas trees, they'll be visible from all over the area. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a precious gem. There are very few places in the world where you can go from such dense urban environment to pristine outdoors in such a short step. And I've hiked with my kids in these headland trails for many, many years. The ridge is an old and unobtrusive neighborhood. And I think it sets a very bad precedent to excavate that mountain, which will take years. And I'm very concerned that this could be the beginning of a massive exploitation of this unique wilderness interface bordering the GGNRA. When you're walking up those hills, it will be completely changed the feeling of the open space. Thank you for your time, commissioners. |
| 04:05:54.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much, Mr. Keith. Lauren Bowen's iPhone. Welcome. You have three minutes for your public comment. |
| 04:06:06.95 | Unknown | Can you hear me? Yes. spent many, many, many months in that area, hiked the trails. I'm calling in today to voice my opposition to the plan as currently laid out. I do not want to rehash what everyone has said over the years. We've been at this now for years. you commissioners, the planning commission are in a unique once in a lifetime position. to do the right thing. to do the right thing by the laws as laid out. to do the right thing. by maintaining to the extent development allows the pristine and beautiful nature of this lovely area. you commissioners, are in a unique, time in your careers to make your imprint on this beautiful area. by limiting the development and the size of the homes that go in there. And I respectfully request that you honor this legacy that you commissioners possess to do the right thing. and to deny as currently planned, this huge home. that will go in there and other homes that will follow. Thank you very much. |
| 04:07:33.81 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Ms. Wells. a Lynn Augustine. Welcome. And let's unmute Lynn. And you have three minutes for your public comment. |
| 04:07:46.10 | Lynn Augustine | Okay, I'm here on behalf of nature. the environmental of Wolfpack Ridge has not been addressed at all in the recent staff report. The most recent staff report doesn't mention the effects of on our animals the birds the insects or the vegetation as a result. of this construction in this rare and sensitive location. Remember 50% of the floor area and garage area proposed is below existing grade. which is 1,400 square feet of garage at 11 feet below existing grade. That's 11 feet. to build a subterranean three car garage on solid rock hill, will require major demolition and excavation. Our wildlife plants and our natural world will be significantly affected by the demolition, the noise, the dust, and the construction will disrupt our natural environment. think about the jackhammers that will be happening and there's no noise abatement considerations. Wolfpack Ridge is also a major raptor bird migration path for eagles and Red Tails. We have red tails nesting in our hills. I saw hundreds of butterflies fluttering today just below the site. There's no mitigation measures for the natural environment that are even considered. The staff just considers the effects of the construction on the site. But the nature that's flourishing all around this construction site will be forever affected. changed for the parking garage. I'm really deeply concerned about the rock and the excavation. I hope you have the courage to stand up for nature this design permit this design permit should be rejected due to the significant alteration of the natural geology on this site and the rare and sensitive area. above ground is fine, but taking it to such a degree is intrusive Thank you very much. |
| 04:10:29.45 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, Ms. Augustine. Elizabeth Brekus, welcome. And you have three minutes for public comment. |
| 04:10:43.91 | Elizabeth Brekus | I'd like to share my screen if you could hold off on counting this until I'm able. It says host disabled screen sharing. |
| 04:10:51.97 | Kristina Feller | If we can put a comment timer back to three and allow Ms. Bruckus to share her screen. |
| 04:10:58.89 | Elizabeth Brekus | And point of order, last time we were given five, We are the most affected people on this property. on this project. |
| 04:11:11.48 | Elizabeth Brekus | Are we getting three or five? |
| 04:11:13.35 | Kristina Feller | Three minutes is it, three minutes. |
| 04:11:16.93 | Elizabeth Brekus | Elizabeth Brekus, and I represent the owners of 51 Wolf Back. I'd like to say that the settlement agreement between the city and the developer specifically states that the homes in the subdivision will be small volume. That's what it states is an agreement. The home is the polar opposite. The EIR informs us what that means. It means 2,000 to 4,000 square feet homes, not a 6,590 square foot home. The settlement agreement makes the EIR the overriding document. |
| 04:11:55.86 | Elizabeth Brekus | This is important, since the EIR was drafted and made enforceable, two homes have been built and both complied with the 2,000 to 4,000 square foot home and two car garage limitation. What's changed? It's called institutional amnesia, or in this case, municipal amnesia. The city has forgotten. If the city fails to enforce this limitation, it sets interest precedent. |
| 04:12:25.50 | Elizabeth Brekus | The project approaches into three of the four side yards. And why? Because it's a very large home. The Eastern setback encroachment is most problematic to my client because it blocks a protectable view 51 Wolfback Ridge, the San Francisco skyline. And finding for states that the proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction to public views and primary views from private property. The applicant proposes to block 51's views, not because of any hardship in the development, of the property, but to build as massive of a home as they like. |
| 04:13:08.98 | Elizabeth Brekus | Why would the Planning Commission approve this project? There are not enough positives to the city to approve this McMansion and there are real negatives to Wolfpack Bridge community and the greater community that enjoys the Marin headlands and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Lots of problems here. It looms over the ridge top four new trees that will block views and we have a right to remove those trees because we have a landscape easement over this lot. and they're discouraged. under the settlement agreement. excessive excavation. Home is still too close to the Monterey Cypress. The applicant did nothing to address this concern. Poor access circulation laxifier turnaround reflective windows, exterior elimination, it requires supplemental EIR. The side yard projections have not been met. Having secretly lobbied for the front side and rear yard designations, the applicant's architect can't use the rear yard to offset the projections into the side yard. This doesn't meet the code and that's because- |
| 04:14:16.36 | Kristina Feller | this. |
| 04:14:16.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:14:16.68 | Kristina Feller | to do. |
| 04:14:18.61 | Elizabeth Brekus | That's because the house is too big. Thank you. |
| 04:14:19.84 | Unknown | too big. |
| 04:14:22.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Thank you. Let me see if I can. Let's see who's next. Okay, Michael Rex, welcome this evening. You have three minutes for public comments. |
| 04:14:48.00 | Kristina Feller | Okay, we're ready. |
| 04:14:49.19 | Michael Rex | Can you hear me though? I'm trying to get my video on, but it's The host has stopped my video. |
| 04:14:57.32 | Kristina Feller | Okay, let's get you on video. Zoom team, if you could. the system. |
| 04:15:02.65 | Michael Rex | Great, thank you. And before I start, Can you hold the time a minute? I have a question about procedure. When I share the screen, I can't see the timer. uh... which is a problem because we only have three minutes even though Mr. Couture I had two hours of conversation. So, this is gonna be difficult when I can't see the timer. If I watch Mr. Rex, are me. Do you have a watch? You know, I got a cell phone with a timer, but it doesn't stay on for three minutes. |
| 04:15:40.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:15:40.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:15:40.67 | Morgan Pierce | So. |
| 04:15:40.98 | Unknown | MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF |
| 04:15:42.56 | Michael Rex | maybe in the future our IT guy can and figure out how when people share screens, we can get a timer, okay? |
| 04:15:49.65 | Kristina Feller | So Mr. Rex, I'll ask the Zoom team to just give you a quick audible when you're at about How about 45 seconds left or a minute left? |
| 04:15:58.76 | Michael Rex | About a two and a half. that. Two and a half minutes, a little heads up would be helpful. |
| 04:16:06.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Zoom team, you've got three minutes, so at two and a half minutes, Zoom team? Yes. |
| 04:16:12.45 | Michael Rex | Yes. |
| 04:16:13.59 | Kristina Feller | Let Mr. Rex know he's got two and a half minutes. |
| 04:16:15.86 | Michael Rex | Right. I'm going to not share right off the bat. We're representing Steve and Joan MacArthur. They're impacted the most. There's been a lot of discussion about impacts to CantoGal, almost no discussions about impacts to 51. Um, There has not been a lot of evolution here. I'm sorry. We've been opposing this project for three years. There's been almost no outreach. There's been almost no significant changes since your last two hearings. We're looking at the same design and we continue to object. It's blocking too much of our view. of the beautiful downtown city skyline And now by adding two oak trees on the west side, of the building, we're now going to lose the view of the Golden Gate North Bridge Tower. So it's actually gotten worse, not better, okay? They didn't make it smaller. They didn't re-look at moving the garage away from that sharp corner that serves four lots. It's still too close to the tree. They didn't move it at all. There's been no communication with us whatsoever since the last two hearings. |
| 04:17:20.03 | Unknown | Right. |
| 04:17:20.54 | Michael Rex | Okay. Now I'm going to share screen very quickly here. Hang on. There we go. All right. Uh, This is our view that we're losing. And yes, it's a panoramic view, but they're stealing the best part of it with a house that's 68 feet wide, okay? Thank you. And 20% of it is encroaching into a required setback where they provided no justifications, which is completely discretionary. And it's, you know, how can you make finding number four that they've done what they can to minimize few impacts. The policy on panoramic views is if you're going to impact a view like that, you nibble from the sides, you don't plop the structure right in the dead Okay. And, Um, The size of this encroachment is 13 feet 7 inches. It's as big as an ADU. And it fails on, if it's a side yard, it fails because it can only, be half the length of the wall that faces the side yard property line. It can only be 245 square feet, not 629. And there's a huge 10-foot roof overhang that's completely ignored. And sorry. And then, I'm going to go ahead and This is 82% of the length of the wall facing the side yard parcel. When staff said this complies with the zoning ordinance, it's not true. It's a mistake, okay? And look how close it is to the tree. They never pulled it back. The cantilever wasn't a revision. It was on the previous plant. And the amount of glass is frightening. He talks about overhangs. There's no overhangs. Over 50% of this, all of this glass, over 50% of the west-facing elevation has no overhangs. It's a curtain wall. and almost the entire wall facing the north. This is all glass 12 feet high. Thank you. |
| 04:19:30.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:19:30.76 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 04:19:30.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:19:31.32 | Unknown | Right. |
| 04:19:31.79 | Michael Rex | of, Um, |
| 04:19:36.72 | Unknown | or timer grows completely. Mm-hmm. |
| 04:19:46.42 | Lily Whelan | It looks like we're having some technical issues. We are, Lily. It's this. It's this. Maria. |
| 04:19:48.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:19:48.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:19:49.06 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:19:49.10 | Unknown | LILY. |
| 04:19:52.40 | Kristina Feller | Maria. |
| 04:19:53.17 | Lily Whelan | Yeah, yes, Liz. Mr. Rex got to three minutes, correct? Yeah, yeah, he did. |
| 04:19:53.36 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:19:53.73 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:19:57.66 | Lily Whelan | all right thank you well let's let's um chair feller if i could suggest uh if our timer's broken right now um Let me have another computer up and running here so I can put another timer up. Just give me a second here. |
| 04:20:12.70 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:20:13.14 | Lily Whelan | as people can see. |
| 04:20:16.34 | Kristina Feller | So while our community development director is working on that, I see four additional hands up. at this time. Oops, five. |
| 04:20:30.92 | Lily Whelan | I would suggest, Chair Feller, we could maybe choose someone and maybe give them some audible prompts when we're getting down to the three minute timer there and while i get this up for the rest |
| 04:20:42.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I'm sorry. get this out. Director Whelan, if you're ready, I'm going to call on our next public speaker, which is Mr. Len Rifkind. Welcome. three minutes and our community development director will be timing you. So if we could unmute Mr. Rifkind and allow him to speak. |
| 04:21:07.71 | Len Rifkind | And the video isn't on. |
| 04:21:09.82 | Kristina Feller | Oh, let's get the video. Zoom team, if you could help. allow the video on. |
| 04:21:19.34 | Eva Hugeland | He has to enable it on his side. |
| 04:21:21.63 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Could you try |
| 04:21:24.64 | Len Rifkind | I'm trying, I click start video or there's no signal. I'm going to... You cannot start video because Host has stopped it. |
| 04:21:33.53 | Kristina Feller | Okay, hold on. Let me ask the Zoom team to- |
| 04:21:35.96 | Richard Graef | I've totally lost my Zoom Ah. |
| 04:21:40.92 | Kristina Feller | Vice Chair, we see you there. Just hold on a minute. |
| 04:21:40.99 | Richard Graef | I'm going to go. |
| 04:21:44.97 | Kristina Feller | Mr. Rifkind, can you? happen. There you go. Okay, so let's start the clock, three minutes. Welcome. |
| 04:21:54.13 | Len Rifkind | good evening uh members of the commission my name is len rifkind rifkind law group we continue to represent bruce mcmillan the owner of one canto gall and mr mcmillan obviously opposes design review approval the project's too large at 65 90 square feet it's the largest residence in the wolfback ridge where the average size is 2300 there is no other house in the six thousands setback we agree with commissioner luxembourg that whether you call the side or a rear yard setback, it doesn't meet the code. Whether it's 30 feet because it's a rear yard or three feet seven inches because it's a side yard, it doesn't meet the code. The roof overhang to the south is 10 feet. The code only permits three feet. The garage location, we submitted with our letter a consultant who says the location is dangerous. And the entrance grossly violates the setback and it requires massive grading, more than a hundred truck trips. This project is located on a ridge line and it provides as Mr. Rex's slides just, two full story walls of glass to the west and south visible from the SCA Trail and the Gerbode Valley. It'll light up like a lantern at night and according to Mr. Couture, at least four hours every day. The Marin Headlands is a sacred public open space to be protected from this impact. Mr. Kateri said when responding to landscape questions, quote, we don't want to expose the full house to the park. design fails to comply with the basic design review principle of quote the relationship of the building to its surroundings is of greater importance than the quality of the design of the individual structure this project does not comply with 10 of 13 mandatory design review findings number three it's too big number four it's visible too visible uh from the public spaces number, it'll be a prominent profile on a ridgeline. Number six and 11, it's too close to the trees. And if you look at the footprint, obviously going to harm those trees there. Number seven, it doesn't provide adequate light and air to one Canto Gala. It has a spa that's going to be over towards the one Canto Gala side. That's number eight. Number nine, it'll create privacy impacts. Number 10, we have a traffic circulation issue. No fire turnaround. Number 13, design crowds and overwhelms Canto Gala. 10 of 13 findings cannot be made in conclusion this commission should deny design review design doesn't honor the promise made to the public by mayor amy belser more than 30 years ago when she helped settle the lawsuit because the eir uh is part of the project description as the city attorney said and, and that's 2,000 to 4,000 feet. Two houses have honored the 2,000 to 4,000 feet. We should honor the EIR analysis and the former mayor's promise to the public. Thank you. |
| 04:24:53.77 | Kristina Feller | Okay, our next public speaker is Paolo Crisini. I hope I pronounced that name correctly. You have three minutes, Zoom team if you could. unmute. Mr. Crisini and put the video on. |
| 04:25:08.90 | Paolo Crescini | Good evening. My name is Paolo Crescini. Can you hear me? |
| 04:25:12.41 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 04:25:13.54 | Paolo Crescini | I would like to share my screen. |
| 04:25:17.31 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:25:17.92 | Paolo Crescini | C'est bon? |
| 04:25:18.73 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 04:25:22.61 | Paolo Crescini | And that will be your screen. |
| 04:25:30.88 | Paolo Crescini | in a second I'll try to get just I don't see my screen. Can you see my screen? |
| 04:25:38.05 | Kristina Feller | Can you? We can see your screen. Yes, sir. |
| 04:25:41.57 | Paolo Crescini | And I cannot see what you see. Do you see a section there? |
| 04:25:48.86 | Kristina Feller | Well, you just took it away, but we saw it a moment ago. |
| 04:25:51.87 | Paolo Crescini | Oh, okay. So because I have two screens and I don't know which one I'm pairing. Sorry for the Okay, so there it is. And now, Uh, Okay, sorry for the Okay, again, my name is Paolo Crescini and Mr. McMillan at Juan Cantogal asked me to prepare a sunshadow study to illustrate the impact on his property of the proposed house at 99 Wolfback Bridge Road. I believe this was adequately presented at the last meeting. And presented with my study, the African reaction was to discredit my work. And tonight is using overgrown vegetation to dismiss the impact issues on the house. So not that the building in the image are geolocated in the software, meaning that they are at their real-world coordinates. And as you can see, that also set at the same elevation and distances indicated in Mr. Couture's drawing. So we could say that my model is as accurate as his drawings. With this information, the software calculates the sunshadows at any given time. In this image of my model, I placed a backdrop to show the sunshadow angle on November 15th at 1 p.m. This is one hour afternoon. before it starts impacting the walls and roof of Juan Canto Gallo. So I think this is the first accurate exhibit of the real relationship between the building, which is the primary issue here. Vegetation can mitigate impact, but it is secondary. If you go back to my study, there is no mistake. In the afternoon hours, the proposed house as a year around sun shadow impact on one can to go, which becomes significant from fall to spring. I call on the commission to require that the house is set back to 33 feet and seven inches increase size. ER setback in order to cast sunshadow mainly on the level part of its own property, indicating on sheets 803 as approximate top of band, therefore mitigating the sunshadow impact on one canto gao. There are two conditions to take into consideration when analyzing the relationship between the proposed house, |
| 04:28:26.66 | Paolo Crescini | have I done? NOBODY. |
| 04:28:28.43 | Kristina Feller | No. |
| 04:28:29.26 | Paolo Crescini | MR. Mm-mm. Ramon Mercader is a question, am I control over your screen? I decline or approve. than all of these. So excuse me, let me continue. There are two conditions to take into consideration when analyzing, so I still have this pop-out window with ramon's mercader requesting remote control of your screen uh, Do I approve these? |
| 04:28:59.84 | Lily Whelan | Maria, can you please stop the timer? Thank you. |
| 04:29:03.47 | Paolo Crescini | Thank you. |
| 04:29:03.58 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. I, |
| 04:29:04.24 | Paolo Crescini | Thank you, because this is writing from my |
| 04:29:05.37 | Lily Whelan | Sorry. you call. It's not from staff, so please say no. to that. |
| 04:29:11.89 | Paolo Crescini | to that. |
| 04:29:15.11 | Lily Whelan | Um. I think. |
| 04:29:15.95 | Paolo Crescini | I think I'm annoying somebody. |
| 04:29:18.87 | Lily Whelan | Just, I think we'll give you an extra 10 seconds here for that. |
| 04:29:22.62 | Paolo Crescini | Okay, okay. You're ready? Almost done, really. |
| 04:29:22.96 | Lily Whelan | You're ready? |
| 04:29:27.87 | Paolo Crescini | So if I can continue, there are two conditions to take into consideration when analyzing the relationship between the proposed house and Juan Cantogal. One is the West entry yard, and two is the South deck. I call on the Commission to require the applicant to provide accurate drawing, not fancy renderings, documenting the impact on this property on one can to go. And to demonstrate that concern for sunshadow, privacy, light and sound pollution are addressed and resolved. Thank you very much. |
| 04:30:02.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, sir. |
| 04:30:09.72 | Kristina Feller | Mr. Bruce McMillan, welcome. You have three minutes for public comment. We could... unmute Mr. McMillan and put his video on. |
| 04:30:40.02 | Unknown | Hello? Thank you. |
| 04:30:40.90 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:30:40.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:30:40.97 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:30:41.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:30:41.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:30:41.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:30:41.34 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:30:41.97 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:30:42.81 | Kristina Feller | Mr. McMillan. |
| 04:30:49.42 | Kristina Feller | Zoom team, do we have him unmuted? |
| 04:30:53.56 | Unknown | I believe so. Thank you. |
| 04:30:56.50 | Bruce McMillan | Is that going on now? |
| 04:30:58.18 | Kristina Feller | yes you're you're on uh we just we can hear you we just if you want to put your |
| 04:31:02.84 | Bruce McMillan | restart the clock. |
| 04:31:03.87 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. So. |
| 04:31:06.64 | Bruce McMillan | Do we restart the clock? |
| 04:31:09.17 | Kristina Feller | We haven't started you yet, so if you want to put your video on, you're welcome. to do that. And the timer is ready. Are you ready? |
| 04:31:17.35 | Bruce McMillan | Yes. |
| 04:31:18.08 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:31:18.70 | Bruce McMillan | Thank you. I'm Bruce McMillan. And I think this is a very elegant design that's contemporary, sleek and glamorous. It's like something out of a James Bond movie. Imagine, you could look out through glass walls, twice as tall as you are, out over the whole San Francisco Bay. and west down to a vast, almost untouched wilderness world below you. Wow. your house would be seen by millions of people. You know, there is something strange about it. The next chance you get to look at one of the architect's renderings See if you notice. the imaginary plants, those which would block the views through the windows, are always colored brightly in green. And the glass is always colored black. All glass is reflective. I live in this very unusual and very small contained neighborhood. When we drive or walk down the road here, we all stop and say hello to each other. Claudia, Esther, Lynn, Matthew, Robin, Sophie, and on and on. The average home size here is 2,318 square feet. This design is an architectural beauty, but this just is not the right place for it. I hope you've been able to read by several letters to the commission. And then there's a lot of stuff that just pertains to me. Lots of cars driving right up to our bedroom. hot tubs hanging 20 feet above and a few feet from my living room. subject to the conditions imposed in the FEIR. Reduce the need for grading. Small volume. These are in the settlement agreement. You can make the easy decision. You can make some one family proud and rich by this house. and increased Sausalito's income by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yeah. You can make the hard decision. One that you and your children and your children's children will be proud of. a decision that will make millions of people enriched now and after you die. The single simple fact is that you are at a decision that is the most dangerous to one of America's greatest environmental achievements. Who will make sure the GGNRA is still preserved? Thank you. |
| 04:34:05.63 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mr. McMillan. I see Linda Fairchild. Welcome, you are our next public speaker. You've got three minutes. for your presentation. |
| 04:34:16.24 | Unknown | I... Yes, I've unmuted. I would like to do a share screen. I can't, I need the video. |
| 04:34:24.48 | Unknown | Okay. Okay? |
| 04:34:25.56 | Unknown | Okay. Just give me one second. OK. |
| 04:34:36.66 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I see that. |
| 04:34:37.03 | Unknown | Okay. Okay, and do you see my slideshow? |
| 04:34:41.59 | Kristina Feller | We see it. |
| 04:34:43.87 | Unknown | Okay, start the clock ready to go. Thank you, Commissioners. Linda Fairchild, I'm here in response to the meeting 1021. I was there last year and I spoke a lot about the mudslide issue. So I was happy to participate and see the progression. I see no progression. I see, I think the arrogance of this is astonishing to me. THAT The house is basically still the same size. Couture has not reduced it at all. This is what it's really going to look like. So I'm very concerned about this complete avoidance of the importance of staying in this two to 4,000 square foot range. Here are the story poles of the new home, clearly visible from all over the Bay Area. This is looking straight out to the Pacific. What's the real plan here? Someone paid, Couture's client paid over $8 million for a lot that's largely unbuildable. Why? I kept asking myself why. Well, obviously to set the precedent for five or more of these huge house to be built along the ridge, facing west, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I took this off his website. These are huge houses. So much for the neighborhood with the average house being 2,300 square feet. I'm appalled. This is like a developer planning to build along the edge of Yosemite. This is a pristine ridge. Millions of people come here from all over the world. And we're now gonna start digging up this mountain, excavating this precious part of the Bay Area to build these huge houses? Why? And my concerns about mudslides remain completely unchanged. If anything, they're heightened since the rains of November, 2020. I lived through the mudslide of 1982. I've been in the Bay Area forever. the big Golden Gate Bridge was closed. This kind of massive excavation to build these huge houses I do not believe that there's any soil engineer that can tell me that this is gonna make it more stable. I'm very skeptical. Note in November of 2020, Here we are, it started to rain and here comes the mud. I'm a visual arts and design professional, and I see a lot of slate of hand. I see the really slick use of Photoshop, I see these huge houses that are going to reflect light. The arrogance to me, as I said in the beginning of my presentation, is astonishing. He comes back with nothing that changes my mind. I'm so opposed to this. I'm just beyond opposed. I'm appalled. Thank you. |
| 04:37:17.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, Ms. Fairchild. Let's see. Mr. Alan Patterson, welcome. You have three minutes for your public comment this evening. Zoom team, can we unmute him and share his screen? |
| 04:37:42.19 | Alan Patterson | I don't know if we can start the video. I can't seem to get off the video. |
| 04:37:46.96 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. you should be able to put your video on |
| 04:37:52.58 | Alan Patterson | Thank you very much. Thank you all commissioners for your time tonight's been a long night, obviously, as always. Hearing seemed to be. As many of you might know, our family trust owns two of the lots impacted by the proposed development on lot five, including the adjacent parcel most affected. First and foremost, I'm fully in favor and support the proposed design. My father loved living on top of Wolfpack Ridge. He was there for probably 30 years and to consider the location to be world class. He would share the beauty of the location with as many people as he could. to anyone and everyone. He opened his home and his property to family and friends whenever he had the opportunity. And he would look for any opportunity to invite people up to Wolfback Ridge. He even shared this beauty with some of the very people voicing their objections to this project. Some of these people who are enjoying this spectacular location this very day. who are doing everything in their power to keep it to themselves. These same people trying to stop this family from being able to enjoy the beauty that brought the objectors themselves to want to live on Wolfpack Ridge. No one on Wolfback Ridge can be surprised that there will be additional development The plans were the topic of much discussion as I'm sure everyone here is aware. and ultimately resulted in an agreement for the development with the city. Anyone who purchased property or who was living on Wolfback Ridge was obviously aware of the possibility of the development. And it can't be lost on some of the opposite that some of the opposition has circumvented and ignored the process of approval for building and development for their own purposes on Wolfpack, Wolfpack Ridge. where this family and the design team has followed the process and procedures in place and should be allowed to move forward with this project. Frankly, the design is spectacular. I think almost everybody here is in agreement. It would be by far the most environmentally conscientious house built as it is currently designed. I would welcome the impact minimal as it is to the two properties that the trust owns, both the adjacent property and the other property that would be affected by this development. Again, I would ask that the design be approved at this time so that the Saranaba family I can move forward and be able to enjoy this spectacular location. Thank you again for your time. |
| 04:40:11.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mr. Patterson. I have one last hand raised, Ms. Liz Gerhart. Welcome, you have three minutes for public comment. Zoom team, if we can unmute her. |
| 04:40:28.52 | Liz Gerhart | Hi, can you hear me? |
| 04:40:30.21 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:40:30.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:40:30.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:40:31.34 | Liz Gerhart | Thank you, commissioners for I it's been a long night and I would like to echo what my brother Alan has said we are the beneficiaries of land up at on Wolfback and are affected. by the lot five proposal and we have spent a lot of time looking at the design and what the impact would be specifically to lot four and are in complete agreement with the it's just a beautiful design that works really well on the hillside and brings beauty knowing that development will take place. The people who are currently living up there have one of the most incredible places to live and it's, trying to prevent somebody from enjoying that same spectacular spot in the world seems to me not just unfair, but I know the, the, lot five team has done, they've followed all of the rules and paid attention very closely to everything that everyone has asked and requested of them. And it would be such a wonderful improvement on the Ridge line and we are in favor of it. I just wanted to add that voice to all of the other voices that are out there. Thank you. |
| 04:41:52.80 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Ms. Gearheart. I see another hand here, Mr. Matthew Nathans. Welcome, you have three minutes for public comment. Zoom team, if you could unmute Mr. Nathan. |
| 04:42:17.97 | Lily Whelan | Mr. Nathans has been asked to be unmuted. You have to actually I don't accept the request, Mr. Nathan. |
| 04:42:31.68 | Kristina Feller | We can. Thank you. |
| 04:42:33.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:42:33.45 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:42:33.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:42:34.44 | Matthew Nathans | Thank you. It's a long night. I speak as a 30-year resident of the Ridge, and it's a bit of deja vu all over again. In 2016, the GGI and Concerned Citizens opposed to home up here when it was suggested to the architects and the owners that if they downsize their house, Perhaps they could get it approved. to refuse and ultimately public opinion grew to the point as the project was abandoned and they needed their land to the GGNRA. could have compromised, but they didn't. listening carefully to the presentation today. I wonder about common sense. Commissioners, it's a common sense to believe that a multimillion dollar home and an eight-million dollar lot will coexist with trees that block their views. Is there common sense to believe that in a year or two or three or 10, An arborist or a fire chief or a structural engineer or a new owner won't say the trees have to come down. And the degeneration would face the class. Massive question. that reflection transmits light. It's a common sense just the headlines ridge to developers and architects for generations of GGNRA visitors to come. Commissioners, the torch of responsible conservation has been passed to you. by the leaders of America's conservation movement. which began just across the road from this home. Writers of Doug Ferguson, Robert Pretzel, and Ewe Johnson are in your agenda. Johnson's letter to the Planning Commission in 2016 resonates strongly today and it's worth my reading it to you. From Johnson. Having worked hard to incorporate Maroncello into the GGRNRA, One of my favorite views of the GGRA is the Wolfpack Ridge area that's proposed for development Commissioners, he said, your task is to defend safe landscapes and views from invading development. That task is a difficult one. Challenges from developers with architects increasingly threaten lands that are intended to be preserved. Somehow the grandeur of the view has to be protected. He goes on to say it is a moral decision to maintain the grandeur of this space permanently for future generations, Your example in doing so will be an inspiration for others in many places, and the memory will remain as a major personal achievement. He goes, ends by saying to uphold the public trust is a proud achievement that you and those who know you will always treasure. The law gives you commissioners the freedom to make that decision. And finally, I want to read an email from Brian at VLA's who was then and now the chief of planning for the G generation. to Ferguson and others on the abandonment of the aforementioned project. Have you always said, What a great outcome. Thanks for such thorough and skillful work to conserve this wonderful property at last. We stand on the shoulders of Doug Ferguson and other rebels who knew how important this ridge was to the millions who enjoy the park. I can hardly wait for the story post. to come down the end of it. And I'd like to say that although the gene journey has been approached by the architect, they have not issued an official opinion for or against this. |
| 04:45:55.85 | Unknown | Matthew, your three minutes are up. |
| 04:45:58.90 | Matthew Nathans | Thank you. |
| 04:45:59.85 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Um, Are there any other public comment, integral parties for public comment. I'm not seeing any great hands. I'll just ask that to confirm. Mr. Riley Hurd. Welcome, you have three minutes for public comment. If we could unmute Mr. Hurd. |
| 04:46:26.65 | Riley Hurd | Yes, I'd like to share my video as well. Thank you. |
| 04:46:33.23 | Kristina Feller | allow that. There you go. You should be allowed to do that now. |
| 04:46:36.82 | Riley Hurd | OK. Good evening, members of the commission. My name is Riley Hurd, and I've represented the applicant throughout this process. He's from another country, but he's lived in Sausalito for a long time. It's been his dream to live up here. He called me, he called Scott and he said, Follow the rules. And he's beyond perplexed about how his neighbors have treated him throughout this and is looking to you for a decision. This is a housing subdivision. This is a place the city said a house goes. And, It's different than the other side of Wolfback Ridge Road, which is also zoned for housing. But that's what all those other comments are about. This is a different area. And I'd like to just talk about the EIR really quick. |
| 04:47:29.99 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 04:47:31.21 | Riley Hurd | We got someone in a house that's 5,465 square feet with a 792 square foot garage saying there's a limit of 4,000 square feet. can't reconcile that. but this project is exempt from CEQA. The EIR only applies in that its conditions were added to the map in the settlement agreement and this project complies with that. The statistics matter. It's half the FAR, half the lot coverage, less than half the height, and double the setbacks from the zoning code. And I would challenge you to take a hard look at One Canto Gal and understand why that's really being advanced. It's got to do with 51 Wolfpack Ridge Road. This house is proposed 36 feet and 51 feet respectively from the home at one Canto Gale. And the area in front of the garage has been referenced this evening. That's actually on my client's property. We try to work with Mr. McMillan to offer him a gate, an easement, he wouldn't have to see anything. That was declined. Why? Because this is about pulling it back to protective view that's not protectable from the other side. Views from driveways are not protected. like to talk about the Sun study you saw. Ask that that be brought up and look at the hedge. It was the height of the ankles of the person standing looking down. That's why it had a different result. I was born in Marin. I've lived here my whole life. I used the GGNRA. at least monthly. and You notice that they're not opposing this one the way that Lot 10 did. And there's a reason for that. This is different. So I think we need to cut through all the noise, and I would ask the commission to do its primary job. You hold up. the design. You hold up the findings and you say whether it fits or it doesn't. every third party objective municipal employee has said this project can be approved. We would ask that you do the same. Thank you. |
| 04:49:43.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, Mr. Hurd. |
| 04:49:47.59 | Riley Hurd | you |
| 04:49:48.06 | Kristina Feller | I believe that concludes public comment. at this time so I will close public comment I know Director Whelan wanted to Make a statement. |
| 04:50:00.67 | Lily Whelan | Thank you, Chair Feller. I just wanted to remind the applicant team of their rebuttal time. Mr. Hurd is a part of the applicant team. So we just counted that three minutes against their remaining rebuttal time. And it looks like, I think they have about one minute left of rebuttal time, so. |
| 04:50:18.05 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much for keeping us straight, Director Whelan. I appreciate that. Okay, now that we've closed public comment, I'd like to bring the discussion back up here to our virtual dais. We heard quite a lot this evening, and certainly we have a lot of material and information in front of us. So would anybody like to start this conversation off this evening. Bishop years. |
| 04:50:53.22 | Morgan Pierce | Um, Chair Feller, I'm, I'm, I'm just curious. I mean, there's so much information coming from so many different directions. I wonder if it might behoove us to. go through the findings and try to have the conversation based on those so we don't wander too far astray. Um, |
| 04:51:11.93 | Kristina Feller | Absolutely. Absolutely. So I'm hoping Brad is still there and has his slides ready. I know he had pulled up. I would ask them to put, um, findings together so it would make it easier for us. Brad, you can help me here, but we have 13 findings. |
| 04:51:33.55 | Brad Evanson | Yes, well, I think there's more when we get into the settlement agreement. Let me restart my slides. |
| 04:51:42.04 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:51:42.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:51:50.85 | Brad Evanson | And sure screen. |
| 04:52:06.10 | Brad Evanson | All right. Here's the start of the design review findings. I go through these and then we go into the settlement agreement findings or architectural standards rather. Um, Tell me where you want. |
| 04:52:22.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:52:23.01 | Kristina Feller | All right. So maybe we ought to do this by exception more than anything. I think that there were some questions around the setbacks. So why don't we try to I didn't go through these real quick. The project is consistent with the general plan. um, design guidelines zoning ordinance. Are there any comments or questions from any commissioner on this? |
| 04:52:57.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I mean, I think there's a zoning ordinance question regarding whether it's a We were set back or a side setback, even though others seem to be convinced because the staff three years ago said whatever. If I think that the city council, when they determine the front line, they gave it this landlocked parcel portion, therefore I would suggest Although I have an alternative on setbacks. If it is a rear setback line, then the requirement is 30 feet and it cannot be waived by the Planning Commission. So that's why it matters. uh, Obviously, it's 33.7 inches that the Planning Commission doesn't approve anything other than that. But if it's a rear yard setback, the provision that they're using to vary it doesn't apply. You can't vary your rear yard setbacks. So I think that issue is one that we'll need clarity. We should get clarity on from from maybe you know, staff or maybe the city attorney Uh, whether, you know, maybe we can continue this till they can clarify that. And I'm, you know, I'm again, I'm just reading this and I'm new. So I may be wrong. Well, |
| 04:54:18.99 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I'd like to add just a little context to that, Commissioner Luxenberg. In all of my work, I've never encountered two rear yard setbacks. Typically, a side yard setback is composed of a line or a series of lines that. line segments that connect a front yard setback with a with a rear yard. And that's what my interpretation of this plan would indicate. That just happens to be it just happens to run parallel to the front yard and the backyard, but it is a side yard. |
| 04:54:47.16 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think we're talking about the side yard here. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 04:54:47.65 | Morgan Pierce | TRIP. |
| 04:54:52.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, what I'm saying is given the U-shaped or the C-shaped nature of this lot, I'm not sure that the line between one canto gal is not a rear yard line, per the language in the ordinance. But again, if, you know, I'm just reading the ordinance as it's written, not how it's been interpreted, so. But the section that they indicated earlier that the applicant can choose the rear-end would not apply to it would only apply to a landlocked parcel. So if you're saying that, say again, a rear-view line cannot be opposite the front line, I don't understand the point, I'm sorry. |
| 04:55:41.56 | Morgan Pierce | The point I made, Commissioner? |
| 04:55:42.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:55:42.96 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:55:43.64 | Morgan Pierce | I've never come across two rear lot lines. Only one. I've come across multiple side yard lines. And a side yard, traditionally, I've seen it's interpreted or defined as a line that connects the front yard line with the rear yard line. sorry, rear yard line, or a series of line segments that connect those two, which this in fact would be the case. |
| 04:56:09.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I agree that what you're saying, the latter would be the case, but the definition of a side yard doesn't say that here. It says the line, the first part, which connects the front yard to the back yard, and anything that isn't that isn't a side yard. So I'm just reading what the definition is in the ordinance, and again, I made you wrong. So looking for clarity. |
| 04:56:30.25 | Kristina Feller | What's up? Brad to interject here. |
| 04:56:33.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:56:35.41 | Kristina Feller | Sit. this application has been consistent that this is the side designated as a side yard is that correct |
| 04:56:42.63 | Brad Evanson | That is correct. One of the initial discussions that happened When this application was first filed back in, I think, 27 years before it was filed in 2017, was a request Uh, from the applicant to the community development department to determine what the front lot line was because there was question about that. and, uh, per, there may not be an exact parallel in this particular section of the zoning ordinance. But my understanding is the director at that time took that as um, the Community Development Director determining the lot line And then that decision was appealed to the planning commission And then that decision was appealed to the city council. and the city council upheld the community development directors determination of the lot line. That's the process that it went through with establishing the front and then the parallel rear. |
| 04:57:39.86 | Unknown | for. |
| 04:57:45.29 | Brad Evanson | And all other as the language in the ordinance reads, once the front and the rear are established, all other parcel lines are side setbacks. |
| 04:57:57.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:57:57.27 | Brad Evanson | or psychics. |
| 04:57:57.29 | Kristina Feller | precisely. |
| 04:57:57.71 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. dealing with |
| 04:57:59.40 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. |
| 04:58:00.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:58:01.29 | Lily Whelan | Chair Feller, can I jump in there to add to what Brad just communicated? It might clear up some confusion. potentially hopefully not add to it, Commissioner Luxembourg. I heard earlier on, I think in the presentation, Brad was going over the different definitions of setbacks in various locations in our zoning ordinance that those are enunciated. And so there's two different sections of the code that allows the property owner to elect parcel lines and the community development director to Um, Um, make a determination that the election of those property lines will not be injurious to adjacent properties. And the section of the code that we went through this exercise with a couple of years ago is actually in the definition section of the definition of property lines under P. And then number one front property line, and I'll just read it. Front property line means the line separating the person from the street. and, case a lot of butts on more than one street, the parcel owner may elect any street parcel line as the front parcel line provided that such choice in the opinion of the community development director will not be injurious to adjacent properties So I just want to clear up that potential confusion that this wasn't related to a land block. parcel section of the code. |
| 04:59:29.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But Lilly, through the chair, are you saying that canto gal is a street because i heard it was not it was a driveway so is it a street or is it a driveway |
| 04:59:39.63 | Lily Whelan | Per the definition in our zoning ordinance, which is broad, it is a street. |
| 04:59:46.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so you're calling this a corner lotting. |
| 04:59:52.09 | Lily Whelan | It would be a corner lot. Yes. And in that case, this front property line provision and the definitions would apply. |
| 04:59:54.52 | Mary Wagner | And in that case. |
| 05:00:00.81 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 05:00:00.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh... |
| 05:00:01.52 | Lily Whelan | And either of those lines could be elected as front property line. |
| 05:00:01.74 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 05:00:06.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and then it has no Rear. |
| 05:00:11.97 | Lily Whelan | No, it would have a rear. Yeah, it's establishing the front property line. When there's two lines that, when there's a corner lot or a parcel that has two streets that it abuts, the owner can pick which parcel line they would like to be the front. And that's what happened in this case. |
| 05:00:34.22 | Lily Whelan | and the front would be established And then per the definitions, the most opposite parcel line would be the rear and then all of the others would be sides. |
| 05:00:45.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, I think in my opinion, this goes back to the subdivision should never have approved a C or a U-shaped line. in the first place. I mean, had this gone through a proper subdivision review, this law wouldn't have been configured this way. |
| 05:01:00.57 | Kristina Feller | We are where we are today. We can't go back and change that. And We're still on number one here and we have 12 more to go. |
| 05:01:09.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I understand. |
| 05:01:10.79 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, so I think we need to move this discussion along and focus on this actual application and rather than the history of which There's many questions in many people's mind, This is what we have to deal with. Um, Thank you. |
| 05:01:26.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So to that point, the other point I made on the general plan, I guess it's CD 1.2. |
| 05:01:26.81 | Kristina Feller | So- |
| 05:01:34.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | one point. 1.5 is of question here with regard to scale of this project. |
| 05:01:43.82 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I guess I'm not sure that I agree with that. And I've, having lived with the general plan and both the update in the old one now. Um, I'm not sure I agree with that, particularly if we talk above grade, Um, We're below the height, we're below the density, well below the density. You could probably build something double the size on this lot. Or if you looked at the whole piece of land, not the- |
| 05:02:14.92 | Morgan Pierce | Well, and scale isn't considered under CD 1.5 in the current plan. the original one that this falls under. Is that correct? Scales in the new general plan. |
| 05:02:26.04 | Kristina Feller | Gail's in the news. |
| 05:02:26.73 | Morgan Pierce | Correct. Yeah, so we're adhering to the old general plan. |
| 05:02:33.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I thought the provision was the same, they just gave a different number, but it has different language than... Yes, you're right. And we need to look at the old one. Scale is not part of the old one. No. Just hide. |
| 05:02:46.07 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 05:02:46.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Hayden. |
| 05:02:47.03 | Morgan Pierce | The views. Under CD 1.5. |
| 05:02:48.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. |
| 05:02:53.48 | Morgan Pierce | I will offer, I mean, while we're chatting about the community design component, CD 1.2 |
| 05:02:53.65 | Morgan Pierce | I will offer, I mean, while we're chatting about it, |
| 05:03:02.13 | Morgan Pierce | or 2.1 is a bit of a challenge from the standpoint that it says maintain and enhance natural features and minimize disturbance to the natural terrain. The quote is, it is the goal of this plan by encouraging new development to integrate a site's topography with the design of any project proposal. One might infer that the excessive excavation of this proposal runs counter to that notion. Um, But we might have to dig a little bit more deeper into that, how it compares to other comparable work nearby, you know, in recent years or some other metrics. |
| 05:03:40.93 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, I personally think anytime you can bury parking and not have to be looking at this and in the age of electric cars where you don't have your. you know, your pigtails hanging out of the side of your house, you know, to plug into your Tesla or whatever you drive. I'm not sure. Who wants to see that? I think particularly up here where you do have such a sensitive I'm not sure. boundary line with GGNRA and just, you know, hiking up there all the time. I mean, there's not a day that goes by that you don't see something that just is wonderful. Uh, and mesmerizing. So I, to me. This is very brittle, rippable. terrain. It is not jackhammered. It is, it is, it is not that invasive at all. it might actually, I actually think it would improve the stability of something that is so brittle Anyway. What? |
| 05:04:42.15 | Brad Evanson | one other consideration if I may um The Wolfpack Estates architectural standards do I'm if not outright prohibit, they do recommend against stilt and cantilevered type architecture. So to get a larger building in there, you do need to go subterranean. |
| 05:05:09.74 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 05:05:14.22 | Kristina Feller | Anyway, let's keep moving on here. We have a lot to get through. |
| 05:05:17.81 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:05:19.29 | Kristina Feller | We're going to be at 11.40, and this deserves our attention here and our focus. Bye. I, I, I, I'd like to keep going through this and I want to make sure that Commissioner Saad and Vice Chair Graff are are part of this too. I see Vice Chair Graf, your hand is up. |
| 05:05:38.30 | Liz Gerhart | Yeah. |
| 05:05:43.80 | Richard Graef | Yes, well, I... As you say, it is what it is and curiously, the Planning Commission determined that Contagal was the front the street. And that was the front. but that was overturned. So that's a done deal and everything has that So I think that's a good point. My question really now is, in what ways might this project be inconsistent with the general plan. specifically. I'm sorry, my brain is pretty fried. my problem. that seems to me to be what we need to discover here before we move to number two. |
| 05:06:36.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:06:36.03 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I think we need to focus on exceptions and we don't necessarily have to go number by number Thank you. |
| 05:06:45.10 | Richard Graef | Well, |
| 05:06:46.91 | Kristina Feller | to make the findings, but Um, you know, I haven't found any inconsistencies with the general plan. and all. |
| 05:06:56.36 | Richard Graef | It seems to be, it seems to be consistent. Although there are interpretations and I think the side yard or backyard or you know. Um, Those setbacks are Um, as we discussed earlier, potential Uh-huh. issues. with consistency. So, Um, And so I guess in my mind, the question really is, Um, Which of those setbacks are we going to honor or choose not to honor or to overturn or whatever. Um, Personally, I would, Um, I would favor going towards the uh, greater of the setbacks than the of the setbacks in terms of determining Um, proper scale and of the project. |
| 05:08:07.27 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. |
| 05:08:09.90 | Morgan Pierce | That's a 33 foot 7 inch one protruding. |
| 05:08:09.94 | Kristina Feller | That's what I'm saying. |
| 05:08:13.72 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:08:13.73 | Richard Graef | Yeah, the greater one. Yeah. somewhere. in that area rather than I would rather err on the side of of you know, keeping the overall size of the project, lesser than greater. |
| 05:08:34.40 | Kristina Feller | Well, I mean. I don't think we're here to try to necessarily make a smaller design or a smaller house. That isn't what we're here to do. We're here to take this application that's before us. And, um, ensure that it is is meeting any minimum requirement that that we have for |
| 05:08:58.84 | Kristina Feller | for zoning or general plan or any of these types of ordinances. I mean, the general plan is a public policy document. It is not a zoning code. it sets out with the zoning, what we're talking about in terms of zoning, but it is a public policy document We have our municipal code and other ordinances to use this as guides as well. Um, This is a buildable lot. We know that, the neighbors know that, the applicant knows that, this is a buildable lot. It is a very large piece of land with a very small buildable lot on it. |
| 05:09:39.76 | Unknown | on it. |
| 05:09:41.95 | Kristina Feller | Um, It is also not. not asking for one variance. which is very unusual to me for something like this. We do have to resolve the issue with setback, absolutely. But other than that, I want to make sure that in our deliberations here. we're also making progress forward. Um, If the setback is the one thing that we really have to focus the deliberations on, then let's put that aside for just a minute, make sure that we deliberate that. I want to make sure that we're uncovering any other areas that need focus and deliberation. So we're really deliberating by exception here. If something on the findings, we can make the findings and there's no need to go into detail to talk about it. I . And we can focus on what we need to celebrate. any of- |
| 05:10:46.70 | Morgan Pierce | developer. |
| 05:10:48.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:10:48.21 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. May I just ask a quick clarifying question of staff regarding the setback issue, just to have some clarity as we move forward? |
| 05:10:48.32 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 05:10:54.43 | Morgan Pierce | and Brad, pardon me if you if you described this earlier and I just went through with all the other synapses, but the 33 foot seven increased side yard setback is obviously based on a multiplier of the additional extended length of the building beyond 40 feet, relative to the, I guess, the overall length of the yard it's set back against. And so that degree that it's set back, is that set back then from |
| 05:11:03.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:11:26.38 | Morgan Pierce | The property line. the 10 foot setback or from the 20 foot setback? that additional setback. |
| 05:11:33.83 | Brad Evanson | The additional, the length of the building triggers a requirement for an additional 13 feet, seven inches of setback. |
| 05:11:41.99 | Morgan Pierce | Okay. |
| 05:11:42.02 | Brad Evanson | That is added on to the net sum total of what applies currently and under the zoning ordinance the R120 standard is a 10 foot side setback and then the wolfback estate settlement agreement adds an additional 10 so there's a baseline of 20 feet of setback And then the length of the building triggers an additional 13 feet, seven inches. So we have a net of 33 feet, seven inches of setback from the property line with one can to go. |
| 05:12:11.80 | Morgan Pierce | Perfect, thank you. And I guess that's where some of my confusion lies. It almost seems, I mean, because we're, We're mixing two different requirements here. Or the, the, and it almost seems like we're double dipping in a punitive fashion against the applicant. Where I would, if I were to interpret it, I would take that additional 13 foot, seven inch from the 10 foot line and not from the 20 foot line. |
| 05:12:35.04 | Brad Evanson | Honestly, that's what I thought at first when I first looked at it. But after talking with Lily and Mary, that was – The determination was because the city was a party to the settlement agreement, the standards there effectively are a secondary Addendum if you will to the zoning standards in in the municipal code so in this case that's where that why it's not from the 10 foot line why it comes from the 20 foot line. |
| 05:12:55.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:13:02.78 | Morgan Pierce | Does the Planning Commission have a discretion to make a determination of it being begun from the 10-foot line instead of the 20-foot line? |
| 05:13:12.42 | Brad Evanson | I would defer to the city attorney's fine, fine judgment on that one. |
| 05:13:17.14 | Richard Graef | Don't we have some discretion in terms of allowing Intrusion into the setback. In other words, the setback is there. That's a line. but the but the planning commission often has discretionary Ability to say, okay, well, you can go over that line in certain cases if it makes sense to do so. So, I don't know. I mean, it seems to me that the, |
| 05:13:43.27 | Unknown | I don't... |
| 05:13:46.64 | Richard Graef | that they, the greater line, it was probably the line, but Uh... you know which would have quite an effect on the Um, the floor plan on the plan of the of the project. How much discretion does the Planning Commission have and do we choose to exercise it? |
| 05:14:14.00 | Brad Evanson | If I may, you do have that discretion. That is what the applicant is actually requesting. |
| 05:14:14.54 | Richard Graef | Yes. |
| 05:14:19.97 | Brad Evanson | the setback is increased to that 33 foot 7 inches they've actually designed the project to comply with 20-foot setbacks. It's the building length that triggers that and per section 10.40.090, That is the section of the zoning ordinance that allows for. structural projections into the side yard setback. And that is something they've requested. There are a series of findings or criteria that go into that. The applicant has prepared exhibits that show the calculations they've applied And going back to when Calvin was first on this project, We've gone over those and the collective interpretation has been that they meet the criteria which from the staff perspective means that we can then recommend you the planning commission can find that this exemption is warranted and can be approved through the design review process. |
| 05:15:23.17 | Kristina Feller | So I have a question for clarification there. And then I'd like to ask, give Mary a heads up that I'd like to ask her to weigh in on this in just a moment. But, But- Are you... are you calculating the additional setback, the additional 13 feet, seven inches for the entire length of that East um, Wall. Or are you stopping it where the property line stops, where you get into sort of the nook where the Can I? Can I see the site plan? |
| 05:16:02.45 | Brad Evanson | Yes. Um, |
| 05:16:04.70 | Kristina Feller | because it's only supposed to be calculated based on a property line. And it's not a continuous property line. So you see, |
| 05:16:13.79 | Unknown | I mean, |
| 05:16:14.90 | Kristina Feller | So is your 33 foot 7 inch, the additional 13 feet 7 inches? Is that a calculation based on the entirety of of the... of that Eastern Wall. or just the parts that are along the property line. |
| 05:16:37.28 | Brad Evanson | It is the entirety of the wall because the definition in the zoning ordinance stipulates the building length. as triggering the required setback Obviously, Um, the majority of situations would be where the property line is consistent along the entire length of the wall. AMEN. obviously like if, If the if this weren't the uniquely shaped property that it is and the line between 99 and one can't go all just continued straight on. across the driveway, then then that would be the situation you're talking Um, the line going all the way across. the entire building length. Um, does project beyond that one particular setback or that one bigger property line. |
| 05:17:36.34 | Kristina Feller | Fred, can you use your cursor here? |
| 05:17:39.74 | Brad Evanson | Yes. |
| 05:17:40.51 | Kristina Feller | Lay out exactly the line from one end to the other. that you're using to calculate the additional 13 feet, 7 inches. |
| 05:17:50.67 | Brad Evanson | from I'd have to double check. I'd have to go back to Scott's thing, but it's about from here. about here. |
| 05:17:59.72 | Kristina Feller | So a third of that is not on a prop, you know, parallel to a property line. |
| 05:18:07.75 | Brad Evanson | Correct. |
| 05:18:08.78 | Kristina Feller | It's on the site of this landowner It's not, it's not. one canto gal. |
| 05:18:17.99 | Brad Evanson | Correct. But I believe the language in the zoning ordinance stipulates that it's simply the length of the building. I don't think it makes a distinction about only the length of the building adjacent to a property line. |
| 05:18:34.34 | Kristina Feller | Somehow that I understand what you're saying, but that does, that makes no sense to me. |
| 05:18:38.98 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to me either. |
| 05:18:42.29 | Kristina Feller | So I think that you know, I think Whatever the... the length of the real property line is between 99 Wolfback and one Canto Gao that's what we should be measuring because otherwise i think you know commissioner pierce |
| 05:18:59.69 | Unknown | measures. |
| 05:19:03.89 | Kristina Feller | is right, you almost not have a double threat, but a triple threat here from a punitive standpoint. you know, because that, This applicant owns all that land. Why would he need a setback on his own land? himself. |
| 05:19:24.67 | Brad Evanson | Well, I don't think the setback. I don't think we're necessarily applying. Well, I mean, we kind of are, but the setback doesn't go. beyond the full building wall like like We're not going to require it. in the kind of the midline of the property. I'm just up to that point where the setback line mirrors or runs parallel to the property line, that's as far as it goes. It just happens that this entire building wing is within that setback. Um, line if you follow the setback lines as they go parallel to the property Here's the R20 R120. Here's the Wolfback Estates. And then here's the increase. that maintains that side yard setback increase. So this is where they've taken it out just to what the side yard setback is. in a parallel line here. being that as as was said earlier this is an unusually shaped property and |
| 05:20:27.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:20:27.51 | Kristina Feller | That's not the problem. That's not the question. You're telling me that the 13 feet, seven inches was derived from a calculation from end to end. |
| 05:20:41.02 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 05:20:41.11 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 05:20:41.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:20:42.00 | Kristina Feller | entire building, not just where there's a where the where the property line is on one canto gao so to me. To me, that that seems to to this applicant because Um, it's not factoring in the fact that that entire length is not on an adjacent property property line. It's on his own land. |
| 05:21:15.45 | Brad Evanson | I agree. I think that's a great point. I would ask the city attorney to weigh in if that's something that's open to interpretation. I don't know. I mean the code is vague enough, but this is also a situation not normally encountered by the code, normally the The property line is contiguous all the way along the building length and in this case it's simply not so. I don't know if that then opens up the idea of flexibility to just as it is parallel to the property line and thus relevant to the or applicable to the setback. I don't know that the code says or does not say that we can do that. |
| 05:21:56.42 | Kristina Feller | Can I ask the attorney, Mary Wagner, just to perhaps add some color to the conversation in this regard. |
| 05:22:06.51 | Mary Wagner | Sure. Thank you, Chair Feller. I think we actually need the Community Development Director to jump in on this one. to make sure that we're we're all looking at the correct language and giving you the right interpretation. So if we could get Lily to jump in for a minute here too, I think that would be helpful. |
| 05:22:26.80 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:22:27.03 | Lily Whelan | I'm hearing. |
| 05:22:30.54 | Kristina Feller | So. Director Whelan, the question, the issue is, the 13 feet 7 inches of additional increased side yard setback. is based on a calculation of the entirety of the footprint from end to end, meaning I guess, North to South. rather than just the elements that are along a property line. So what that means is a third of the overall length of the footprint of the building is not a budding a property line it's on the applicant's property. And so why would that setback be calculated. on... anything other than just an adjacent property property line Otherwise, the applicants negotiating against themselves. |
| 05:23:34.84 | Lily Whelan | Yeah, thank you, Chair Fowler, I hear you. And I was looking at the code while you were having this discussion. I think I think I need to take a look at the language and this proposal and bring you back a recommendation. I don't think I can do that on the spot tonight. I haven't looked at that, the language. the way that you're looking at it with respect to this particular unusually shaped property. |
| 05:24:04.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will also comment that this provision is strange, but it also is the full length of the building that lets them get the 50% that they have there. So on the one hand, it takes something away, on the other hand, it adds something back because they couldn't have |
| 05:24:23.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:24:23.39 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:24:23.40 | Unknown | I'm sorry, I wasn't following you. |
| 05:24:24.85 | Kristina Feller | 52. |
| 05:24:25.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:24:25.29 | Kristina Feller | than it was. |
| 05:24:25.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So in a different part of this section, there's a requirement that no more than 50% of the building wall encroaches into the required setback. So another calculation is they've measured that 53 feet is half the length of the building. So if you don't count the whole building, they can't get that provision either. So it's like I understand what you're saying. They're sort of taking something away, but they're also giving something back. So the language is bizarre. I don't know where it came from, but you see that little, the 53 feet in the middle there. I don't know if, Brad, can you point to the 53 feet? It's the length of the part of the building projected into the set. So from the left to the right, not from the up to the down. From the left to the right. that little rectangle, they get 53 feet because of the length of the building. So on the one hand, I understand what you're saying because it's not adjacent, but on the other hand, if they don't use the length of the building, they don't get 53 feet either. So it's used both ways. I'm just pointing that out. |
| 05:25:49.58 | Kristina Feller | I think it's more punitive though than helpful in the other direction. So I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. Okay. |
| 05:25:57.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. It is what it is, though. I mean, it clearly says the full length of the building will be subject to. So I don't know. |
| 05:26:04.64 | Kristina Feller | I think that's assuming that you have common property line and in this case you actually Don't. for the entire length. |
| 05:26:13.21 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I... It's true. changes direction, but that doesn't affect the length of the building. It just happens to be the shape of the lot. I don't know that that really has any particular bearing. But anyway, it seems to me that the increased side yard setback is the one that we should be really looking at. I'm not sure. given. everything we've been able to discover And so it's whether we I want to allow encroachment into that area. |
| 05:26:54.97 | Kristina Feller | Oh. Brad, do you have the the floor plan. Is this like a bedroom or something? What is there? |
| 05:27:04.58 | Unknown | It's in bathrooms. |
| 05:27:05.89 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:27:05.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:27:05.93 | Richard Graef | Oh my God. |
| 05:27:06.20 | Unknown | . |
| 05:27:06.25 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:27:06.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:27:07.02 | Brad Evanson | Yes. |
| 05:27:07.24 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:27:07.97 | Richard Graef | it. |
| 05:27:08.03 | Unknown | to get the information. |
| 05:27:09.92 | Brad Evanson | It's the master suite, the prayer room. in the brow. |
| 05:27:19.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:27:19.22 | Kristina Feller | Yes, of course. |
| 05:27:19.24 | Brad Evanson | Yeah, so it's this area right here. |
| 05:27:22.88 | Kristina Feller | So That's about how That's okay. and about what's the elevation of that living floor versus the elevation of the bottom of the driveway at one canto gal in front of the garage. |
| 05:27:42.02 | Brad Evanson | Looks like the Floor elevation there is 531. |
| 05:27:51.03 | Brad Evanson | And |
| 05:27:51.98 | Morgan Pierce | you about 520. Dash four. and four garage driveway. |
| 05:28:01.22 | Unknown | So fuck. Thanks. |
| 05:28:02.34 | Morgan Pierce | 11 feet or so? |
| 05:28:03.10 | Morgan Pierce | I love it. Thank you. |
| 05:28:04.38 | Unknown | At 11. |
| 05:28:04.92 | Morgan Pierce | Is that 518 right there? Oh yeah, it's going down into the garage. I was looking out in the middle of the driveway. |
| 05:28:10.49 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. Oh. |
| 05:28:11.32 | Unknown | the |
| 05:28:12.03 | Brad Evanson | Yeah, 520. |
| 05:28:12.08 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Thank you. |
| 05:28:14.27 | Brad Evanson | Six, it looks like, yeah. |
| 05:28:17.09 | Kristina Feller | So if you were down at the driveway, the garage entry at one canto gallery, even more of a distance, more Because you're on a downward slope. Yes. |
| 05:28:29.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:28:29.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:28:29.34 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:28:29.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:28:29.46 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:28:30.27 | Kristina Feller | All right. And not the entire master suite or prayer room are at a property line. It's... contiguous with the rest of |
| 05:28:46.69 | Brad Evanson | Yeah, if you look just at the property line itself, not even taking into account the setback where the property line jogs, running from the kind of parallel track to the building to perpendicular to it. Thank you. |
| 05:28:59.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:29:00.02 | Brad Evanson | That is just about in line with the break between the actual master bedroom and the adjacent prayer room. |
| 05:29:07.10 | Unknown | you |
| 05:29:07.85 | Brad Evanson | So, Yeah, you could argue that the prayer room section would taking that interpretation be outside of the setback calculation then. |
| 05:29:19.95 | Unknown | Yeah. Okay. |
| 05:29:27.37 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:29:27.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:29:27.46 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:29:27.47 | Unknown | you |
| 05:29:27.66 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:29:27.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:29:28.01 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:29:28.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:29:28.17 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:29:31.66 | Kristina Feller | All right. Anybody else have comments on this issue? |
| 05:29:37.62 | Morgan Pierce | Well, it sounded like the community development director was going to get us some, come back with some information but at some later time. Thank you. So shall we go back to our finance. |
| 05:29:50.00 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think we should go back to the list unless we've got something else we need Lily to help us with. But I think she'll talk back on when she's found it. |
| 05:29:52.31 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. So- |
| 05:29:57.88 | Morgan Pierce | All right, so there's a question around number one. So we can move on to number two. Thank you. |
| 05:30:02.98 | Richard Graef | A couple of years. |
| 05:30:04.31 | Kristina Feller | it. |
| 05:30:05.04 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:30:05.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Anybody have any issues? |
| 05:30:09.47 | Richard Graef | I would say that We're good with number two. |
| 05:30:12.88 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 05:30:13.21 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:30:14.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think it's an attractive design. I'm good with number two. |
| 05:30:15.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:30:17.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm doing with number two. |
| 05:30:17.53 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I would. I would agree I would just ask with anything under the reflective light from the windows be part of this. |
| 05:30:28.21 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah, I think we're going to get that. I think that's a lower one. Later. Later. |
| 05:30:28.22 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think we're gonna get that Later, later. Okay. I think it is. |
| 05:30:32.17 | Morgan Pierce | If not, we'll come back to it, but I'm pretty sure |
| 05:30:32.51 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:30:33.89 | Brad Evanson | And we do have conditions of approval in there requiring the non-reflective glass I think we've actually got one in there for bird safe glass as well, and I know that they've that glass in their materials anyway. |
| 05:30:50.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:30:50.24 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:30:50.31 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 05:30:50.35 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:30:50.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:30:51.51 | Nastassya Saad | Okay yeah if that's separate or those conditions are there then I'm also good with number two. |
| 05:30:56.49 | Kristina Feller | Great. Let's move on to number three. Yeah, good. |
| 05:31:04.27 | Kristina Feller | Karen Hollweg, Scale of structures and buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. them. |
| 05:31:10.17 | Richard Graef | I would say that the upper level is certainly where they on the scale. |
| 05:31:18.65 | Unknown | Yeah, I mean... |
| 05:31:19.08 | Richard Graef | When you add all the lower that you start to get up to the pretty darn big end of it. It's a big house. |
| 05:31:30.12 | Kristina Feller | Well, I mean 51, it looks like it's 6,337 gross. No. |
| 05:31:34.91 | Morgan Pierce | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:31:35.60 | Kristina Feller | 587 net. So I mean. |
| 05:31:38.41 | Morgan Pierce | Including three car garage. |
| 05:31:41.41 | Kristina Feller | Right, and all that surface part. |
| 05:31:43.74 | Morgan Pierce | Right. |
| 05:31:44.41 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, |
| 05:31:47.22 | Morgan Pierce | No, I would agree with... share a graph that the above grade Mass seems to be a complimentary in scale too. similar stressors nearby. No, I'm not. |
| 05:32:02.44 | Kristina Feller | I totally support number three. |
| 05:32:05.98 | Nastassya Saad | I do as well. |
| 05:32:07.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Then on to number four. |
| 05:32:13.05 | Morgan Pierce | I believe it's done that to the best of its ability. And quite frankly, there are some views that either our panoramic that |
| 05:32:24.15 | Morgan Pierce | that are very generous and to, carve into a little bit just to be able to build on this site, I think is a worthwhile tradeoff. |
| 05:32:34.92 | Kristina Feller | Well, I mean, let's also not forget |
| 05:32:36.44 | Morgan Pierce | And the view corridor and the settlement is adhered to in this design. |
| 05:32:42.68 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Yeah, the piece that's deeded in. |
| 05:32:45.96 | Morgan Pierce | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:32:46.31 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 05:32:47.44 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, with those heights and everything. We're under those heights, so. |
| 05:32:52.01 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 05:32:52.05 | Morgan Pierce | Right. |
| 05:32:52.27 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 05:32:52.98 | Kristina Feller | those were deeded in. |
| 05:32:58.85 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:32:58.93 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:32:59.03 | Richard Graef | I'm okay. |
| 05:32:59.05 | Kristina Feller | I'm a little bit. |
| 05:33:02.76 | Richard Graef | So far as I'm concerned, My viewpoint is that we really that this project has not seriously compromised and idiots. from neighbors. All right. |
| 05:33:19.66 | Morgan Pierce | We're not talking about offsite views to the site. |
| 05:33:22.12 | Richard Graef | Thank you. We're talking about |
| 05:33:22.63 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 05:33:23.62 | Richard Graef | adjacent property. What? I'm sorry. |
| 05:33:27.28 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:33:27.33 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:33:27.64 | Kristina Feller | Great. So I think we're in agreement there. So grab onto number five. |
| 05:33:42.20 | Kristina Feller | Well, I think with number five, again, based on the settlement agreement and the, |
| 05:33:53.09 | Kristina Feller | the declarations of restrictions. I think we're below what they can actually build from a profile. I think that the materials and particularly the green roof which again is a condition of approval is maintaining that green roof. Um, I think the design actually looks like just a higher ridgeline. |
| 05:34:18.26 | Morgan Pierce | Well, and I would agree and also offer the comparison between it and one Rose Bowl where this is far less impactful. from a view perspective from offsite locations, |
| 05:34:32.93 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 05:34:33.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:34:33.20 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:34:36.10 | Richard Graef | Yeah, it is prominent, but... What's prominent? as Commissioner Pierce indicated. So, While it's certainly there, it doesn't seem to be excessive to me. |
| 05:34:59.89 | Nastassya Saad | I'm having a slightly hard time with this one. I think when, if you look at, I mean, the code. I guess it's within reason, it does seem I think from the conflicting presentations, some from public comment and some from, Um, the applicant they seem to not match in the renderings. And so I'm going from what I've seen from the applicant, getting to those public comments and seeing those, other 3D renderings, they looked so vastly different from each other. Um, |
| 05:35:42.35 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I think that's a fair assessment, which is your thought. And I think that's why, you know, in any conditions we offer, should this move on towards an approval, is, you know, making sure that we are providing guidance and requirements to mitigate any of that impact. I think that some of the things we were talking about, minimizing the visibility of the glazing, you know, from afar. Obviously landscape requirements, but landscape you can only count on for as long as the plants are alive. |
| 05:36:08.58 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:36:08.59 | Morgan Pierce | Anything else that this body wants to recommend to help mitigate that, I think, is under our purview. |
| 05:36:08.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:36:08.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:36:08.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:36:16.79 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so we can agree here and then have conditions and discuss more, okay. |
| 05:36:17.17 | Morgan Pierce | So we can agree. |
| 05:36:22.29 | Nastassya Saad | then in that regard, I will leave that one too. I think we can move on. |
| 05:36:29.18 | Morgan Pierce | And that sort of ties into the proposed landscaping. The proposed landscaping Sure, it suggests visual relief, but I'm much more concerned about the lack of landscaping once it dies and is replanted in some other fashion by a future owner. And so I mean, while we can answer yes to this. I think that doesn't answer the bigger question. |
| 05:36:51.07 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I agree. I also, I think you made a great point much earlier in the conversation um, ABOUT, what happens down the road. I share that concern. I also had thought privately to myself and I think it was in public comment that it doesn't really make sense to me that the applicant would want to plant the oak trees. in the area that they're proposing. Um, How does that not obstruct the view that they're trying to achieve with all that glass facing west. something is illogical there in my head. Um, And then I think in another public comment that somebody had the right from an, it wasn't an easement by any means. I don't remember the, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE the term I'm sorry it's so late I tried to take good notes but there was a there was within a public comment that some other property potentially had the right to remove and maybe it's not these oak trees so if I'm confusing things but they had a right to remove some some of the foliage or the trees as well. |
| 05:37:59.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | They have a right to cut down the height of the oak trees on the backside if they're in the spew corridor. They have that right according to the |
| 05:38:08.51 | Nastassya Saad | on the backside, okay. |
| 05:38:09.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 51. |
| 05:38:10.92 | Nastassya Saad | 51 has that right. |
| 05:38:11.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, 51 has that right. |
| 05:38:13.92 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thanks for clarifying that. But I think my original... issue with the oak trees. that would, potentially block there. It just doesn't make sense. I think it would block the applicant's own view. |
| 05:38:25.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I agree with you also that I think the oak trees, I think we should have landscaping that's shrubs and whatever, because the oak trees, you're going to see through them and they're going to eventually block views also. So, yeah, I have the same feeling you do about the oak trees. |
| 05:38:41.62 | Kristina Feller | Well, and by the way, I mean, you know, that Western light different times of the year can be really hot. It can produce so much glare that you'd want to have your blinds down to block the view. So I think you know, any kind of shading or filtering of light, someone's going to want Whether that's an oak tree or something else, I think that it's something we have to take into consideration. So. |
| 05:39:01.48 | Morgan Pierce | whether it's, |
| 05:39:01.87 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:39:06.98 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I've suggested that it's an architectural feature that we don't have to rely on living things. |
| 05:39:11.63 | Kristina Feller | That's why I like the marsha bia. I think it would be beautiful. |
| 05:39:14.56 | Morgan Pierce | You'll have to spell that for us. Yes. Because none of us knows what it is. |
| 05:39:15.60 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. |
| 05:39:15.67 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:39:15.79 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 05:39:15.97 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. |
| 05:39:16.07 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:39:16.12 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:39:17.03 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 05:39:17.05 | Lily Whelan | Google it. |
| 05:39:18.86 | Morgan Pierce | I tried. I tried, too. We all tried. |
| 05:39:19.72 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 05:39:19.82 | Lily Whelan | Thank you. |
| 05:39:19.84 | Brad Evanson | I tried too. We all tried. |
| 05:39:22.05 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:39:22.06 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 05:39:22.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:39:23.97 | Kristina Feller | He used a lot on the Asia continent. |
| 05:39:29.15 | Morgan Pierce | Ready for number seven? No. Oh, I'm sorry, Richard. |
| 05:39:32.02 | Richard Graef | I'm sorry, Richard. I have no comment. |
| 05:39:33.62 | Morgan Pierce | I'm not sure. |
| 05:39:34.96 | Richard Graef | Um, Thank you. I'm not. really thrilled with the landscape plan. I think they just sort of plunked some trees down there sort of gratuitously. And They may or may not. serve. They may not serve as screening and they may not serve the people inside. So, I think that whole approach to the landscape and the screening along that particularly along that Western side to me does not seem resolved. Sorry. |
| 05:40:13.50 | Morgan Pierce | Sorry, Richard. I think we were just sort of talking about that in general terms and didn't really... really outline the conclusion, but we were sort of all moving in that direction that the treaties seem to be, uh, maybe a misstep. for view issues, but we obviously need a lot of planting there. The issue is that it is not resolved and we're going to have to make some recommendations on what they need to come back to. with, That's weird. I agree. Okay. Now we can go on to set. Yeah. |
| 05:40:48.14 | Kristina Feller | I have no issue with number seven. |
| 05:40:50.78 | Morgan Pierce | I did have one question about it. One of the public commenters brought up the Shave and Shadow Study. |
| 05:40:58.35 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:40:59.85 | Morgan Pierce | It appears that the impact is minimal, but that was only for one day and one time of the year. And I'm wondering if we, I don't feel like we've seen a full shade shadow study, historically have asked for. applicants and circumstances such as this, I wonder if we should have them bring that back. I'm inclined to ask them to do that. |
| 05:41:21.13 | Brad Evanson | Through the chair, when this was before the commission back in October, that one speaker had presented a different version of their shadow study. and it's, I, It was refuted by the applicant who happened to have, site photos, taken the same like literally like three days after that were identified in the shadow study. that showed no impacts whatsoever. And, uh, Scott had provided, if I remember correctly, he provided a couple of different I THINK I'M GOING TO BE that were a couple of different times of the year that he just happened to take from various points on the property. and he'd provided those, that we provided those to the commission back in October, but |
| 05:42:18.80 | Morgan Pierce | Well, it would be nice to have some fresh ones, just, you know, again, for not just a few days of the year. I mean, obviously the winter solstice is going to be very different than the summer solstice. And every day in between. And, you know, every computer program we use these days. can pretty much do that at the click of a button, so. |
| 05:42:37.17 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:42:37.24 | Morgan Pierce | We're, you know. I mean, we're not under heightened review, this is a significant project. I think we were justified in requesting that documentation. |
| 05:42:46.76 | Kristina Feller | I would also add that typically you'd want to see those studies in a plan view so you see |
| 05:42:52.88 | Morgan Pierce | Exactly. The depth of the shade. |
| 05:42:55.80 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, this cross section doesn't |
| 05:42:57.62 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah, cross-section doesn't help. I mean, it's helpful, but it doesn't give us the full story. |
| 05:43:05.59 | Nastassya Saad | I would agree with Commissioner Pearce. I think it's questionable. on the shading. |
| 05:43:13.30 | Kristina Feller | THE FAMILY. |
| 05:43:16.73 | Kristina Feller | All right, let's keep going here then. We put a pin in that one. |
| 05:43:22.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:43:23.21 | Kristina Feller | Anything else on number seven? |
| 05:43:29.40 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Number eight. |
| 05:43:39.69 | Kristina Feller | I think the only question I have is the kitchen is over by the um the pine and the cypress. And I know that we've talked about this in both previous design review hearings, but we would want to make sure that the |
| 05:43:55.39 | Unknown | would |
| 05:43:58.24 | Kristina Feller | exhaust fan is not going to have any negative impact on |
| 05:44:01.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:44:01.72 | Morgan Pierce | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:44:02.09 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. those two trees. |
| 05:44:04.31 | Morgan Pierce | Right. |
| 05:44:07.86 | Richard Graef | That makes sense. Otherwise I- |
| 05:44:09.73 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:44:12.10 | Brad Evanson | We can add that as a condition. |
| 05:44:14.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:44:14.17 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:44:14.27 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:44:15.12 | Nastassya Saad | I'd agree with that too. |
| 05:44:16.74 | Brad Evanson | Yeah. |
| 05:44:20.65 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Anything else on eight? Let's go to nine. Project provides reasonable level of privacy. |
| 05:44:32.92 | Unknown | And they've been changed. Pool is not just a water feature, is that correct? |
| 05:44:34.12 | Morgan Pierce | The pool is now just a water feature, is that correct? |
| 05:44:35.77 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. It's a, yeah, it's a, well, it's a water feature, not a pool. It's correct. |
| 05:44:40.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:44:40.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 05:44:40.49 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 05:44:40.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. |
| 05:44:40.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:44:40.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:44:40.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:44:40.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:44:40.95 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. |
| 05:44:41.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 05:44:42.54 | Kristina Feller | Which is nice. |
| 05:44:45.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think this one depends on the setbacks. If the setbacks are at 33 feet, seven inches That's one thing. If it's at 20, I don't think we can make this funny. Thank you. But given the... the height differentials and stuff. |
| 05:45:00.27 | Richard Graef | you |
| 05:45:03.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we need clarity on that. |
| 05:45:06.08 | Richard Graef | issue. I have a question about I'm not sure. I don't know what the codes are or the, Wow. whatever regulations might exist, but seemed to me my recollection that there's kind of a difference between something like that's flat on the ground. recruiting into a setback. structure. protruding into a setback. In other words, like a lawn or flowers or even a pool or something like that might be able to go into the setback without triggering any issues. a wall. Aww. on the other hand was. So sure. Anything in that? or does it matter at all? |
| 05:45:57.82 | Kristina Feller | Well, I mean, there are some things that, hold on, I just, I've got it open here. when you're talking about just sort of like a flat deck or stairwell like some kind of external walkway stairwell. There's some exceptions. I mean, I, I mean, I have to say that this house is really designed with almost an internal kind of private patio courtyard. other than obviously the glass, but Canto Gao side this house is also over a story above that house set back with a hedgerow and a wall. Um, then I would say that one one Rose Bowl is much is extremely close to one canto gal those two are very very close and they're kind of at this on the same plane If there were an issue with privacy, question that more than I would question this project. |
| 05:47:07.02 | Richard Graef | I'm not questioning, I was just wondering if there was some distinction and maybe you're willing to, clear that up. if it even matters. Thank you. when it gets right down to it. So, There are. protrusions and then there are protrusions. |
| 05:47:27.22 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, it's 40.090. |
| 05:47:32.10 | Richard Graef | What does it say? |
| 05:47:33.92 | Kristina Feller | Well, I mean, it's pretty good. How bored are you? I can read it all, but... You know, like a bay window or something like that, deck. |
| 05:47:49.31 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:47:49.95 | Kristina Feller | as long as it's not like a floating deck, it's like a flat deck. um, you know. |
| 05:47:59.27 | Richard Graef | I'm only asking that because Um, In the event that let's say the building itself. might want to pull back. That doesn't mean that the pool and everything else has to pull back with it. necessarily. That was my point. |
| 05:48:17.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:48:17.74 | Kristina Feller | That's right. |
| 05:48:18.03 | Unknown | Right. |
| 05:48:18.25 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:48:18.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:48:18.42 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:48:18.49 | Unknown | That's right. |
| 05:48:19.15 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:48:19.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:48:19.40 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:48:19.42 | Unknown | according to the |
| 05:48:19.97 | Kristina Feller | that. |
| 05:48:20.04 | Unknown | That's true. |
| 05:48:20.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:48:20.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:48:24.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This is our largest, these are 20,000 square foot zoning districts. So there should be more, more land around the houses in this district than on, say, you know, in an R3 or whatever. |
| 05:48:43.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, I mean, I think this one goes back to that setback. requirements. |
| 05:48:51.56 | Unknown | with the other group. |
| 05:48:51.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And the other question is whether the four foot wall is the right height. I don't know if four feet is the right height. Because the hedge, as others have said, I think is Commissioner Pierce has said that you can't rely on the landscaping, but the wall will be there. So is four feet the right height? I don't know the answer to that. I'm just throwing that out. |
| 05:49:19.66 | Morgan Pierce | I'm not as concerned regarding the, I mean, Whichever direction the setback goes. Bedrooms backing up against bedrooms so it could be inconsequential |
| 05:49:34.54 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think I'm overall good with this one. Yeah. |
| 05:49:39.59 | Kristina Feller | Okay, let's move on to the next slide then Brad, thank you. |
| 05:49:48.19 | Morgan Pierce | I know there's been a lot of talk about number 10 regarding the garage entrance. At that point, cars are going to be going like three miles an hour. So I guess I've been of the mind that And there's another garage right there that seems like the most natural location for a garage, I could be off. That's where I would have put it. |
| 05:50:08.88 | Kristina Feller | That's exactly where I would have put it. |
| 05:50:11.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have a huge just standing there looking at that curve and this I have an issue with the garage as far as traffic. I also think contrary to what was said earlier, that Given the fires and the wildfires, there should be a, I'm surprised the fire department's not worried about this, but there should be a fire turnaround. It's on the subdivision plan. If you don't do it here, when do you do it? I think you need a fire turnaround up there. You know, it's windy up there. If a fire gets started up there with the winds that they have, I think, you know, there should be a requirement if this comes ahead. I mean, I... |
| 05:50:56.00 | Morgan Pierce | I mean, I agree with that, but I'm not sure it should be the responsibility of this one property owner to accommodate that. I think they need to figure it out from a community perspective. |
| 05:51:04.00 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, that's a subdivision requirement. It's not this applicant. |
| 05:51:08.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But who's gonna, this is the key, the key letting houses get built under this subdivision and no one puts it in. It should have been put in the first place. I don't know how you do it, but. This owner owns, supposedly owns 789. The same owner owns all of |
| 05:51:27.72 | Kristina Feller | Well, we're here to talk about one application for lot five. That's it. |
| 05:51:32.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But you need a fire, you need fire access and fire ability to turn around there unless the fire department really doesn't think it's needed. And I don't know when, if you don't do it now, when do you? |
| 05:51:44.60 | Kristina Feller | Brad, I think you meant Thank you. |
| 05:51:46.37 | Brad Evanson | Yeah. I did speak with representatives from Southern Marin fire this evening. |
| 05:51:47.42 | Kristina Feller | I, I, |
| 05:51:53.05 | Brad Evanson | before the meeting and They they told me that The trigger would be if lot nine were to develop. That's where the turnaround is shown on the map. that if that law were to develop, then they would make the request that the turnaround be put in. but it's not on lot five. And as part of the, it was listed as part of the subdivision improvement agreements that the city had signed on to. and had collected security for. And in 2002, The determination was made that The improvements had all been constructed and public works signed off on it and the city council We have passed a resolution accepting the improvements and releasing the security. I can't speak to what happened then but at this point. of there's no hook until some, until lot nine develops fire is not, expressed any concerns about it until that point. And that's when they would simply request that the turnaround be installed per the subdivision plan. |
| 05:53:04.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let me ask you this. Let's say lot 7 gets built, lot 8 gets built, lot 5 gets built, lot 2 gets built, and then lot 9 gets turned over to the GGNRA, or they talk about it for 20 years about what to do with lot 9. That means that all of that time after all these other houses are built, there's no fire turnaround. It just doesn't seem to make any sense. I'm just hoping we're not misinterpreting what the fire department. I'm not sure if there's no fire turnaround, but there's no time after all these other houses are built, there's no fire turnaround. It just doesn't seem to make any sense. I'm just hoping we're not misinterpreting what the fire department... I'm actually surprised. I've never seen a fire department not want some ability to turn a fire I'm just very surprised. |
| 05:53:42.81 | Brad Evanson | I'm telling you what they told me that They have been working on did not see a need for it at this time. They have, each time we've gotten a resubmittal from the applicant, We send the plans over to Southern They provided conditions of approval. Those are included in the draft resolution. They have not asked for a turnaround. take that for what it's worth. They're the experts on that and they haven't requested it, so I'm not questioning it. |
| 05:54:13.10 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Brent. |
| 05:54:16.64 | Nastassya Saad | DIRECTOR RIVERA- I will say on this one just in terms and I don't know if this is the right I'm just trying to look ahead as well but I think this could be the right area. Somebody had proposed. potential barrier. Maybe that was you, Commissioner. Pierce I don't know if we can put that in as a condition of this one just from a safety standpoint. |
| 05:54:35.68 | Morgan Pierce | Oh, no, somebody – was that you? |
| 05:54:35.71 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, no. the |
| 05:54:38.36 | Morgan Pierce | Christina? |
| 05:54:39.14 | Nastassya Saad | Or maybe that was you, Chair Feller. Okay, sorry. But I thought that was a really good idea. And I think maybe that could be a condition of this one from a safety standpoint. |
| 05:54:39.17 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. |
| 05:54:49.67 | Eva Hugeland | Thank you. |
| 05:54:49.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:54:50.53 | Eva Hugeland | Thank you. |
| 05:54:50.54 | Unknown | Yeah, absolutely. |
| 05:54:51.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Where is this barrier on Wolfback Ridge Road or on Canto? |
| 05:54:59.33 | Morgan Pierce | It's like the response of Gal where it makes the sharp turn. On the applicant's property. |
| 05:55:05.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So... I'm confused of where we're talking. This is, it comes up a hill and then it goes around into one canto go. |
| 05:55:14.20 | Kristina Feller | Brad, can you put up the site plan and we can |
| 05:55:16.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 05:55:17.46 | Matthew Nathans | Thank you. |
| 05:55:21.76 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So if you could use your cursor, Brad, so it would be keep going. Yeah. Right there on the turn. |
| 05:55:28.90 | Morgan Pierce | that up on the outside of the curve. |
| 05:55:30.62 | Kristina Feller | the outside of the curve. Yep. So you don't go down that hill. |
| 05:55:34.91 | Morgan Pierce | Right. |
| 05:55:35.57 | Kristina Feller | It's a |
| 05:55:35.63 | Morgan Pierce | It's a relatively precipitate |
| 05:55:36.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | drop off. |
| 05:55:37.52 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. |
| 05:55:37.96 | Brad Evanson | Yes. |
| 05:55:38.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:55:38.23 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 05:55:39.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, but that curve is not, I don't understand that curve because there is an access to lot three. So there's a road off to the left there. Yeah, but it would be. |
| 05:55:49.56 | Morgan Pierce | It would be after that. |
| 05:55:50.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:55:51.90 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 05:55:51.92 | Nastassya Saad | Correct. |
| 05:55:52.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's on the dry. |
| 05:55:52.69 | Nastassya Saad | It's on the drop part, not blocking the access to the URL. Not blocking the access. OK, I got it. |
| 05:55:54.20 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 05:55:57.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Not blocking the exit. Okay, I got it. Yes, yes. Okay, yes, I agree that that should be there. |
| 05:56:00.15 | Richard Graef | Yes. Okay. Great. This looks like a wall along that. curve. |
| 05:56:11.26 | Kristina Feller | What I'm sorry. |
| 05:56:13.64 | Morgan Pierce | I think it's probably just curb and gutter or something, Richard. I'm not sure what the double line indicates. |
| 05:56:16.96 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. The double line is a, it's a driveway easement. is what I'm reading on the plans. I can't believe I can actually read it. |
| 05:56:26.02 | Morgan Pierce | But there's a double line that would suggest like a curb. |
| 05:56:26.29 | Richard Graef | And there's a double Or a barrier of some sort or something. |
| 05:56:30.38 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. |
| 05:56:30.54 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 05:56:30.60 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:56:34.24 | Richard Graef | That's... I don't know. I think stop |
| 05:56:37.24 | Brad Evanson | was. These aren't showing any improvements, so I don't I don't know that there's any anything to that line. Um, beyond just Maybe it was... just a double maybe it is supposed to be like some sort of a like a rolled curve or something I don't know |
| 05:56:54.74 | Morgan Pierce | regardless we'll kill out a barrier as a condition. |
| 05:56:57.38 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 05:56:57.80 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Thank you. vehicular barrier. |
| 05:56:58.47 | Brad Evanson | vehicular barrier. |
| 05:56:59.49 | Kristina Feller | Let's go back to the |
| 05:57:03.52 | Brad Evanson | Back to the findings. |
| 05:57:05.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:57:05.15 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:57:05.17 | Unknown | IN THE CASE. |
| 05:57:08.67 | Matthew Nathans | way. Sports. Bellarmine. |
| 05:57:14.86 | Kristina Feller | Anything else on time? |
| 05:57:17.22 | Nastassya Saad | I think 10 is good from my perspective. |
| 05:57:19.47 | Kristina Feller | Great. Okay. All right. Number 11. |
| 05:57:23.89 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah, I'm concerned about the cybers. Thank you. |
| 05:57:25.86 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:57:25.96 | Morgan Pierce | you |
| 05:57:25.98 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 05:57:26.05 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 05:57:26.17 | Nastassya Saad | I'm concerned. I took the word rad out of my mouth. |
| 05:57:26.22 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you all so much. TODAY. Not only its proximity, but you know, they're regardless of whether they're going to cantilever a foundation, there's already losing potentially 20% of the root system The cantilever of the pantry... And the rest of the building is essentially effectively covering a third of the tree. the roots might be preserved. I'm not sure whether they're getting nutrients from rainwater or what, unless they're sucking everything from the ground now. Again, I'm not an arborist, in my understanding of trees, once you get to a third, you're You're rolling the dice. |
| 05:58:08.83 | Kristina Feller | I think we need to condition this. heavily. We want those trees preserved. |
| 05:58:16.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mm-hmm. But I think in order to do that, they need to set the building back somewhat and they seem reluctant to do that. Well, Jeffrey, you want to pull it back from the other direction too. I do. I want to pull it back from both sides. One to protect the trees and one to pull it back. And I think they can go in the other direction. If they want to go out farther and make the building longer, I don't have a issue with the longer stuff. I was just raising the anomaly that they can get more height and more stuff out of the longer building. But yes, they need to protect the trees. And yes, they need to set back from the other side. |
| 05:58:28.81 | Morgan Pierce | I do. |
| 05:58:51.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | They're not necessarily entitled to X amount of feats. So if they've got trees they have to protect. I'm sorry. |
| 05:58:51.94 | Unknown | They don't. |
| 05:58:59.10 | Kristina Feller | on the information. I mean, whether or not it's enough for us. I'm not saying that it is, but they have focused on that. as as how they're going, how they're intending to build and then cantilever. I'm not as concerned about the foundation as I am what Commissioner Pierce just mentioned, that is the nutrients Um, |
| 05:59:25.00 | Unknown | that. |
| 05:59:25.61 | Kristina Feller | you know, to the root ball, root structure and so on. I'm not sure. So that's why I think we have to heavily condition it because I'm not so sure that that is a viable solution. |
| 05:59:35.68 | Unknown | I'm not... |
| 05:59:40.40 | Kristina Feller | Again, I'm not an arborist or tree expert by any stretch of the imagination, I think that this is an important component. |
| 05:59:48.69 | Morgan Pierce | Well, and I'm concerned, you know, we have no idea where the primary roots are. Are they on the uphill side or are they on the downhill side? And, you know, for, for damage, if they're on the uphill side and, We're starting to compromise their viability by foundation and overhang Then I even have more concerns about the viability of that trade. |
| 06:00:05.11 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I don't know. applicant with their last minute left can help us understand possibly But let's keep going. |
| 06:00:16.08 | Morgan Pierce | Okay. |
| 06:00:16.92 | Kristina Feller | your unless there's anything other than our common concern about those trees, let's keep going. |
| 06:00:23.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have no issue with conditions. I think that's fine, Chair Feller. But if you need a design change to solve the problem. then conditions don't work. Conditions do, you know, protect it during construction. So, I mean, we don't wanna be having them change the design later to meet a condition. I just wanna raise that. |
| 06:00:45.74 | Kristina Feller | I just want to raise that. That's why I'm asking, we can ask them to come back with their last minute to explain it. We missed something. |
| 06:00:53.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I understand. |
| 06:00:57.10 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 06:00:57.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. You're 12. |
| 06:01:00.14 | Brad Evanson | Yeah. Well, there's heightened designer view, and this doesn't trigger that threshold, so. |
| 06:01:06.30 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, that's pretty straightforward. Thank you. |
| 06:01:08.66 | Kristina Feller | That was an equal to you guys. |
| 06:01:09.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 06:01:09.81 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 06:01:09.86 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 06:01:09.91 | Kristina Feller | Yes. 13. I'd say. Wow. |
| 06:01:19.36 | Nastassya Saad | I think we have setback questions on this one still. |
| 06:01:36.35 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah, I mean, aside from that, it is the setback question. |
| 06:01:36.88 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I think it's a fact. Everything else I'm okay with. |
| 06:01:42.17 | Morgan Pierce | Mm-hmm. |
| 06:01:46.11 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Brad? keep this. |
| 06:01:49.15 | Brad Evanson | Yes. |
| 06:01:54.73 | Brad Evanson | Okay, these are the architectural standards in the settlement agreement. |
| 06:02:04.99 | Kristina Feller | I'm okay with A. |
| 06:02:14.66 | Morgan Pierce | Mm-hmm. I'm good there. |
| 06:02:16.92 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 06:02:17.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 06:02:21.66 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I guess if we're just talking about design, so this is not talking about height at all, right? That's backwards. |
| 06:02:28.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:02:28.83 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 06:02:29.32 | Nastassya Saad | in the other stuff, yeah. |
| 06:02:31.50 | Kristina Feller | And it's the site, I mean, it is relatively a flat site up there. |
| 06:02:35.28 | Nastassya Saad | Mm-hmm. Yeah, I'm okay with A. Thank you. |
| 06:02:39.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not clear of that. |
| 06:02:41.49 | Kristina Feller | are you good? |
| 06:02:42.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 06:02:42.74 | Morgan Pierce | Mm-hmm. |
| 06:02:44.22 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 06:02:44.24 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Great. |
| 06:02:45.39 | Kristina Feller | It's going to be. |
| 06:02:59.83 | Kristina Feller | This one's interesting because we're not reading anything. |
| 06:03:03.65 | Morgan Pierce | except for digging out the bathtub of a garage. |
| 06:03:06.72 | Kristina Feller | . Greetings. |
| 06:03:09.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:03:09.50 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah, there's no side slopes. |
| 06:03:11.26 | Unknown | No. |
| 06:03:11.70 | Morgan Pierce | speak of. |
| 06:03:12.96 | Unknown | No. |
| 06:03:16.27 | Richard Graef | So it's... Not an issue. |
| 06:03:19.31 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, it's kind of a non issue. |
| 06:03:28.22 | Kristina Feller | and we're not, and again, we're on a flat site, so I'm not sure that C, |
| 06:03:33.65 | Morgan Pierce | Nope, C is irrelevant to this. |
| 06:03:44.96 | Richard Graef | that's free. be. |
| 06:03:48.59 | Morgan Pierce | That was C. That was the... talking about buildings on stilts, which this is not. |
| 06:03:53.70 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 06:03:53.72 | Unknown | Right. |
| 06:03:54.02 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:03:54.85 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 06:03:58.42 | Morgan Pierce | you Where's the leach field going? |
| 06:04:01.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 06:04:01.36 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:04:01.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 06:04:01.39 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 06:04:01.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's across the road and just to the north. Across the road into the north. You want to I don't know if you want to pull that lot four was across the road. |
| 06:04:12.83 | Brad Evanson | Paul Beck. |
| 06:04:16.45 | Brad Evanson | Across Wolfpack Ridge Road, not across Canto Call. |
| 06:04:16.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh... |
| 06:04:20.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. Cross-Wolfbeck Ridgeway. Isn't that lot 7, 8, and 9? Thank you. |
| 06:04:25.71 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 06:04:25.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 06:04:25.76 | Brad Evanson | and then, |
| 06:04:25.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 06:04:26.03 | Brad Evanson | THE FAMILY. THE FAMILY. |
| 06:04:26.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE FAMILY. |
| 06:04:26.27 | Brad Evanson | THE END OF |
| 06:04:26.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 06:04:26.99 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 06:04:27.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | They have a right to put a subject there. Thank you. I see. |
| 06:04:40.04 | Kristina Feller | Okay with Dee? |
| 06:04:42.79 | Morgan Pierce | I'm coming to you. |
| 06:04:43.68 | Michael Rex | Yeah, I think Dee is fine. |
| 06:04:46.03 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 06:04:48.61 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 06:04:52.69 | Unknown | I got some good, you're okay? |
| 06:04:55.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm okay with the, I mean, yes. |
| 06:04:57.54 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 06:05:01.87 | Morgan Pierce | So I'm not sure if E is where the large... |
| 06:05:01.92 | Unknown | So, |
| 06:05:02.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:05:05.28 | Morgan Pierce | elements of glazing fall into it, but that would be, if they were, that would be the problem for me. |
| 06:05:14.67 | Brad Evanson | I'd say it's probably more I would be the – |
| 06:05:17.08 | Unknown | the, uh, |
| 06:05:29.45 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure, Brad, because, you know, we're going to have glass regardless. So that building material is going to be a building material. I think it's going to be selected to be you know, as complimentary to the house and landscape as we can, but it's the general overall design of the exterior with the big expanses of glass that are unshielded from distant views that I think we have the bigger problem with. |
| 06:05:52.36 | Brad Evanson | I'm sorry. |
| 06:05:56.57 | Morgan Pierce | So let's put a pin in E. |
| 06:05:58.83 | Kristina Feller | That could have been a... |
| 06:06:03.18 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And an E let's go on to F then. |
| 06:06:08.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | F goes back to the suffix a little bit. |
| 06:06:17.27 | Kristina Feller | Um... I just think this is the size. bulk I think I don't have a problem with F. |
| 06:06:27.53 | Morgan Pierce | I know it falls under the the requirements of the settlement agreement, so, |
| 06:06:34.55 | Kristina Feller | Oh, yep. It falls under that. Low that threshold. Okay, anybody else on ask? |
| 06:06:45.17 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Thank you. It's okay. |
| 06:06:47.61 | Kristina Feller | Okay, all right, let's go on to G. |
| 06:06:58.45 | Morgan Pierce | I... |
| 06:07:04.72 | Nastassya Saad | This may be some of the glass and reflective as well maybe I know we said I as well which I can see building materials but I don't know how low profile it's going to be if it has shiny reflective glass. |
| 06:07:21.36 | Morgan Pierce | I'm thinking that that's geometric low profile. as opposed to, you know, overall versus |
| 06:07:26.95 | Unknown | Overall. |
| 06:07:28.75 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. |
| 06:07:29.29 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 06:07:30.64 | Morgan Pierce | I think, but I like your interpretation |
| 06:07:31.20 | Unknown | I think, but I like your interpretation. |
| 06:07:38.00 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah, no, I think that's what it's, you know, it's talking about the overall building height and mass and based on height, I think again, |
| 06:07:43.74 | Morgan Pierce | Okay. |
| 06:07:46.84 | Morgan Pierce | We feel that I feel that it is, you know, it's obviously under the limits established by the settlement agreement. And, you know, it seems like it does it as well as it could on that site. |
| 06:07:59.35 | Kristina Feller | I agree. |
| 06:08:02.96 | Nastassya Saad | I agree. |
| 06:08:04.31 | Kristina Feller | I also actually think that the planters help kind of soften |
| 06:08:08.58 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 06:08:08.63 | Unknown | And then. |
| 06:08:10.23 | Kristina Feller | Love. surface. |
| 06:08:17.07 | Kristina Feller | Anybody else on G? |
| 06:08:18.97 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 06:08:18.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm good with you. I'm okay with you. |
| 06:08:23.45 | Kristina Feller | Let's go on to H. |
| 06:08:30.26 | Morgan Pierce | I believe this mass has been broken up significantly and has enough variation in it to make it not seem like a uniform mass. I think there's enough in and out also to help provide a little bit more visual depth to again, make it seem |
| 06:08:41.55 | Nastassya Saad | I think like there's |
| 06:08:49.52 | Morgan Pierce | more diminutive. |
| 06:08:51.00 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I like it'll it'll create beautiful shade and shadow. |
| 06:08:54.63 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:08:54.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mm-hmm. |
| 06:08:56.57 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 06:08:57.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm okay with it. |
| 06:08:59.46 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:08:59.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 06:08:59.51 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:09:00.32 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 06:09:02.60 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. And so general building materials and colors, I think are, again, are all complimentary. It is the glass. So tied with. E, the E and I. Contingent is the The sticky ones so far. |
| 06:09:17.12 | Kristina Feller | Okay. I agree with that. |
| 06:09:24.35 | Kristina Feller | Brad Wells, do we have one? |
| 06:09:27.47 | Morgan Pierce | Oh, there we go. There we go. Well, they said they're not reflective, but say non-reflective glass, I think, is a bit of a misnomer. But I know there are treatments to make it |
| 06:09:27.57 | Morgan Pierce | Oh. Lexus. |
| 06:09:38.24 | Morgan Pierce | very limited reflectivity, but I think it's, the issue is some of the reflectivity, but it's also, you know, we have a lot of foggy days here and people use the GGNRA when it's foggy or the light is just overcast and there will be lights on inside, whether it's, you know, this owner or a future owner. And, you know, we just need to be cognizant that those large openings are going to be doing something that we probably don't want them to be doing. So how do we mitigate that? How do we help the the views for the client, but also know, serve the needs of the greater community. So I think there's some, I think there's some architectural tricks that can easily be played there. successfully and will allow them to explore those. |
| 06:10:20.61 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I agree. And as I think you might've mentioned earlier, that There are no horizontal planes to give shadow to some of those window walls. And so I think there are some other things that they could be looking at and I think it would be. good for Um, the applicant to get a sizable chunk of the non-reflective glass and bring it in and shine some lights on it so we can see. how non-reflective it is and also specs that would tell us how well that might hold up. |
| 06:11:08.21 | Unknown | Right. |
| 06:11:08.82 | Richard Graef | weather. Because as I said, I have seen non-reflective glass. It's just remarkably non-reflective. |
| 06:11:15.55 | Unknown | Right. |
| 06:11:15.86 | Richard Graef | really works. So, but whether it'll work at that scale and outside. I don't know. |
| 06:11:29.26 | Kristina Feller | All right, so. |
| 06:11:35.10 | Morgan Pierce | I'm sorry, can you say that again? Truefellar. |
| 06:11:37.53 | Kristina Feller | I think we need to condition this. or conditioned with subcommittee. |
| 06:11:47.65 | Morgan Pierce | Well, Here's another question before we start conditioning things. are we considering a continuance? |
| 06:11:58.20 | Morgan Pierce | Because I'm not sure some of these things are the treatment of the glazing is an architectural solution that is going to be a visible element that I believe we'll need to review. I don't think we can just Condition and say, figure something out. |
| 06:12:12.08 | Scott Couture | Yeah. |
| 06:12:15.44 | Kristina Feller | Let's keep going then. |
| 06:12:21.96 | Kristina Feller | All right, any more comments on this one? |
| 06:12:24.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:12:24.35 | Nastassya Saad | Mm-mm. |
| 06:12:24.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:12:29.37 | Nastassya Saad | We're at K. |
| 06:12:30.68 | Morgan Pierce | Yes. |
| 06:12:31.36 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 06:12:33.63 | Morgan Pierce | And this one needs to be conditioned. What was that project up there that they somehow got out of having the green roof when they planned for it and that was a condition of their approval. |
| 06:12:42.44 | Brad Evanson | That was 61 Wolfback. |
| 06:12:44.33 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. How do we, how do we make sure that this does get a green roof, Brad? |
| 06:12:48.74 | Brad Evanson | No compromises. |
| 06:12:48.79 | Morgan Pierce | No compromise. |
| 06:12:50.73 | Brad Evanson | Well, we don't allow them to construct without including that. We don't sign off on it. I don't know how 61 got constructed and – wasn't required to put the green roof in from the get-go, |
| 06:13:06.02 | Morgan Pierce | I think there was some strange condition where the roof load requirements changed. |
| 06:13:06.20 | Brad Evanson | I think there was some sort of flow. Thank you. |
| 06:13:11.08 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:13:11.23 | Brad Evanson | Yeah, no. |
| 06:13:11.55 | Morgan Pierce | Afterward, and the structure wasn't substantive enough to support the green roof? |
| 06:13:12.58 | Brad Evanson | Yeah. |
| 06:13:16.14 | Brad Evanson | Yeah, what happened with that was they somehow were allowed to construct the residence without putting the green roof in at first. |
| 06:13:16.45 | Morgan Pierce | What are you having? |
| 06:13:23.97 | Brad Evanson | And then they kind of hemmed and hawed and delayed on things. And by the time it finally came push come to shove, The fire codes, I believe, had changed for what went into a green roof in terms of fire resistivity and the the necessary drainage support, I guess, off of that. The house wasn't structurally designed to support that kind of a loading. |
| 06:13:48.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:13:49.12 | Brad Evanson | And so, that's how that one wound up being. |
| 06:13:52.98 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 06:13:53.99 | Unknown | Um, |
| 06:13:54.33 | Richard Graef | All of those. |
| 06:13:54.75 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 06:13:54.92 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 06:13:54.97 | Unknown | . |
| 06:13:55.78 | Richard Graef | They penetrate the roof. Each penetration had to have an area around it |
| 06:14:01.86 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 06:14:02.38 | Richard Graef | Um, without planting. with so many penetrations, they ended up with no planting, hardly. So it was, So we just said, forget it. Just... for our |
| 06:14:16.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:14:16.35 | Kristina Feller | So wonderful. |
| 06:14:16.66 | Richard Graef | Metal roof. |
| 06:14:18.56 | Kristina Feller | But on this project, it's also part of the declaration of restrictions. |
| 06:14:22.68 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 06:14:23.37 | Kristina Feller | So, It's in the legal document. |
| 06:14:26.66 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Well, it's also part of the concept of the architecture. It's a pretty small. |
| 06:14:32.91 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, but we're talking about how to, you know. |
| 06:14:33.36 | Richard Graef | It's not going to be a good thing. legally require them. Yeah, yeah, I understand. So, |
| 06:14:42.73 | Richard Graef | Okay. |
| 06:14:44.45 | Nastassya Saad | I'd support a condition if Um, If you guys want, I think that makes sense. But otherwise, I'm good with this one. |
| 06:14:52.50 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. That's good. move on. Uh, Elle. |
| 06:15:00.19 | Morgan Pierce | That was good. I don't think they've really indicated where the rooftop apartments such as such as sewer vents, et cetera. |
| 06:15:08.82 | Brad Evanson | There's like one vent on the roof. |
| 06:15:08.83 | Morgan Pierce | There's like. |
| 06:15:11.26 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 06:15:11.31 | Morgan Pierce | It's only one. |
| 06:15:11.90 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. Yeah, I think it's the chimney. It's just one. I'm |
| 06:15:17.86 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, it's on there. |
| 06:15:19.04 | Brad Evanson | Okay. Oh, like two feet tall. Maybe it's, it's the same cord and steel as the rest of the trim. |
| 06:15:23.65 | Unknown | I see. |
| 06:15:24.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:15:29.12 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I don't think we have any caliber decks. |
| 06:15:33.86 | Morgan Pierce | there's only that one No, no. Yes. Thanks. Well, what would you call the cantilevered pantry? |
| 06:15:40.79 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 06:15:40.81 | Morgan Pierce | It's not a death. |
| 06:15:41.66 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 06:15:42.57 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. |
| 06:15:44.42 | Kristina Feller | Not a balcony. |
| 06:15:45.72 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:15:45.74 | Brad Evanson | I mean, |
| 06:15:45.98 | Morgan Pierce | close the door. |
| 06:15:46.35 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 06:15:46.36 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:15:46.38 | Brad Evanson | I'm not talking about it. |
| 06:15:46.70 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:15:48.79 | Brad Evanson | very enclosed. |
| 06:15:49.72 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:15:51.36 | Richard Graef | I don't think it's a problem. |
| 06:15:53.17 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Well, aside from the tree, but that's a different view. Yeah. Yeah. Right. OK. |
| 06:16:04.12 | Kristina Feller | not applicable. |
| 06:16:05.80 | Morgan Pierce | Yep, swimming pool is no longer part of it. |
| 06:16:13.26 | Richard Graef | until they change it to a tennis court. |
| 06:16:14.81 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:16:15.08 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 06:16:15.29 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. |
| 06:16:16.47 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Is that it, friends? |
| 06:16:20.15 | Brad Evanson | That's it for the architectural standards. The last thing that I've mentioned and it's technically not the city's place to regulate it. is the deed restriction height limitations. And we've already talked about that, that multiple locations where it's in compliance with that standard. whether or not it's a city It's something that the city should wind up enforcing. We've looked at it and hey, by the way, it is compliant. |
| 06:16:58.94 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Thank you. I think we're good there. So, |
| 06:17:11.11 | Kristina Feller | Anybody else have any more comments, it seems to me. Brad, let's recap here on The regulations were talking EINJ. and it's mainly having to do with the glazing. |
| 06:17:27.78 | Brad Evanson | Yes. |
| 06:17:29.94 | Kristina Feller | Am I getting that right? My notes here. |
| 06:17:32.61 | Brad Evanson | That's what I've got, yes. It's the glass. |
| 06:17:32.64 | Kristina Feller | That's what I'm saying. |
| 06:17:35.41 | Brad Evanson | EIJ and potentially K to find a condition to ensure that the green roof does get installed. with no delays like 61 Wolfback. pulled off. |
| 06:17:52.72 | Kristina Feller | Well, again, because it's in the declaration of restrictions, Um... regarding building height location easements of Wolfback Ridge, number lot five here. I mean, Are you suggesting even more than what's in this legal Indeed. |
| 06:18:14.24 | Brad Evanson | No, frankly, I'm not. I think between the deed and and the plans. and the standard conditions of approval, I think that, we've got sufficient, but I know concerns were expressed there, so I wanted to just put it out there that that was an issue that was brought up. If, if we, If the commission wants to pursue adding a condition of approval, that was something else that had come up and that you can put onto the list to consider. Personally, I don't know that we need anything beyond what we've got in terms of the standard plan check requirements and construction documents, metals. |
| 06:18:53.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. before And then let's just go back and recap our findings. the first part of our findings. |
| 06:19:11.87 | Brad Evanson | Well, the first one I see that there was comments on was finding eight. And that was, Again, coming back to the tree preservation, taking a closer look at the architecture there, the layout to and possibly getting the arborist to come in and help clarify where the root system for the, the trees are to see |
| 06:19:36.08 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 06:19:36.72 | Brad Evanson | if they're really going to be protected. during the course of all of this. |
| 06:19:44.44 | Kristina Feller | Okay, that and then we just have, again, the setbacks. |
| 06:19:48.60 | Brad Evanson | And then finding 10, the safety, adding that barrier along the driveway on Canto Gall. |
| 06:19:54.70 | Unknown | you |
| 06:19:56.35 | Brad Evanson | But otherwise, yeah, the big thing in the, Design review findings pertain to the setbacks. And in the Wolfpack Estates architectural standards, it was the glass. |
| 06:20:10.22 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Yep, that sounds right. |
| 06:20:14.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I still have issue with the garage location. on a safety point. |
| 06:20:20.90 | Brad Evanson | Thank you. In terms of where were you thinking to have the garage direct access onto Wolfback Ridge Road? |
| 06:20:27.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I think that the garage access should be where they have the, currently have the uncovered parking, they should make that covered. And I'm not sure that the past of the would still be valid if If. I mean, I don't know, that's a trade-off because I think it hurts one of our over the other, but I just don't think it's safe where they put it. |
| 06:20:56.76 | Kristina Feller | So from, if we required, um, guardrail. And if we suggested and require some type of, I'm calling it a garage device, for lack of any other way to describe it, that would indicate when somebody was coming in or out of that garage that would not be sufficient. |
| 06:21:21.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think having a teenage driver coming home at two in the morning with this noise coming out would be unfair to the abutter whose bedroom is adjacent to that, very close to that garage opening. I just don't think that is the right place to put the garage on this property. I'm sorry. |
| 06:21:43.73 | Morgan Pierce | Could you apply that same rationale, Jeffrey, to a future owner of one Canto gal who has a teenager coming home in a loud car? 1 AM that's directly across from the applicant's bedroom? |
| 06:22:00.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, |
| 06:22:02.24 | Morgan Pierce | I mean, it's sort of a catch-trap. |
| 06:22:02.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, it's sort of a catch-22. I think that A teenager coming home into one, if I'm remembering it correctly, into one canto gal goes straight and They don't have to make this turn |
| 06:22:18.96 | Morgan Pierce | You have to make a hard turn into the world. |
| 06:22:19.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | To make a hard turn into the garage. Yes, it's the hard turn into the garage. that I think around the curve, which is a problem. One canto gal just drive straight past that and keeps going. |
| 06:22:33.15 | Morgan Pierce | with this. |
| 06:22:33.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 06:22:33.73 | Morgan Pierce | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 06:22:33.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | hard left into their garage. |
| 06:22:35.57 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 06:22:35.72 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, both loud teenagers make turns into- |
| 06:22:38.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Screaming tires. But one has to go beyond the other, again, I just, Standing there and looking at it, it just looked like It's dangerous. I don't know how to describe it. because it was so close to the curve, and it's around sort of a blind curve, whereas the other one is keeping going. They're not, I don't know, when they come out, they would be on the opposite side if the garage was on I mean, it was on Canto Gal, on that portion of Canto Gal. |
| 06:23:14.51 | Kristina Feller | Well, the garage door for 99 is not directly across one canto gal. It's before it. |
| 06:23:22.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I understand. I know where it is. I understand where it is. what I'm saying is if you're coming out And if a car is coming, that down that driveway. and a car is coming out of the garage, you're not going to, they're not going to see it fast enough is what I'm worried about. Whereas if you put it on the road going in, it's sort of obvious where the entrance, again, as much as we're debating whether this is a rear yard or not, basically they're putting the garage in the backyard. If if if this property if the easement, which is clearly going to be a driveway. If that lot was a 15,000 foot lot and you put the garage in the backyard and go around the house to go in the backyard, it just doesn't your safe to me, but I mean, that's just my opinion. Fair enough. |
| 06:24:23.48 | Richard Graef | I'll put my two cents in there. I've never been really a fan of that parking arrangement. Um, I'm not. but I don't know that I've seen anything better yet. Uh, So I'm kind of wondering, is that Is that... Is that whole situation there? something we want to you know, discuss more, try to, uh, Uh, asks the applicant for Thank you. another solution or of Are we going to Roll with it. |
| 06:25:03.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. we've, This is the third time we've heard this application. And the garage situation. And you know, or the first time that we're really flagging this as something major. So I am a little bit concerned about that. We know that it had previously been, as the applicant said, where the carport is. And that was, they removed it from that location. you know, to appease A neighbor. Um, I think the parking in the garage has to go somewhere And I think that there Maybe it's not the absolute 100% perfect place anywhere on this site. But having it subterranean, to me is by far better because you know what happens is Thank you. you know, if you have a garage right on the driveway, right across from lot four, you have every potential of people backing in, coming in, coming out and actually If you think there's going to be so much traffic there, Cars are going to get in the way. I think if you can have some kind of garage control mechanism or communication system that signals someone's coming and going, I'm not really afraid of the safety there. Um, I'd be more afraid of it up, up on in the carport area. |
| 06:26:45.33 | Morgan Pierce | I would agree with Chair Feller. I mean, by the time you're getting down to these tight terms, You'd better be driving slowly to navigate a turn or to enter into the of one Canto gal. I think the safety issue has been a bit overblown. |
| 06:27:02.24 | Brad Evanson | And particularly regarding the garage for 99 Wolfpack, it's a single car width. They reduced the width of the garage door specifically to minimize the visual intrusion to one canto gall and they pulled it back so It's not like you're going to go screaming into a two car wide garage door. It's a single. So you better be going slow. If you want to hang on to the mirrors. Exactly. |
| 06:27:27.54 | Kristina Feller | Exactly. All right. |
| 06:27:30.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:27:32.11 | Nastassya Saad | I didn't see a safety concern personally, just to chime in on that. Do I think it's strange to go all the way around? Yeah, I think it's a little strange, but I think based on the overall design of the house, I agree with Chair Feller to have a subterranean garage. I'm not sure. it complements the overall design as well and minimizes the impact I think from the overall structure. |
| 06:27:56.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is it possible to access that underground garage from where the above ground parking is now? Could they build the entrance there? |
| 06:28:07.94 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I think you have some serious grading issues then. But it's not impossible. I mean, you're going to bring the applicant back to comment on some of these things, I imagine. So, Brett, let's have them comment on that. |
| 06:28:14.55 | Morgan Pierce | You're going to bring me a map. |
| 06:28:24.81 | Richard Graef | Yeah, and there was also advanced concept, I think Michael Rex Thank you. put that out there. having the underground garage accessible from Wolfpack Bridge |
| 06:28:33.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:28:39.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:28:39.58 | Richard Graef | Prove. along that edge. |
| 06:28:43.95 | Kristina Feller | I can imagine that you I would like that. |
| 06:28:47.68 | Richard Graef | Well, it's just another option. that. I'm just bringing them back up so they wouldn't forget about it. |
| 06:28:56.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thought there was a landscape easement in that area that you couldn't do it. Thank you. |
| 06:29:00.57 | Brad Evanson | Batman. |
| 06:29:00.96 | Richard Graef | I'm sorry. |
| 06:29:01.03 | Brad Evanson | really true. Oh, off of Woolback Ridge? Yeah, that is the case. |
| 06:29:06.24 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 06:29:06.37 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 06:29:07.34 | Richard Graef | then you'd have an encroachment. situation. Anyway. |
| 06:29:12.15 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so if we're going to go back to our findings and in an attempt to be Um... crystal clear with what we wanna ask the applicant about here for clarity. Um, You're talking... glass tree preservation safety barrier, and setback. I think the garage... is not enough of a concern, not to minimize any commissioner's particular concern, but there seems to be consensus. about where it is right now. So, Brad, if I could ask you to stop sharing your screen. |
| 06:29:59.18 | Brad Evanson | Sure. |
| 06:30:00.24 | Kristina Feller | a little bit. Thank you. |
| 06:30:02.43 | Liz Gerhart | There we go. |
| 06:30:02.87 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. And if we could ask the applicant to come back so we can... first make sure that part of our input is clear to the applicant And also understand the willingness to make certain conditions and concessions. And we'll figure out where to go from here. So is not available. Thank you. |
| 06:30:35.98 | Scott Couture | I am a velvet. Yes. |
| 06:30:36.06 | Unknown | I am a belt. |
| 06:30:37.58 | Kristina Feller | Good. Let's, okay. You can turn your video on now. |
| 06:30:43.88 | Scott Couture | I'm tired. |
| 06:30:45.03 | Scott Couture | Won't let me. Oh, there we go. I'm back. |
| 06:30:48.43 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, |
| 06:30:50.63 | Scott Couture | Anybody tired? Yeah. |
| 06:30:54.54 | Kristina Feller | have, Hopefully you were listening into the deliberations and conversations we were having. But to narrow it down I think there remain some concerns in terms of being able to make the findings as it relates to the pine and cypress in the tree preservation. |
| 06:31:17.56 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 06:31:18.67 | Kristina Feller | Um, uh, putting some provisions in for safety barriers on the driveway. |
| 06:31:27.84 | Morgan Pierce | No problem. |
| 06:31:29.00 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. the glass, the glazing, the reflectivity, Um, we don't feel comfortable that that's been told. and the setbacks. Those I think sum up where we are having trouble making our findings. |
| 06:31:49.34 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 06:31:49.44 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 06:31:49.62 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Good night. Um, that we also, I think, had some fairly serious concerns about the whole landscape concept along along. uh, Whoa. And they screening and the whole approach to the landscape. |
| 06:32:14.95 | Kristina Feller | Absolutely. We don't really know what that landscape is. Um, |
| 06:32:20.30 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 06:32:20.64 | Unknown | Thank you. Ciao. |
| 06:32:21.43 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 06:32:22.11 | Scott Couture | I'm not sure. Yeah, I think we can provide some clarity on that whole sort of Western bank landscape |
| 06:32:29.43 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, So in this, I know that you in no particular order were willing to make, or the applicant was willing to make concessions and include conditions of approval for the guardrail. and of approval regarding how we handle, |
| 06:32:49.87 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 06:32:57.38 | Kristina Feller | the cypress and pine. We're just still not clear that what we're looking at |
| 06:33:00.68 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 06:33:00.97 | Unknown | you |
| 06:33:03.47 | Kristina Feller | Is it actually... an acceptable solution. that it's really designed to ensure the longevity of those trees. |
| 06:33:13.86 | Scott Couture | Okay. |
| 06:33:15.15 | Kristina Feller | So we need to understand that and the rest of that landscape. or can you shed any... |
| 06:33:22.47 | Morgan Pierce | And were we willing, I'm sorry, were we waiting for, um, Community Development Director Whalen to bring back information on the setback. Is she going to be able to do that before the end of our meeting this evening? Or was she going to have to do some research into that? |
| 06:33:35.04 | Kristina Feller | Well, I think she's working on it now and she's gonna come back, pop up there. There she is. |
| 06:33:37.56 | Morgan Pierce | Okay. |
| 06:33:40.74 | Lily Whelan | I am still here a little after one o'clock in the morning. Yeah. And I did, I did spend some time looking at it. I did some sketches. I do need more time with it and I need to talk to Brad about it and the city attorney. So I don't feel comfortable. making an interpretation right now, but we could definitely take a look at it and and provide more information to you. |
| 06:34:05.43 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, so I'm assuming that that won't happen tonight, that you need to take proper time and to do that. So we would have to continue this to be able to get that information. |
| 06:34:16.69 | Lily Whelan | Just for clarification, it's the, it's the, question about the use of the side yard Um, property line. and um, measuring the length of the building using that side yard property line running parallel and if the word parallel means you're looking at just the portion of the side yard property line. that is adjacent to the building length, or if you're actually looking at the entire Yeah. So that, so looking at it in the way Chair Feller that you brought up this evening, that would be a benefit to the applicant, obviously, right? So it might be worth asking the applicant if they, want that analysis to occur You know, they want staff to go back and do that analysis now. or if they would like you to proceed based on the the setbacks that have been proposed by them and evaluated by staff. |
| 06:35:15.99 | Kristina Feller | Okay. That's a good question. So Scott, perhaps you can help us with that. Um, cannot put those calculations together this evening. |
| 06:35:28.98 | Scott Couture | I mean, I think it's important to understand, A, how the calculations were derived in the first place that we put together. And I think the way it was done with staff, with Calvin and Director Castro, follows the language and the intent of the zoning code. So I want to make sure that, you know, from a legal standpoint, from an approval standpoint, that whatever decisions made is kind of based upon that so that it has a solid, |
| 06:35:49.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:35:49.60 | Scott Couture | I'm starting. |
| 06:36:02.22 | Scott Couture | legal rationale behind it. Thank you. that's it. |
| 06:36:07.62 | Morgan Pierce | I'm not sure. |
| 06:36:07.91 | Scott Couture | We Yeah. |
| 06:36:09.63 | Kristina Feller | That's why we're here. Mary, did you want to chime in on that? |
| 06:36:15.15 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, sure. Just to follow on to what your community development director said. If the commission was proposing an interpretation of that section differently, It would mean you only utilize the length of the building that followed a side yard property line basically not include a portion of the building that didn't... travel that same side yard property line. Forgive me for not being completely articulate. um, So that the, The area added to the setback, the area that the building had to be moved back from the property line would be reduced. Correct? So if the applicant is comfortable with the project that you have in front of you and isn't asking for that recalculation. I think the commission could proceed if you're comfortable with that. That was our point there. I think it's a more conservative interpretation. The interpretation that the staff applied is more conservative than what the commission is considering. |
| 06:37:23.73 | Morgan Pierce | COB, Dan Burke, COB OSMP It is. And I guess then the, the, the wrinkle is that we have some commissioners who are concerned that. that is inadequate, that the 33 foot seven is adequate, while others are thinking that the 20 foot is adequate. And if there was any wiggle room in there, is there some sort of, standing compromise that could be realized, I'm not sure. |
| 06:37:46.46 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, and I think I understand what the commission is suggesting. We would just need some time to actually run those numbers. |
| 06:37:46.51 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. That's even a thing. |
| 06:37:47.98 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 06:37:54.26 | Mary Wagner | Okay. |
| 06:37:56.37 | Kristina Feller | So the question then back to you, Scott, on behalf of the applicant is, um, Are you? Are you comfortable with us proceeding tonight, or are you waiting for those recalculations, the recalculation based on our interpretation? |
| 06:38:14.34 | Scott Couture | Can we get Riley on this? Is he still here? I think he's still around. Can we get him on audio? Because it's really more of a legal question. |
| 06:38:29.63 | Mary Wagner | If he is still here, if you could raise his hand, that would help us find him in the |
| 06:38:33.88 | Riley Hurd | I'm here. Can you hear me? |
| 06:38:35.48 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 06:38:35.50 | Mary Wagner | Yeah. |
| 06:38:35.74 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 06:38:36.60 | Riley Hurd | Yeah. Hey, I'll spare you the video at this hour. Um, Here's my thought on this issue. No, we do not need a recalculation this evening. although we appreciate it. I actually very much understand the logic behind it, but I think it's important to focus on the fact that these are permitted projections into setbacks, and there's a two-step test for that. One is the one that Brad already articulated in his staff report as being met. That's an objective standard. The final step of that test is your commission has the authority and ability to finalize the approval of those permitted projections into setbacks. So we don't need a different way of measuring it or anything like that. we need a focus on the merits. that at 20 feet. which is already 10 feet more than this zoning district's traditional setbacks. So I would push back a little bit on the previous comment about this zone and what setbacks are expected. We're already at double that because of the settlement agreement. that at 20 feet. and not being able to see the story polls from any protected area of One Canto Gale, you already have the ability to approve permitted projections in the setbacks without a measurement change. So we don't wanna break any new ground on the legality of how it's measured. But we think there's more than adequate evidence in the record, particularly from a site visit, that these can be approved. So that is how we would ask that it occur to the seed |
| 06:40:34.96 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 06:40:35.94 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. |
| 06:40:36.04 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 06:40:36.16 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. |
| 06:40:36.85 | Scott Couture | of, |
| 06:40:37.02 | Scott Couture | MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF THE |
| 06:40:38.79 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 06:40:40.22 | Scott Couture | That's what I couldn't say. |
| 06:40:44.00 | Richard Graef | That's why you have Riley. Thank you. |
| 06:40:45.96 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 06:40:45.98 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 06:40:45.99 | Scott Couture | that. |
| 06:40:46.08 | Scott Couture | is |
| 06:40:46.13 | Scott Couture | It is. |
| 06:40:46.50 | Richard Graef | Uh, |
| 06:40:48.74 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, So that addresses that issue regarding setbacks. I know that that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone's on the same page with the commission, |
| 06:40:59.49 | Unknown | Right. |
| 06:40:59.95 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. appreciate, um, the position of the applicant. Um, I'm not sure that we can. I'd like to understand better. Um, your method means and methods for preserving these trees. It's not clear to us. The cypress and the pine. |
| 06:41:24.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 06:41:24.92 | Scott Couture | Yeah. |
| 06:41:28.40 | Scott Couture | So some of the conditions that James McNair had put on there, you know, before construction and during construction and after construction were things that we can do to preserve the health of the tree. And so first off is to do some, you know, routine maintenance and feed in of the trees. And I'm gonna kind of butch how this is done, but I'll do my best to interpret an arborist's view on this. The second, there are areas, there is a small area that we are going to excavate. It is possible to excavate that ahead of construction, do the root trimming that needs to get done, and then treat it and then recover it back up. And this helps the root acclimate to a future construction next to it. And this is something that can be done months before construction starts. The area where we're cantilevered over, the arbors has suggested that we actually put a drip irrigation system in there to be available to help compensate any signs of any loss of moisture and water from the, you know, to those two trees or to the Monterey cypress tree. The root system that sprouts from that tree, that is one of the things that James McNair did look at |
| 06:42:40.90 | Unknown | you |
| 06:43:03.66 | Scott Couture | He said it actually radiates out in a pretty consistent spiral pattern. So it doesn't have The majority of the route is going uphill. It seems to have a very sort of, you know, spiral, continuous, uniform distribution of the route system that's on there. So he felt comfortable with, you know, the home being as close as it is to the trees. The other thing that we are comfortable with is conditioning on, you know on the lifespan of the tree. And I don't know what the right time frame is, but maybe that if this tree were not to survive or something like you said on your other project, somebody backed into it inadvertently, Um, that the property owner would be required to replace it with something very substantial. And, you know, we've received photos this morning of some, you know, 60-inch box oak trees that are, they're huge, they're beautiful. And, you know, we would be comfortable putting a condition in like that, that if something were to happen to the trees or they did need to be taken out, that it's a requirement that they be replaced with something quite substantial. Not a 24 or 36 inch box tree, but something that is, I think, at least of equivalency to what's there now. The other trees, the oak trees that we are planting around them, they aren't really kind of haphazardly placed. They're actually very specifically placed in that plan, and the trunks tend to be located where the fins, those concrete fins, radiate out from the bedroom areas. part of the reasons we're putting them there they don't really show up this well in the the photo montages because computer modeled oak trees aren't quite as nice as the ones that generally grow in um in Sausalito particularly on the windswept areas is we kind of picture those trees kind of growing up and out vertically and being windowed out and it's a typical thing you see a lot in Sausalito, where the, the home is actually looking through the trees and, um, not necessarily, you know, it's not really blocking the views. It's actually adding foreground to the views. Um, there's a gentleman that actually lived in five wolf back Ridge. He, Arthur, I think his name was, he'd lived there for 30 some odd years. And I had met him, um, |
Lauren Bowen — Against: Voices opposition to the plan; urges commissioners to limit development size to protect the pristine nature of the area. ▶ 📄
Lynn Augustine — Against: Argues environmental impacts have not been addressed; highlights effects on wildlife, raptor migration, and significant excavation for the subterranean garage; asks commission to reject permit. ▶ 📄
Elizabeth Brekus — Against: Represents 51 Wolfback; asserts the settlement agreement and EIR limit homes to 2,000-4,000 sq ft; states the project blocks protected views, encroaches into setbacks, and fails to meet findings; calls it a McMansion. ▶ 📄
Michael Rex — Against: Represents 51 Wolfback; argues the design has not evolved, blocks the best part of their panoramic view, encroachment into increased setback is unjustified, and excessive glass creates a 'lantern' effect. ▶ 📄
Len Rifkind — Against: Represents Bruce McMillan of One Canto Gal; states the project is too large at 6,590 sq ft, dangerous garage location, massive grading, and fails 10 of 13 design review findings; urges denial to honor the EIR and former mayor's promise. ▶ 📄
Paolo Crescini — Against: Presented a sun/shadow study showing afternoon shadow impact on One Canto Gal year-round; recommends house be set back to the increased 33 ft 7 in setback to mitigate impact. ▶ 📄
Bruce McMillan — Against: Owner of One Canto Gal; calls the design elegant but out of place; cites average home size of 2,318 sq ft, concerns about traffic, privacy, and the FEIR requirements for small volume and reduced grading; urges protection of GGNRA. ▶ 📄
Linda Fairchild — Against: Argues no reduction in house size; fears it sets precedent for large houses along the ridge; questions soil stability after 2020 rains; states the renderings are misleading and the project will reflect light and be visible from all over the Bay Area. ▶ 📄
Alan Patterson — In Favor: Family trust owns adjacent lots; fully supports the design as spectacular and environmentally conscientious; notes the process has been followed and the family should be able to enjoy the location. ▶ 📄
Liz Gerhart — In Favor: Beneficiary of trust owning adjacent land; echoes support for the design as beautiful and well-suited to the hillside; believes the applicants followed all rules and the project would be a wonderful improvement. ▶ 📄
Matthew Nathans — Against: 30-year resident; questions common sense of building near view-blocking trees; warns about reflection and precedent; reads letters from conservation leaders urging protection of the ridge and GGNRA. ▶ 📄