| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:33.63 | Nastassya Saad | Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the regular planning commission meeting. of Wednesday, March 3. I believe we are all here. So Community Development Director Whelan, will you please call the roll? |
| 00:00:46.00 | Director Whelan | Good evening chair Feller and planning commissioners this meeting is being held tonight pursuant to section three of executive order and 29 issued by Governor Newsom? Yes. |
| 00:00:56.38 | Timothy Rempel | Oh, yeah. Go away. You can see you waving your hand like me. Go away. |
| 00:01:00.88 | Director Whelan | in March of 2020 and all members are now joining this meeting telephonically through zoom And I will now call the roll. Commissioner said. TODAY. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:01:14.11 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 00:01:15.16 | Director Whelan | Commissioner Pierce. |
| 00:01:16.17 | Unknown | Here, |
| 00:01:16.91 | Director Whelan | I share graphs. |
| 00:01:18.09 | Unknown | or |
| 00:01:18.70 | Director Whelan | Terfeller. We are. |
| 00:01:19.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:01:20.54 | Director Whelan | All members are present. |
| 00:01:21.98 | Nastassya Saad | as a quorum. Terrific. Thank you so much, Director Whelan. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda this evening. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? |
| 00:01:34.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:34.46 | Morgan Pierce | I'll make a motion. |
| 00:01:34.50 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:01:35.19 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:01:35.21 | Morgan Pierce | you |
| 00:01:35.44 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:01:35.48 | Morgan Pierce | Okay. Gifted Commissioner saw it. |
| 00:01:37.43 | Unknown | THE KIDS GETTING |
| 00:01:37.72 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:01:38.63 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:01:39.54 | Nastassya Saad | I'll second. |
| 00:01:40.05 | Morgan Pierce | Hold second. |
| 00:01:41.31 | Nastassya Saad | Second, Commissioner Pierce, thank you very much. Director Whelan, could you please call the roll? |
| 00:01:46.90 | Director Whelan | Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:01:48.99 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:01:50.36 | Director Whelan | Commissioner Sags. |
| 00:01:51.71 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:01:52.45 | Director Whelan | Commissioner Pierce. |
| 00:01:53.40 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:01:54.11 | Director Whelan | Did I share graphs? |
| 00:01:55.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:56.08 | Director Whelan | Tara Feller. Yes. That carries 5-0. to reference. Next item here is public comments on items not on the agenda. So this is the time to hear from citizens. regarding matters that are not on the agenda, except in limited circumstances, state law precludes the Planning Commission taking action on We're engaging in discussions concerning items not on the agenda. However, the commission may refer matters not on the agenda to city staff or direct that the subject the agenda is for a future meeting. Now video and audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment on any item not on this evening's agenda, please raise your hand in the Zoom application, which is under the participants list, and you'll be called upon when it is your time to speak. If you're calling from a phone, you can press star nine to raise your hand. Please state your name for the record before beginning your comments. And then I wanted to also let you know, we'll allow you to unmute yourself and share your video. and adjust and we need a little bit of time to adjust our settings to allow you to have that access. So we'll call your name, we'll do that and then you can begin your public comment. So thanks for your patience. |
| 00:03:11.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much, Director Whelan. At this time, if anyone would like to raise their hand, give you just a moment to do so. I will look for raised hands here on my screen and Zoom team, please feel free to Let me know if you see something I don't. |
| 00:03:33.38 | Nastassya Saad | At this time, I do not see any raised hands for public comment So at this time I will close public comment. |
| 00:03:40.22 | David Sincotta | I will. I have this |
| 00:03:45.67 | Nastassya Saad | Um, did I just hear somebody? Nope. Okay. Public comment is now closed. Director Whalen, could you please identify the next item on our agenda? |
| 00:04:00.72 | Director Whelan | Sure, so the next item on the agenda are our public hearing items. Before we begin our public hearing items, this is the time for commissioners to provide any declarations regarding ex parte communications. |
| 00:04:14.94 | Nastassya Saad | Great, Commissioner Saad, do you have anything to report? |
| 00:04:19.86 | Nastassya Saad | I've had no communication I have visited I have visited the sites but I have had no external communications with any of the homeowners or neighbors. Thank you. |
| 00:04:30.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:04:34.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I have had communication. 719 to 725 Bridgeway on March 11th, I met with one of the applicants, Marsha August, and their architect, Michael Rex, on site. I toured the front and the rear of the building to look at the story poles. And the slope to the rear, I did not answer any questions regarding the process. 21 Atwood Street is located within 500 feet of my house. So I will turn my video off during that public hearing and not participate. 110 4th Street, on March 1st, I toured the project site but did not meet with the applicant or the architect. They did not make the inside of the house available. At that time, several abutters approached me and allowed me to view the story polls for their property. These included 111 4th Street, 107 4th Street, 115 4th Street. and 108. forestry. So I did look at from their perspective that the story polls that were being proposed, but did not discuss the project or answer any questions in any way. I did inform them that there would be a public portion tonight where they could speak. So that would be it for me at this point. |
| 00:05:59.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Luxenberg. Mr. Pierce. |
| 00:06:03.52 | Morgan Pierce | I have no ex-partner communications to report. |
| 00:06:06.32 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Vice Chair Graham. |
| 00:06:08.36 | Richard Graef | No communications to report. |
| 00:06:11.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. And I have no communications to report, but for the benefit of the public and the applicants listening, here this evening, I did a tour each of the three properties on the agenda this evening that Bridgeway at wood and fourth by car and on foot as I was hiking around over the weekend. Um, so that's all I have to report. Director Whalen? Our next item on the agenda. |
| 00:06:40.86 | Director Whelan | Thank you, Chair Feller. The first public hearing item is item 4A, which is a request for approval of an initial study mitigated negative declaration design review permit with heightened design review, two conditional use permits, I minor use permit, assigned permit, PEOPLE PERMIT. a tentative personal map, and recommendation for an encroachment agreement. at 719 through 75 Bridgeway, which is also known as the Langston Building project. And we have with us this evening, I'm happy to introduce you to Sheldon, contract planner Sheldon, a saying who will be giving this, |
| 00:07:12.50 | Unknown | Uh-huh. |
| 00:07:20.03 | Director Whelan | this evening. |
| 00:07:23.96 | Sheldon | Yes, thank you for the introduction. Let me just share my presentation here. |
| 00:07:42.46 | Sheldon | Wouldn't they great? So thank you. my first presentation here in Sausalito. I know this project's been around for three years or so in process and I had to get to speed last month taking over the project for one of my colleagues who got injured. of. So there are many requests that were summarized, but we have an adoption of an initial study mitigated negative declarations finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. We also have an approval of design review permit with heightened design review to demolish the existing two-story mixed use and replace it with a new building on similar scale at Mixer uses. Then we have approval of two conditional use permit requests, one for the formula retail business as well as one for a waiver of the onsite parking. Then we have the approval of the minor use permit for the outdoor site. walk, seating, dining. the approval of a sign permit for seven signs. on the building, approval of the tree removal permit, to remove two street trees. And this is done actually through the city's Department of Public Works. Then we have the approval of the tentative parcel map to create three residential condominiums and one commercial condominium. and then recommendation to the city council for the approval of the encroachment agreement outdoor sidewalk seating. of fence. the projecting overhead bay windows and projecting signs in the city right of way. The application was submitted to the city on December 17th, 2017. And then last year, April 29th, the Historic Preservation Commission determined Um, that Advisory Certificate of Appropriateness, Um, that was forwarded to the planning commission for consideration receiving We've had public hearing notices and site posting occurred. as well as the the data publication, the staff report, We've had some correspondence that they want |
| 00:09:37.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:37.44 | Sheldon | Um, We actually had the applicant provide some updated and revised plans to address a condition of approval that's in the packet, as well as a request the applicant to conduct a public hearing, but continue the public hearing because of protest of a couple of conditions that we'll get into today. So the site, is in a downtown. The general plan designation is Central Commercial, CC. the zoning and essential commercial historic district CCH. and it is also within the downtown history. over late district. It's across from being a Del Mar Park. There are also other mixed-use commercial and residential buildings within the vicinity. |
| 00:10:26.08 | Sheldon | So here's some pictures of the existing conditions. This was a photograph taken a couple of weeks ago. You can see the pendants that identify the outline of the building as proposed in your package. Then you have across the street is the park, and then it's a little bit of the street scene. there. These are The drawings showing the existing building, so it's two dimensional. uh, the middle, uh, She did. building is the Langston building, and adjacent to it is the Wells Fargo building. in the other building. On the first floor of the existing building, you have a fully commercial suite. And on the second floor, the three residential units existing plus the commercial suite. So the project description, they are proposing to demolish the existing building and the construction of a new mixed use retail residential building. First floor would be approximately 2,600 square feet at the market area. This is the proposed formula retail. And then on the second floor would be strictly residential with the three residential units, one two bedroom unit and then one and then two, one bedroom view. So total size of the building would be approximately 5,000 square feet. And then here they correspond to your four plans. The first four again would be commercial with the market space. And then you have the second floor would be the residential. |
| 00:11:49.09 | Sheldon | So here's the sidewalk dining proposal. The highlighted portions of the sidewalk are proposed locations for sidewalk dining, including the temporary fencing. So as conditioned and consistent with the municipal code, there's sufficient distance between the fencing and the trees and other obstructions. |
| 00:12:08.03 | Sheldon | Here are the proposed encroachments. You've got the second floor bag windows. as well as the projecting signs. And then temporary fencing is a Richard earlier. On the second floor, these bay windows are about one and a half feet projection. That would equate to about 61 square feet of encroachment. And then the signs project 32 inches from the wall, as well within the 36-inch maps moments. allowed. There are seven signs proposed or two wall signs. One is to identify the building, and then the other is to identify the business on the first floor. There are three address signs. And there are two projecting signs. So the wall signs are individual metal letters mounted to the building with metal pins. These are all non-illuminated. The address signs are painted directly to the transoms above the windows. the door. projecting signs, have painted letters, and graphics. |
| 00:13:07.50 | Sheldon | So there are a number of required findings. I'll try to highlight some of them. I won't go verbatim. They are listed in the staff report as well as within the attachment number two, the draft resolution. but they do include for design review, heightened design review. a commission use permit. the formal retail and for the parking waiver. minor use permit. the same permit. the tentative map, and the encroachment agency. The project is consistent with the city's general plan. the Central Commercial Land Use designation. the project would continue. the building form and include new uses. The HPC's review ensures compatibility with the surrounding character. The project is consistent with the land settlement, housing redesign and historic preservation element and the economic element. Those are the listed policies. |
| 00:14:00.52 | Sheldon | Table one of the staff report demonstrates consistency with the city's zoning development standards. one standard, degree one highlights of hill slope parcel height. So that was one that was out of compliance. That was the condition of approval on that project. That led to the applicants submitting the rebines. plans. We'll go into that Thank you. soon. Then we have the formula retail, parking, sidewalk, dining, and signs at all. address those. So regarding the uphill sloped height, the raised parapet is too tall at 33 feet, five inches. The height limit is 32 feet. We had a conditional approval to revise the raised paraffin to comply with the height standard. And then today, Revised plans were submitted, those distributed to the commission. So the pop-up there, pop-up paragraph is lowered to the previous. parapet height. I suppose. This new pop-up parapet is more elongated along the frontage. Now this parakeet includes painted wood cornice that's at the top. And then the previous paraket was lowered in height. So you still have that raised kind of pop up, not as maybe as accentuated, But in all, it's much lower than it was before. So this does resolve the height issue. and condition number 20 is no longer necessary. So we would recommend eliminating that condition. and amending Commission number two. which the project shall be designed. as shown in the approved set of plans, date stamp December 1st, 2020 and augmented by the plan shown as the Planning Commission on March 3rd, 2021. the revised sheet shown on march 3rd 2021 shall replace those sheets from march 1 2021 as little So all this this graphic here just shows you the context of the adjacent buildings and how that would look with the with lowered height. So regarding the formal retail request, The Napa farms market is considered full of detail based on the municipal code requires a CUP. the draft findings, determined that the use continues a diverse mix of uses along the Bridgeway corridor. The market, the to-go food service and the limited seating is nonobtrusive. storefront. design is compatible with the historic downtown design Napa Farms Market would not resolve in an over-concentration of formal establishments within the immediate area. There's Crazy Shirts and Bennington, also located within the same district. in the formula business, will add a business type that is unique and will serve both residents and business. |
| 00:16:47.99 | Sheldon | So regarding the parking waiver, Thank you. The project proposes no parking on site. just the way the existing condition is now. Findings can be made to approve the use permit. The parking impact analysis submitted in October 2019 concludes that there'll be less than 1% increase in parking demand on Friday and on Saturday. with lower demand of the other days. This increase is considered less than significant on the parking supply and there's adequate parking available in the downtown. The other finding also can be made that the project replaces a preexisting structure. So only one of the findings need to be made, but we can make two in this area. Product does propose four tables, conceding for eight, within the right of way and findings can be made for the approval of the minor use permit and the costment. agreement. So it's typically a lot of mission traffic through this corridor, so it is compatible. And the new street trees would be provided and also be paid standard conditions approval regarding safe passage where it is clear. as well as temporary barriers, maintenance, insurance, and compliance with state and county regulations are imposed. The Art of Science, those were reviewed by the HPC. findings can be made to approve the signed permit and quotient permit. is consistent with design standards, as well as being consistent with historic design guidelines. |
| 00:18:12.97 | Sheldon | The SORT Preservation Commission adopted Superfigure Appropriateness on April 29, 2020. They define is regarding the demolition, the replacement building, all of the building signage and those can be found the Tactic 11. So while the the, subject site is a contributor to the district. In and of itself, it being acknowledged would not be detrimental to the historic resource This year. For design review, again, the project was reviewed by the HPC. Findings can be made to approve the design review and heighten review Project is consistent with scale and height with the surrounding buildings. That was one of the reasons for the project to be that we're going to be It's also consistent with the historic design review guidelines. It's also designed to minimize obstruction of public views and primary views from private property. subject building is actually lower in height than the existing and condition approval are included to address the stability of the rear slope, which we'll get to shortly. The project was subject to initial study and mitigating negative exploration in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act The public circulation period was conducted last year and the proposed project will not have significant effects on the environment. due to proposed mitigation measures, be followed by the project applicant. And those project mitigations are in relation to air quality and cultural resources. |
| 00:19:41.26 | Sheldon | Public outreach was conducted and there was general support for the project. The neighbors at the rear had concerns about the slope And we did craft the approval 53, 54 specifically to resolve the stability issue. They go into depth about what to be done with between the neighbors. And that of course, one of the issues that the applicant did have late today was with those two conditions of approval And I think we'll have to hear from them a little more specifically about that. But with the recommendation here, it differs a little bit from what was in the staff's report. um since the applicant does request the continued items resolved in the official approval dispute Other alternatives include what we originally had in the staff report was approve the application. The other was to deny the application also. With that, that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. |
| 00:20:40.17 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Sheldon. That was an excellent presentation and quite thorough. Thank you for that. And of course, all the information in our reports that we have and all the additional information that we have. So thank you for that. . At this time I want to ask commissioners if they have any questions specifically for you or for any other staff. So Commissioner Pierce, I'm gonna start with you. Do you have any questions for staff? |
| 00:21:13.94 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you, sorry, let me search for that unmute button. Thank you, Sheldon. Appreciate it. Welcome to your first meeting of the Planning Commission. We appreciate the thoroughness of your report. I do have a couple questions. I guess I'll just start from the top. assuming that there are current renters in the building, do you know what the current rents are of the building and what the proposed rents are? |
| 00:21:38.61 | Sheldon | I think that question would be best answered by the app. |
| 00:21:42.22 | Morgan Pierce | Okay. Um... Then regarding the Encroachment agreement. Do you know what, so as a frame of reference, do you know what the distance between the planters slash fencing are at Copita and at Poggio that are also along this stretch of Bridgeway. |
| 00:22:03.01 | Sheldon | I walked by there a couple of weeks ago, but I can't recall, I mean, it should be at least 48 inches, but I don't know offhand. |
| 00:22:11.00 | Morgan Pierce | Got it. OK. And what are the requirements in Sausalito for sidewalk barriers for establishment serving alcohol, if you could remind us of that? |
| 00:22:22.71 | Sheldon | I still |
| 00:22:22.78 | Morgan Pierce | I think that's why they want the fencing. |
| 00:22:25.41 | Sheldon | Director Whaling, do you know the answer to that? |
| 00:22:28.70 | Director Whelan | Yeah. Can you hear me okay? |
| 00:22:30.77 | Sheldon | Thank you. |
| 00:22:31.30 | Director Whelan | HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Thanks for the question Commissioner pierce the our zoning regulations don't have specific requirements for barriers. My understanding though is that ABC, the alcohol beverage control, state licensing requires the barriers. And therefore, that's why they've been integrated into the project. |
| 00:22:49.25 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. And this is a tangential question, which can be addressed later, but I'm curious why other businesses that serve alcohol are not required to have those. It's probably a question to be addressed to the ABC, but I just bring that up for... Consideration. Um, The applicant submitted the revised elevation to adhere to current zoning requirements. Was this submitted in adequate time to be considered this evening by this audience? |
| 00:23:19.27 | Nastassya Saad | Sheldon. |
| 00:23:21.04 | Sheldon | I'm not sure. I mean, we did evaluate it. We did. concurred that it met the requirements. So therefore, there's no issue regarding the height. There certainly are some things about design that you may want to look at, but I think that there was for us it was sufficient time for the commission I mean, for |
| 00:23:44.33 | Morgan Pierce | I mean for public review time. It seems like it was received on the 1st, and I'm not sure if that's adequate timeframe for the public to review it, as well as the Commission to review it, in due process. So I just wanted some validation on that. |
| 00:24:01.66 | Sheldon | Does the city attorney have any, answer to that one. |
| 00:24:08.16 | Mary Wagner | Sorry, just in terms of the late submittal, Commissioner Pierce? |
| 00:24:11.18 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:24:11.20 | Sheldon | Yes. |
| 00:24:11.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:24:12.61 | Mary Wagner | And whether or not there was adequate time for you guys to review it and consider it to be able to. |
| 00:24:15.47 | Unknown | And with the public. |
| 00:24:17.20 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, well. It's a study session, right? If I recall correctly. This is not a study session. |
| 00:24:23.08 | Unknown | It's not a study session. |
| 00:24:24.36 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Okay, sorry. That's incorrect. Let me back off of that statement. I don't know what time they were submitted, and I don't know how much opportunity you've had to review them. We can certainly go through them more tonight if that would be helpful. |
| 00:24:25.79 | Unknown | I'm sorry. No. |
| 00:24:39.23 | Mary Wagner | And if the commission feels that they need additional time You know, obviously you're You have another option is to continue this hearing, gather the information tonight, take public comment, and continue it for further consideration. Thank you. |
| 00:24:49.92 | Morgan Pierce | Well, and then in concert with what you just mentioned, Mary, I saw some letter from the applicant in late mail about them requesting a continuation. Is that what is in front of us still this evening, or are they not requesting a continuation still? |
| 00:25:04.34 | Mary Wagner | I would have to look to your planner or to your community development director to answer that question. |
| 00:25:09.58 | Sheldon | Yeah, that's still what's being requested. The applicant will have their presentation, so they'll be able to expand on that. |
| 00:25:16.59 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. And then I have one final question. Is there potential for administrative approval to create additional outdoor dining within the parking lane in front of the structure? |
| 00:25:28.74 | Mary Wagner | permanent outdoor dining. |
| 00:25:30.73 | Morgan Pierce | or whatever the current lax restrictions are allowing, |
| 00:25:38.34 | Mary Wagner | No. |
| 00:25:38.41 | Morgan Pierce | MMM. |
| 00:25:38.61 | Mary Wagner | So I could, I can weigh in or I can allow your community development to church, to direct or. To jump in on the authority that the city council granted to the city manager to grant what we've called COVID-19 basically. permits. assuming someone can provide all the requisite insurance and proof of the ability to use property if it's private or if it's public property, The city manager has the authority to authorize that. I don't know if Lily wants to add anything. to that kind of concise summary. If it meets the criteria, I don't know why it would be excluded if it was a temporary COVID related request. |
| 00:26:23.95 | Nastassya Saad | Director Whalen, do you want to jump in on that? |
| 00:26:26.63 | Lily Whalen | Sorry. |
| 00:26:27.02 | Director Whelan | I don't have anything to add, only that the temporary COVID permits and the agreements will be rescinded when the council rescinds them. when we're you know, through this and restaurants can open again. That was the intent of the resolution that was adopted. the project that's before you, this evening, I hope that we're well out of where we are right now when that project is constructed and seating folks inside. |
| 00:27:00.55 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Those are all the questions I have at the moment, Chair Fellow. |
| 00:27:04.67 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much, Commissioner Pierce. Do you have any questions for staff? |
| 00:27:13.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry, who did you say? |
| 00:27:14.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:27:15.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Me? OK, I didn't hear the names. I have a couple of questions. I'm just trying to understand this oval in the middle of the floor plan, and maybe this is better for the applicant, but he has this oval, and it looks like it's got little people inside and outside. And a couple of questions regarding that. Where are the registers where you check out? Where do people go inside and outside of that oval? and it also says, I thought I read in your report that they're not asking for alcohol at this time. But then I was hearing about discussion of alcohol. And but they indicate there's craft beer in the middle of that oval on the plan. So I guess my question is, are they asking for alcohol at this time? Well, I don't have an issue with them asking for alcohol, but I'm just trying to rectify the different statements. |
| 00:28:11.23 | Sheldon | Yeah, that was the request for alcohol was not part of. the proposal. And definitely the question about the interior where where the point of sale is and what the oval represents would be something for the applicant to. |
| 00:28:27.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And then to Commissioner Pierce's question, he asked about the lateness of this drawing, but I just wanna understand the staff report. knew about this problem and was recommending approval before this latest issue on the slope with conditions in there to address this problem. So the fact that they have a plan tonight which actually addresses the problem, in my mind, it's not like the public was not aware of the issue and they were going to, and there was a proposal to identify that. This is actually, in my mind, better since we now have planned before us, which is being shown publicly. But this was not an issue that you didn't identify. It was fully identified in your report, and you were suggesting that it be taken care of administratively later, but in recommending approval. So it's not like this issue is new. It's the only thing that's new is the plan itself. Is that correct? |
| 00:29:39.23 | Sheldon | That is correct. |
| 00:29:40.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:29:40.60 | Sheldon | Thank you. |
| 00:29:40.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:29:40.63 | Sheldon | Thank you. |
| 00:29:40.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I have an issue about the requested delay this thing and the slope issue, but I'll leave that for the applicant because it's really more of an applicant question. So at this point, Chair Feller, those are my questions. |
| 00:29:57.03 | Nastassya Saad | Great. Thank you so much, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Saad, do you have any questions for staff? |
| 00:30:02.96 | Nastassya Saad | I think like my fellow Commissioner Luxembourg I'm curious about the slopes I'll wait for the step for the applicant presentation first so none none right now chair Fowler thank you. |
| 00:30:14.38 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Vice Chair Graff, any questions for staff? |
| 00:30:19.14 | Richard Graef | Um, yes. And, um, uh, Perhaps it's for staff. As regards to CUP for the the intended use of the lower level, the main level, for this particular enterprise I'm not quite sure how this works. Let's just say for the sake of discussion And sometime in the future that this particular Uh, um... owner or user of the space decides to And so then the space is available for somebody else what happens with a conditional use permit Does a new business have to go through a whole application process to get a different permit? Is that how that works? Um, And how does the city control the, watch a a use is determined it was okay, let's say, Um, how that particular use, that conditional use, does that persist? or does that change in the future. I was curious about that. And the other part had to do with one of the rental units upstairs is intended for, I guess, low income, and I was just curious about how that income level is determined and how is that rental situation enforced or monitored or whatever. |
| 00:32:04.76 | Richard Graef | That's the only questions I have for those two. |
| 00:32:07.85 | Sheldon | Bye. So I'll I'll take a stab at that question about this about the CEP and maybe city attorney can chime in and anything specific in this case, but my understanding is that CEP is one with the land. Um, so it's, that would be the situation there if you sort of leave. Thank you. Um, another similar use could go in unless it's completely outside of that. the parameters that are listed in this condition lease permit. and then I'm looking up the, other conditions of approval regarding the affordable Um, affordable units. So let me just kind of look into that and I can address your question. |
| 00:32:52.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No rush. |
| 00:32:53.24 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:32:55.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can we also have the city attorney chime in on that? Because that doesn't seem quite right to me. |
| 00:33:06.05 | Mary Wagner | Sure. So the question is, do CUPs run with the land? the |
| 00:33:11.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:33:11.53 | Mary Wagner | Correct? |
| 00:33:11.55 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:33:11.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:33:11.79 | Nastassya Saad | Does it convey with the property or is it a CUP that conveys with the actual tenant, anchor tenant? |
| 00:33:21.41 | Mary Wagner | CUP has run with the lantern. |
| 00:33:29.10 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:33:29.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So absent elapsed or some other- I'm sorry. If, if, could I ask a follow up question to that? If- Of course. If a land, if a use like this one is, you're supposed to make a formula retail local to Sausalito in some way. |
| 00:33:29.13 | Mary Wagner | So Absinthe Lapse or some other... |
| 00:33:30.97 | Karen Shelton | the |
| 00:33:31.82 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:33:31.97 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 00:33:32.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:33:32.11 | Karen Shelton | Right. |
| 00:33:46.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if somebody else comes in, that is not Napa funds. And I'm trying to think of something small that's appropriate. But like another Molly Stones, that's a different corporate identity. And the whole point is to look at the corporate identity. So wouldn't you have to re-look at the the tenant to make sure that what they're trying to do doesn't violate the provision of the ordinance? |
| 00:34:20.65 | Mary Wagner | So if I understand the question correctly, there's a CUP for a, a formula retail use currently existing. Thank you. And you're saying, and generally the answer is CUPs run with the land. And the question here is if a completely different type of formula use, you know, not even a similar restaurant use came in, would that be allowed automatically? Or would they have to go through a similar process to look at the area in which it's going and what other formula retail uses may be allowed around it. I'd have to look at that for you, Commissioner Luxembourg, and I'm happy to do that. |
| 00:34:55.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:34:55.48 | Sheldon | Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:34:58.12 | Mary Wagner | Oh. |
| 00:35:00.14 | Sheldon | Okay, so to address the commissioner's question about the affordable housing, condition number 44, specifically outlines what the parameters are, the owner doesn't need would have to get into an affordable housing agreement with the city. for affordability for a period not less than 40 years. And then it mentions the affordability levels. here. |
| 00:35:24.19 | Richard Graef | Right, okay, thank you. I hadn't run across that and I was curious. as to how that was handled. Um, So just one other question back to the CUP. Um, So another example is that the Napa farms people move out and somebody wants to put a A Uh... you know, uh, uh, a small art gallery, crafts gallery or something like that, which is I... totally different use. and it may be not formula. Is it an issue for somebody trying to do a different kind of business in there that wasn't already approved? |
| 00:36:14.38 | Sheldon | So if it's not a formula business, and I think the city would just look at the underlying zoning code. to determine the proprieness of that. |
| 00:36:21.14 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 00:36:26.36 | Richard Graef | Got it. Thank you. |
| 00:36:29.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair Graff. I had a couple of questions for staff and these are in no particular order. but just a couple items for clarification and for the benefit of the record here. regarding the consistency with the general plan, because this, the original application went in in 2017, Should we assume that we are talking about the 1995 general plan or are we talking about the updated 2021 general plan? |
| 00:37:01.20 | Sheldon | we are considering the older general plan. |
| 00:37:04.78 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Okay, great. Um, And then the The story poles that exist on this project, are they reflective of the new designs? that we got today. |
| 00:37:21.40 | Sheldon | No, that's of the design that's in your packet, not of the one that was submitted. |
| 00:37:25.97 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. And then I just |
| 00:37:28.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just asked a question on that, Chair Feller. The rear poles don't change, though. which are most of the polls. It's only the front polls that change, correct? |
| 00:37:40.37 | Sheldon | That is correct. |
| 00:37:41.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:37:41.06 | Sheldon | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:37:41.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:37:42.61 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, great. Thank you for the clarification. And then can you just, give a little bit more color or background regarding the street trees, because I know that was looked at by DPW. So is there an option not to include new trees. here. Is that at the discretion of DPW? |
| 00:38:10.56 | Sheldon | So if I can clarify as a question to maintain the existing trees? Is that what the, which are sort of fast-food. |
| 00:38:18.59 | Nastassya Saad | I thought there was a desire to remove the trees. |
| 00:38:21.44 | Sheldon | There is. And so I guess the question you have is, |
| 00:38:25.95 | Nastassya Saad | Do they need to be replaced with anything else? Is that at the discretion? of DPW, other parts of the city, or is that something that you are looking for this commission to fully weigh in on in terms of a replacement |
| 00:38:40.38 | Sheldon | It's actually taken care of by Department of Public Works. |
| 00:38:45.07 | Nastassya Saad | Right, okay. And, and do we know if they're going to require a replacement? |
| 00:38:52.91 | Sheldon | Yeah, there'll be three new trees put in. |
| 00:38:56.24 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. All right, great. Thank you for that clarification. And then I had another, I'm sorry to go back to the formula retail question, but this is really a question for, Um, for a clarification in terms of how it would work specifically for this project. And this might be something that our community development director might need to weigh in or our city attorney. But in previous applications for formula retail, as I believe Commissioner Luxenberg referred to there was a desire or a need or a requirement really to Sausalitoize, if that's even a word, that formula retail. A good example and probably the more recent one is equator, where it's Sausalito equator or some variation of the corporate name. And my question then is, Is that does that need to be applied to this particular project and is that that's something that you're looking for this Commission to weigh in on or is that something that would be negotiated with the City Council. |
| 00:40:09.66 | Sheldon | I think I'll let the chair, I mean, sorry, the chair let director deal with that question. |
| 00:40:10.61 | Director Whelan | you Thank you. |
| 00:40:10.74 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:40:11.08 | Director Whelan | I'm not sure. |
| 00:40:15.43 | Director Whelan | Thank you. |
| 00:40:15.45 | Sheldon | So, I think that's a great question. |
| 00:40:15.74 | Director Whelan | Thanks, Sheldon. Thanks for the question. So the the example you provided of equator and potentially some others in the city. were actually not processed under a conditional use permit for formula retail because they did just that and they modified their business in Sausalito so that they did not qualify as a formula retail business. in this instance, the applicant is requesting the conditional use permit for a formula retail business and not to modify their logo and operations and facilities inside to be an independent business outside of the the one that they have operating right now. |
| 00:41:02.55 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. And I'm just curious if our economic development advisory committee had any if they have done sort of a retail strategy for downtown and this is consistent with that. This use is consistent with whatever they've been studying or the Cosmot report. That was done last year. |
| 00:41:32.65 | Director Whelan | I don't have an answer for you for that question. I do see a number of folks in the public who are on this call here that might be able to address that question for you. |
| 00:41:43.84 | Nastassya Saad | Good, good. We want our businesses to be successful, bar none. So it's important to know that this will be and experts have looked at that as well. So thank you for that. regarding the the outdoor dining area. Of course, we are all very lucky and blessed to be here in Sausalito and a part of the world that it's very conducive to sitting and eating outside. And that should be enjoyed as much as possible. However, we have some very narrow sidewalks particularly in this part of town I'm wondering uh if if you have really analyzed this outdoor seating area to make sure that at the height of our busy time in the downtown area. that it does not create inadvertently some kind of a pedestrian bottleneck in this area. particularly because you're near a bus stop and you're near a crosswalks and things like that. of course our, our, uh, special stairs that go up and down our hills. So can you just weigh in on that a little bit more and, and tell me what, what you were looking at and how you analyze that? |
| 00:43:00.81 | Sheldon | So we do have a crucial approval. I think these are also kind of standard as well. So number 22 is for safe passage. That requires 48 inches of clearance. We're also requiring that these barriers be temporary so they can be movable. and adjustable. based on some conditions. |
| 00:43:21.62 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Yeah, I mean, I mean, our goal is that we want it to be successful. I mean, we don't want to create a situation where this isn't going to be viable for the business or the city. So. I just wanted to understand a little bit better how you were assessing that. Okay. Um, I think those are Those are all the questions that I had right now for staff, so I appreciate the clarifications. And let me ask my commissioners here, if you have any other questions for staff, |
| 00:43:48.55 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 00:43:48.57 | Maria | me out. |
| 00:43:54.54 | Nastassya Saad | Any other items for clarification before we ask the applicant to get ready to give their presentation. Anybody? |
| 00:44:06.13 | Morgan Pierce | I'll post them. I've done it for a moment. |
| 00:44:09.68 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, great. Alright, then with that, if I could do we have, is it Michael Rex, are you going to be giving the presentation this evening or is your, Client. I see Michael is there. I see him. Let's unmute him. and welcome this evening. I know you know the ropes here, 15 minutes for your presentation, and certainly if we interrupt you or ask questions that does not count against your time. So welcome this evening. |
| 00:44:45.05 | Michael Rex | Yes, hi, I'm Michael Racks, a local architect I'm here representing the property owners, Andrew. and Marsha Langsom, this property's been in the Langsom family for decades. It was the former, Burlwood, I'm not sure. gallery location on the ground floor. Langsom Realty, has maintained an office on the second floor along with the three residential units also for decades. Although this new project, the office will be relocated off-site. Um, I, uh, I want to thank Sheldon for coming up to speed so quickly, so thoroughly on such short notice. It's frankly impressive. And of course, Lily and Mary and the rest of our planning staff who have worked with us so closely. over the three years since we submitted this application. I've been working on this project for four years. The building has been sitting empty for well over a year and a half rental unit upstairs, which continues to be occupied So we're very anxious to see this project move forward. Although tonight we're asking that you can consider all you can about the project. but not take final action because conditions 53 and 54 are from completely unacceptable to us. It has to do with slope stability. And David Sincotta, attorney representing Andrew and Marsha will be speaking on why we feel. uh, we have to rewrite those conditions before the project can be approved. but, We have eight applications before you. A lot to absorb in a short time and I certainly can't speak to all even all your questions probably in such a short time frame And in fact, if I'm unable to answer all your questions that you just posed, Um, you might have to ask me, which will give me more time. I will share a screen with you and try to run through a few slides and I will try not to be presentation. that you just saw from Sheldon. Okay, here we go. Yeah. Let me enlarge this for you. Okay. You know where it is, so I can skip that one. Um, Historically, this building was built, there's two buildings, two Victorians side by side, built in 1894. And they had square bays now. The building has been remodeled with octagonal bays. We'd like to restore the square bays. Um, And, It was converted in the 30s to a purity market And the Victorian character was completely removed. and kind of a Spanish eclectic style replaced it Um, and then it's been modified completely on the ground floor again. So Marcus Holbert, our historian, demonstrated that this building no longer has a Victorian value. It's been changed so many times. It's considered a contributory historic element downtown solely due to its mass and height. as it relates to the adjacent buildings in the streetscape. Nothing about it other than that is considered to have historic value. We spent a year and a half going through a secret process. You now have a negative deck, and the reason for that is that we were tearing down a building that was a contributor. It's mitigated by replacing it with a building a similar height and mass that's consistent with the downtown guidelines. The city hired two outside consultants to analyze what we proposed. They concluded that we needed to modify the design so it was more aligned with the historic guidelines, which we did to the point that they found it acceptable and now recommend that there's no significant negative impacts Um, The trees have grown a lot in the last couple of years. And we think when we replace these two trees in front of the building with three new ones, that are determined by, Public Works and Sausalito beautiful to be the appropriate trees for We think we'll end up with a The relationship of trees to building that are more consistent with each other. not to mention better sidewalk clearances. Um, There's archway doors to the upper units at each end of the building we're gonna keep. The bays I mentioned go square. There's a little wrought iron balcony. We're going to stay with wrought iron balcony, but we're going to do two balconies instead. In the back, you can see |
| 00:49:53.18 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, Michael, can we stop the clock real fast? |
| 00:49:56.20 | Michael Rex | Yeah. |
| 00:49:56.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:56.59 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 00:49:56.78 | Nastassya Saad | Can you, Zoom team, can we Stop the clock. put some time you Maria, yeah. Can we stop the clock? to I think we were about at 10 over a little over 10 minutes. Michael, if you, it's hard to see what you have on the screen. |
| 00:50:20.89 | Michael Rex | Oh. |
| 00:50:21.35 | Nastassya Saad | Is there any way that you can enlarge it for the benefit of the public Karen Hollweg, And the Commissioners and then and then we'll. We'll start the clock back up. |
| 00:50:30.95 | Michael Rex | Yeah, that's odd because it's really large on my screen. Is that big enough? |
| 00:50:34.53 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. That's better. Yeah, everyone's got thumbs up here. So yes. |
| 00:50:39.66 | Michael Rex | Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. |
| 00:50:40.21 | Nastassya Saad | Thanks. I don't see. |
| 00:50:42.44 | Michael Rex | I don't see what you see. |
| 00:50:44.13 | Nastassya Saad | Right. Forgive my interruption. I'll ask this to restart the clock and back over to you, Michael. |
| 00:50:44.94 | Michael Rex | Yeah. I'm going to wrap up. Not at all. |
| 00:50:51.03 | Michael Rex | And unfortunately, when I do. |
| 00:50:51.05 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:50:51.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We see a big gray square to the right. I don't know if you see that, Michael. There's a big gray square to the right. That's much better. |
| 00:51:00.03 | Michael Rex | Okay, thank you. That's much better. I can't see the clock when I share the screen, unfortunately, so that's a bit of a disadvantage there. |
| 00:51:09.71 | Unknown | That's okay. We'll keep you posted. |
| 00:51:11.75 | Michael Rex | Oh, now you can't see this one at all. Okay, the back of the building, wait a minute, we've got to widen this. Can you see that now? Yeah. Yeah. the back of the building has two gable shapes that we're going to replicate, although they won't be as tall. And the wood, the siding and whatnot But you can see the front is we don't think is that handsome What we're proposing is It's all right. Hang on. Yeah. I'm going to go right to the elevation. Um, Okay, the first question is why are we tearing the building down? We originally started with a remodel, but as we got into it and had our structural engineer really analyze what's there, It turned out to be structurally wholly inadequate. there was almost nothing we can save. So we had to move into a new building design, but the concept, actually the design never changed because the concept we proposed from the beginning was an architecture that emulates the proportions and key elements of a Victorian without replicating a Victorian, so one would think it was authentic from the Victorian era. So this is going to be stucco, and it's a simplified version of Victorian. It still has the elements, but not all the details. and Let me go to the next slide here. Um, There you see the back that we're now proposing similar to what was there but with lower roofs. You can see the extremely steep slope behind the hill, this massive retaining wall that exists behind the building we're keeping. The slope continues up onto the con property and actually gets steeper as it goes up to the point of being a vertical slope that needs to be stabilized. That's not on our property, it's on a neighbor's property. Although we're willing to work together When this building comes down, it would be the time to stabilize the slope on the neighboring property. You've seen the elevations. There's the slope. It has been sliding downward. The trees up above are undermined. No one is debating that it needs to be stabilized. We're willing to share in that. effort. And then I wanted to point out Let me just scroll up and enlarge it. the colors and finishes, sorry. Let me get there. |
| 00:53:50.24 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 00:53:53.01 | Michael Rex | Up, up, up. Right. Uh-oh. Thank you. There you go. There's our color board. We have a fairly muted, warm gray tone. So it blends in with the darker colors of the buildings to the sides. and the wrought iron will be black. And There's some natural wood on the decks that the public won't see. and some natural concrete retaining walls in the back. The front will have a very muted look, so it kind of blends in. So I'm going to stop sharing here. How much, I got a few more minutes and David wants to speak. Um, I, uh, I want to mention on the building heights, we originally, as I said, it was planned to remodel the building, so the height wasn't an issue. when we proposed a new building, we kept the same height because We were told that the value. that it contributes to the town, this historic district, is its height and mass. We only learned Wednesday after everybody's been looking at this for three years, Um, that it was, uh, the parapet was five inches over. of a high foot. And, um, even though that's clearly shown on all our drawings from day one, And the pop-up sign in the center was a bit taller than that. We didn't think condition number 20 was appropriate that we resolve it later. We assumed you would wanna know what it is you're approving. So, um, Even though we received this news late Wednesday, We hustled, redesigned it, and lowered the building over the weekend, redocumented and submitted the plans This morning. But it's a minor change. Five inches really doesn't seem to really impact anything. The story polls actually show the taller height. Um, the, A couple things on your questions. We have asked for alcohol. I don't know why that got overlooked. It's in my letter dated January 26, 2019, on page two, item six. That's why we need the barrier out on the sidewalk. If other merchants are serving beer and wine on the sidewalk without it, they're out of compliance with the liquor laws. Um, that barrier will be removed each night. It's been designed to. to do that. And the access, actually, the code allows a three-foot gap for a sidewalk, which of course we think is too narrow, at a point, at a single point. We only have three points like that and it's at the trees and we have the required 48 inches. We did check the dimensions for the other sidewalk cafes. Solito's complies. Pojo does not. Pojo has less clearance. I'm not trying to get them in trouble. I'm just saying that we are doing what the law requires and we're asking for nothing more than our neighbors have been approved and enjoyed. on the... Let me see. Um, sidewalk, Yeah. I'm not sure. We have to have an agreement with the city on how those rents are monitored. We propose actually that we have the county of Marin as a third party to monitor. We're fine with that. But we have to enter an formal agreement with the city on exactly how that will be done. So I can assure you that that base is covered. MR. So I'm going to leave some time for David. He wants to talk about those two conditions. I have of the 93 conditions, all of them are okay. accept sex to them. Two of them we flat out reject that David will talk about. There's three others that I think need some minor changes to the wording that I'm happy to explain if you would give me more time. And on that, I'm going to turn it over to David. I THINK I'M GOING TO BE CINCATA attorney. David, are you there? |
| 00:58:04.70 | Michael Rex | I see him there with his hand up. |
| 00:58:06.76 | Nastassya Saad | If we can please unmute. David Sincotta. |
| 00:58:11.64 | Michael Rex | and, |
| 00:58:12.01 | Nastassya Saad | And stop the clock. |
| 00:58:12.03 | Michael Rex | And stop the clock. Thank you. |
| 00:58:14.91 | Nastassya Saad | And don't worry, we'll get it back. There we go. Let's unmute. David, you might have to do it on your Sunday. |
| 00:58:28.26 | David Sincotta | There we go. Okay. My name is David Sincotta. I'm the attorney for Washington, Andrew August. Um, project sponsors and I want to clarify one thing. It was characterized as protesting the condition That's not exactly true. We are, we are, just think the conditions need to be revised a little and we're optimistic it can be done we're pretty sure that can be done What our concern was, and I apologize for getting this to you so late, is that After further review, we realized that some of the conditions required us to do a considerable amount of planning and work on property that we don't own or control in any way. And The geotechnical engineer of the Department of Public Works has even pointed out that the steepest part of the slope behind the property is actually on someone else's property. And that we were hoping to have a topographical survey done by now. So we can start to be able to flesh out what might need to be done and what could be done. So, without that information and without being able to go further with any agreement with the adjacent neighbor, and the city, because the city is also a party to this as well. we felt it would be best if we take some time and work with the city attorney and DPW and to the planning department refashion those two conditions dealing with grading. |
| 01:00:01.78 | Nick Dufert | people. |
| 01:00:05.09 | David Sincotta | and drainage. for the significant issue. That's the only reason we're doing it. Thank you. Any questions? |
| 01:00:13.31 | Michael Rex | of. I'd like to add a couple items here to answer your questions. Um, on the All right. On the parklet idea, we have no intention of ever asking for a parklet. It's simply the eight tables on the sidewalk. The oval in the middle, I that Commissioner Luxenberg, he asked about. The interior of the Oval will only be for the workers, not public. And there will be a cash register, but we have it located. It will be up to the tenant. But it's basically a counter. There's some schools at the back. that people can walk around and access beverages. primarily, okay? And the use, we did a long study on what the use should be. And we decided we wanted a use that both residents and visitors would enjoy. And we thought a market hall that had purveyors of local food all operated by one operator who's a premier in Napa farms, you know, at the airports, they don't have any other, location like this, this will be a first. And they specifically want their formula, so that's why we applied for formative retail. and I think that's a good question. I've, I think. Oh, yeah. So and you asked about the Economic Development Commissions. |
| 01:01:30.02 | Karen Shelton | Yeah. |
| 01:01:34.51 | Michael Rex | talking to Monica Finnegan on that commission, They're thrilled about this and encourage approval. And so do we. |
| 01:01:48.60 | Nastassya Saad | Right. Thank you so much, Mr. Rex and Mr. Sincotta for your presentation. on behalf of your client. I appreciate that very, very much. It certainly answers a number of questions, but I know that We have many more and maybe we can go into a little bit more depth with some of these. I'd like to ask, we're going to ask the commissioners if they have any questions. for the applicant And Commissioner Saad, I'll start with you. I mean, I know you're familiar with this from your historic preservation commission days. So do you have any questions for the applicant? |
| 01:02:27.63 | Nastassya Saad | I do and maybe it's more general definitely remember this project when it came before the HPC back in April. I think we're far past this but there was some frustration that the building couldn't be saved at that time but this is where we are. So I did re-review the historical guidelines. I think you know I still concur with our original decision. I think the design overall is compliant while not giving a false sense of history. And overall, I think the design is, done a really good job I think my general concern is around the peer review and maybe this is what you are referring to about some of those conditions may not be able to be met right away and why you potentially want that continuous but looking I think it's attachment 10. there were just a few of those items that did not there there wasn't an agreement between the peer review of the geotechnical report so So I I don't know how to pose my question because I'm not sure if that's what the continuous necessarily is for. at this time, but there seems to be some impact for the slope. and some concerns around, I don't know if it's that potential vibration from the construction or if it's just the digging in the slope, and I don't know how you, plan to rectify that and if you can't answer that now and if that's for the continuance, THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE resolve that, but I do just have some concerns around stability. on that slope. |
| 01:04:07.30 | Nastassya Saad | So Mr. X is that something that you want to speak to now? |
| 01:04:11.95 | Michael Rex | or I can very briefly actually, I would direct you to a letter I turned in. Actually there's two letters. that was turned into made by David Ciccata and Juan by myself. and it's a one pager and I direct you to that. It explains in that condensed but precise detail what's wrong with those two conditions from our point of view. And as David said, I has explained The issue primarily is we're being obligated to pay for and are coming up with a solution and our project can't proceed and we can't have an occupancy event unless that solution is put in place and yet The problem lies on someone else's land and we can't predict or control that they'll perform in a responsible manner. or a timely man. We met at the site with the owner and the Geotech, our Geotech, the city's Geotech, and Kevin McGowan from the Department of Public Works on December 10. And we all agreed this is a problem shared between parties. We're all gonna work together. But we can't plan anything without a survey. We've provided a survey, the neighbor has not. Even though we volunteered to provide a quote from a reputable surveyor, which the neighbor has. I see he's here tonight. You can ask Rob Khan. He's representing his mother, Sharon Khan. Maybe he can shed light on this. But regardless, we can't have our project tied to actions that we can't a control. And we don't think it's equitable that the burden be solely placed on us to design it and pay for it. as the conditions require. And when we met at the site, we all agreed it would be shared. AND I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF the owners of the Langston building The percentage was never defined and we expected We wouldn't solve all those issues tonight. it would be resolved between now and when we apply for a building permit. And we still expect to cooperate and one of them things we can contribute is to time our project with the demolition of the building, with the construction of the stabilization at the upper part of the slope on the comp property. as long as the Khan family work with us in a timely manner so it wouldn't delay our startup construction. We will continue to cooperate But the way this is drafted right now, those conditions don't reflect what we've And I agree with David. We shouldn't have any problems. We're confident. we can get this sorted out. But we have to know it's sorted out in terms of the conditions before this project's approved because it's so critical to us. Does that... answered, but camp. |
| 01:07:25.81 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, and I think part of the continuance may And maybe the public comment may help. may help clarify I think it's just. it was the biggest question mark in, in, in reading all of the material, I think, I think I'm confident in your project from the Historic Preservation Commission, from my previous experience and from your general design, And I think generally what's being asked it's also it would be really nice to see something in that space it's been vacant for a while so I think there's some general consensus, not to speak for my whole commission, but in general, I think Sausalito wants to see things in the downtown, not empty buildings. hoping we can come to an agreement at some point, but we just want to make sure nothing is at the expense of any safety or stability of any. any potential projects so perhaps maybe I will wait for the appreciate what you said. And maybe some of the public comment would help clarify. Otherwise I think and maybe it was you Chair Feller I have a little bit of a concern around the outdoor Seeding potentially, I understand the code and the ask, and I don't disagree with you with Poggio. There's a general tightness to the downtown. And so what I'm wondering if, the applicant if that is a 100% set requirement to have that outside seating. You know we of course have the adjacent park There's a lot of areas to enjoy outside, downtown, from the what I read And I think fellow commissioner said this as well with the alcohol it sounded as though alcohol will be served on site. sorry, sold on site yet not served and enjoyed on site. So maybe we, final clarification on what's really being proposed here but I just wanna see what my fellow commissioners think around the proposed seating because the general downtown is getting in with Copeta as well there's I generally have to go on the sidewalk when I walk downtown, not only because of COVID, but there just seems a tightness. I'm just curious from the applicant standpoint if the Um, if those, I think it's limited too. I think it was six seats, couple of tables outside that are movable, Is that something that they're, dead set on or if that can be something considered for I don't know, removal, not part of this project in scope. overall. |
| 01:10:01.38 | Michael Rex | You want me to respond? |
| 01:10:03.04 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, yeah, I'd love to. If you know their opinion on that, yes, please. |
| 01:10:07.29 | Michael Rex | Yeah, it's four tables and eight seats. One of them is for a wheelchair. We would have asked for it if we didn't think it was needed and if we didn't want it. We do want it. We would like you to approve it. We think it's selling proper because it not just meets code, It also means the intent of the city, why they allow Why does the city allow sidewalk dining? Because it enlivens the streetscape. And we think it's equitable because you've allowed other businesses downtown to have not only sidewalk dining, of, So we think we should be treated in an equal manner. But we think it enhances the front and it adds activity. It also enhances the use. It's more viable. Napa farms requested it. They thought it was necessary. We don't plan on serving hard alcohol. We only plan on serving beer and wine. And we think on a nice day, people will want to sit outside and enjoy that. because most of the food will be takeout. The only food that's really served on site would be a pizza away at the back. So we wanted to provide some convenient dining on nearby. for the customers. and they can enjoy a beverage with a meal. And we gave that a lot of thought about perhaps not, providing beer and wine, and they didn't think that would be viable, What they thought would happen is people will take their beer and wine on site and break the law, and then suddenly the business owner gets shut down. So we thought if beer and wine served inside and they can dine outside, we have to provide a place where it could be made legal. and avoid the liability of being shut down. So that's my answer. |
| 01:12:02.88 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:12:03.09 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:12:03.83 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:12:04.99 | Michael Rex | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:12:05.52 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Saad any other questions. |
| 01:12:07.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 01:12:09.60 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I just want to ask a quick side note question to staff if Sheldon you could. reappear on my screen here. I want to make sure and avoid any doubt that the late correspondence received from the applicant's team was also uploaded. to the city's website, because I know some of it came in quite late before this hearing started. So some of the correspondence that Mr. Rex is referring to, I wanna make sure that it's available to the public Has it been uploaded to our website link? |
| 01:12:45.34 | Sheldon | that. Yeah, I'd have to check with Maria on that, as I requested that. |
| 01:12:51.41 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, can we ask Maria to confirm that? Since that adds to the color of the conversation this evening, I want to make sure the public. has access to that. |
| 01:13:08.44 | Nastassya Saad | or director Whalen, if you are in earshot, if you could |
| 01:13:12.19 | Maria | Thank you. |
| 01:13:12.22 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry. |
| 01:13:12.58 | Nastassya Saad | and the Thank you. |
| 01:13:13.49 | Maria | Chair, I believe I did. |
| 01:13:22.23 | Lily Whalen | Chair Feller, I'll just double check that it's up on the website, but Maria has been doing a good job of keeping up with the late mail. That's been coming. So I'll verify. |
| 01:13:25.42 | Nastassya Saad | AS A BAD. So I'll verify. but I know it's hard at the last minute before these hearings start to make sure everything's there. So if you guys could just come back and confirm that we'll keep going. You're on our virtual dais and appreciate your help on that. Commissioner Luxenberg do you have any questions for the applicant this evening? |
| 01:13:45.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I do. He answered some of my questions. I have some others. A couple quick ones. The bay windows, the original ones current angled ones have side windows, but it looks like the new ones you're proposing don't have side windows in the bay. Is there a reason for that? It would seem like it would be nice to look sideways if you were in that apartment. |
| 01:14:11.34 | Michael Rex | Actually, So, If you look a little more carefully at the floor plan, you'll see the side of windows. It might show section two, the building section. |
| 01:14:20.82 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 01:14:20.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:14:24.28 | Michael Rex | I can share the screen if you want me to point them out, |
| 01:14:28.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If they're there, that's all. I think that would be great. I'm going to go on about this soil, I mean, this slope issue. It would seem to me there's a chicken and egg problem. The abutter is saying they want to see approval before they go ahead with a topographic survey. You're asking for a continuance, which we may or may not need on for other reasons. I have a general philosophy that we need to try to minimize the number of continuances we have. I've said that in a previous meeting. So if we don't give you an approval, the abutter won't do a survey, which means that you can't come back to us so we're going around in circles i thought that those two conditions 52 and 53 had something in the alternative so it was like you could move ahead and you could build it on site and in the event that you can't come to an agreement with the abutter, you'll have to build something to protect your property on site. So they were giving you an option. And I thought that that allowed you to either get it resolved with the abutter before the building permit, rather than having to get all the stuff resolved and get a continuance here and another continuance while you design it and all that other kind of stuff so i guess i'm i i agree with commissioner side i think we're saying uh well i don't want to speak for commissioner side but i i would say that this is a good thing for the downtown and so uh the anything we could do to expedite it so that we don't have a vacant storefront in the center of downtown would be a good thing. So somehow if we can get you an approval quicker rather than obviously the slope has to be addressed or you have to protect the property. And I thought that's what 52 and 53 did and didn't make you do it on the other property because there was an alternative. |
| 01:14:28.40 | Michael Rex | All right. |
| 01:15:36.71 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 01:15:50.07 | Karen Shelton | You're going to be |
| 01:16:32.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh, If you're responsible. |
| 01:16:35.03 | Michael Rex | I have a couple other quick questions. Yeah, thank you. Actually, even the alternative is not something we find acceptable. I explained this during our December 10th meeting at the site with Mr. Khan and Kevin McGowan. that we didn't think it was appropriate that if the neighbor doesn't take care of the problem on their property, that we have to spend extra money and put up some sort of barrier that might be tall and unsightly on our property at our expense. That didn't seem appropriate or equitable. So that alternative condition needs to be rewritten as well. Plus there's a huge liability. If the neighbor doesn't take care of their property, you know, the amount of soil that could come down, could be create such a liability to my client. That too doesn't seem equitable. Okay. I can assure you that after, um, um, taking three years to get to this point for our first hearing before this commission. The last thing we wanna do is continue it. But because we haven't seen action, a meaningful action by the Khan family, we're pretty nervous that we don't know what they're going to do. okay, maybe it's a conundrum that they want to wait and see what can be approved. Well, tonight, if you can discuss everything else and give us some sense and give the cons some sense, that you look highly at this project, that it can really happen. Maybe that's enough for them to sign the survey. proposal and get that survey going that's essential to plan any solstability okay. Another thought too is that Um, um, maybe you can go through the other applications and make those findings. And if we can narrow it down to the only thing outstanding is the wording of those two conditions, 53 and 54. maybe we can come back sooner. and sort of squeeze onto an earlier calendar date, because perhaps if we narrow it down just to that, it wouldn't take long to everybody to concur and you could take final action. That's actually my suggestion, and I hope you consider it. |
| 01:18:57.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. My other two quick questions, one relates to your new drawing below the uh, coordinates. You now put a different coordinates on the top of the building and there's this line that looks like some sort of Detail below. which in my mind is slightly, should be slightly lower. What is that? What are the materials of that? Can I? |
| 01:19:24.79 | Michael Rex | Can I? the screen. |
| 01:19:27.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, if you could, if you could zoom in on that one area. |
| 01:19:27.99 | Michael Rex | if you could zoom in. Let me pull that drawing up. |
| 01:19:39.30 | Michael Rex | Yeah, here it is. I got to shrink it a little bit. |
| 01:19:45.61 | Michael Rex | Can you see him now all right? |
| 01:19:47.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can see it now and the line I'm talking about is the one that goes all the way across it straight, that one. |
| 01:19:53.22 | Michael Rex | Right here. |
| 01:19:53.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What is that built with? |
| 01:19:56.41 | Michael Rex | That's a very small molding. We anticipate that all these moldings will, the whole building will have a stucco finish And that line, we originally had that line running at the top of the base. And I went back and studied Victorians, and the bay windows typically were not banded, together. They were anchored on the wall as standalone elements and the cornice always besides the entablature at the top, The Victorians always had a molding at the bottom. real traditional Victorians had panels in between the brackets. We don't want that level of detail because we want to hint at the original elements, not replicate But when you look up at the original one, the brackets floated. on the wall and they weren't grouped together. that we see in almost all the Italianate-type style architecture. So I actually think that this new solution gets us back to that more traditional Victorian concept I also thought that in looking at our original design, The cornice, It wasn't continuous and yet on Victorians they tend to be. And it was kind of floating on the wall almost like it was stuck there and not part of the building. So what we did is move the cornice off, and brought the parapet down. And that way we're not making the building's proportions look too squat. So that's what that molding is about and why it's there. |
| 01:21:45.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, in my mind, for some reason, I just wanted to slide down slightly. It just seems like it's crowding the corners, but without a 3D version of it, I might be just misinterpreting it. |
| 01:21:58.22 | Michael Rex | Well, remember, you'll never look straight on it. This you'll be looking up at it. And then these bays, because they project, will be the dominant feature. I see. |
| 01:22:07.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:07.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mm-hmm. Okay, and my last question was, you referred to rents, but my understanding of this application is these are condominiums. So these would be sales. So I guess the sale price would be controlled by the county or whatever controls that. Am I misunderstanding the intent of the application because it clearly says you want to condominiumize. |
| 01:22:33.20 | Michael Rex | Thank you. We're asking for the opportunity to sell them as condos And it gives the owner flexibility to either rent them or to sell one or more. If they choose to rent them, of the three units, the largest unit, the two-bedroom unit, would be restricted for 40 years to a low-income earner as regulated by the county of rent, defined in regulation. in terms of the dollar amount, they set that amount. Um, However, if the Langston family decides to sell one or more two would rent or sell at market rate. The largest two-bedroom unit could be sold to a moderate income earning. And that standard is right out of Saucido's zoning ordinance. We didn't propose it. We comply with it, okay? So the only reason the downstairs is a condominium is when you kind of minimize the building, What remains has to be a unit. And it was really to provide the owner with flexibility. |
| 01:23:49.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you sell the lower moderate income unit, is there a lottery or how do they sell it? I have to sell to somebody of a certain income and you'll obviously be a lot of people that income and would love to live on Main Street across from the water all that kind of stuff. So how, how do they determine who that person is. I mean, that might be a little question. |
| 01:23:58.52 | Unknown | I'm not going to. |
| 01:23:58.97 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 01:24:13.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The climate director questions. |
| 01:24:16.07 | Michael Rex | Yeah, typically who they rent to is up to the landlord. How they market it is up to the landlord. Those units aren't regulated to that extent. What is regulated is the amount of the rent that could be charged or the price that could be sold. And the buyer or tenant has to demonstrate that their income complies with that limitation. But in terms of who it's rented to, that's the discretion of the landlord. or who it's solved for. |
| 01:24:52.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | OK, those are my questions at this point, Chair Feller. |
| 01:24:57.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Pierce, do you have questions for the applicant? |
| 01:25:03.71 | Morgan Pierce | I think I just have a couple remaining. Thank you, Michael, for the presentation. Regarding the last remaining occupant that's renting property there, do you know how long that tenants have been in that building? Thank you. |
| 01:25:15.52 | Michael Rex | I know it's been over 20 years. In fact, she used to rent from Marsha August's father. . And we asked, in fact, Commissioner Luxembourg, you asked Marcia, just this last week, what her intention is. And Marsha explained that over all those years, they developed a relationship with this tenant. In fact, two tenants. Kitty just moved out last year due to health reasons. I think she's in a care facility now. The intention always was to give them an opportunity to move back in. If that's possible. for both parties. But because of that relationship, the Langs, the August family, they own a number of apartments and other rental units. And so, Marsha mentioned to Commissioner Luxembourg when he asked the same question, that she commits and makes out and will make every effort to find another apartment that this one tenant can move into. while the building is being rebuilt. And the hope is, is that This individual will be able to afford running the new year. I'm not sure. So that relationship we hope will continue. Thank you. |
| 01:26:42.10 | Morgan Pierce | Okay, thank you. Oh, I noticed there's a number of skylights on the roof. Are those visible from the properties above? |
| 01:26:53.87 | Michael Rex | of Boy, barely. |
| 01:26:57.04 | Morgan Pierce | Bye. |
| 01:26:57.06 | Michael Rex | you |
| 01:26:57.22 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:26:57.85 | Michael Rex | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:26:57.86 | Morgan Pierce | That was a short bridge based on the nature of the slope. |
| 01:26:59.48 | Michael Rex | Yeah, the only way you can see this building because the slope is so steep, you've got to walk right to the edge and look down. directly straight down. I've never thought that would be a problem. And we certainly haven't had anybody complain. And that often happens when people do look down on skylights. |
| 01:27:19.30 | Morgan Pierce | Right. And as an exhausted plan for this structure? |
| 01:27:23.40 | Michael Rex | Pardon me? |
| 01:27:24.06 | Morgan Pierce | Is an exhaust hood planned for this structure? |
| 01:27:26.94 | Michael Rex | I'm not sure. |
| 01:27:27.02 | Morgan Pierce | Yes, for the pizza oven. Oh. Do we have any fear that the aromas emanating from that will being the third big deal. |
| 01:27:35.35 | Michael Rex | I think it's a great thing. |
| 01:27:36.78 | Morgan Pierce | You know. |
| 01:27:36.81 | Michael Rex | You know, that issue has been dealt with a lot with downtown restaurants. There's plenty of precedent for that. And I think there's even a condition of approval |
| 01:27:41.03 | Morgan Pierce | that, |
| 01:27:45.82 | Michael Rex | about those kind of impacts, sound and fumes. We are not the first one to have to respond to those kind of issues. I think we can look to the precedent that's already been established for other restaurants downtown for a methodology |
| 01:28:02.11 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 01:28:03.20 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:28:03.24 | Morgan Pierce | Great, that's all I have at the moment, sure fellow. |
| 01:28:05.60 | Nastassya Saad | Great. Thank you, Commissioner Pierce. I wanted to follow on on some of your questions about what the rooftop looks like in the rooftop equipment. other than skylights and other than the exhaust hood or or a chimney for the pizza oven. Is there any other equipment that is, is mounted anywhere along the roof. |
| 01:28:31.23 | Michael Rex | Um, I think I'd have to look at that root plan. There's bound to be some equipment for ventilation Um, I, I can't say right offhand. I'd have to look at the plans. I can do that and get back to you. |
| 01:28:46.78 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, that would be fine. You also mentioned we know of I guess condition 52 and 53, but But you mentioned that there were, I think you mentioned there were six total, there were others that you had issue with. Did I hear that wrong or are there other Items. |
| 01:29:08.09 | Michael Rex | Yes, no, you heard it correctly, although they're minor, but I think important or I wouldn't bring it up. And I think it's just a minor wording I can suggest. And I could do that quickly if you like. |
| 01:29:19.68 | Nastassya Saad | Well, if you could tell us like first what . available to you there, what numbers so we can follow along with you? |
| 01:29:28.86 | Michael Rex | I'm sorry, Mr. Terb. Quite. We already talked, Sheldon already talked about that. If you think the revision's acceptable, item 20 goes away. and I do references the data, the revised drawing. So he already has that one. David talked about 50 three and 54. and I mentioned those, that's about the slope stability. The others, if you go to item 62, Let me go there quickly. |
| 01:30:05.73 | Michael Rex | Mayor Mrakas, M.D.: Okay item 62. Um, It says that the sidewalk would not be reduced in size. Um, shall not reduce the size of the frontage sidewalk on the building. Well, that seems to be in conflict with our proposal for a sidewalk cafe. So that seemed, I added some wording, suggested wording, except as shown on the drawings, and in conformance with conditions 22 and 23, which mandates that we maintain adequate clearance. and then that condition would be consistent with what we request. Um, The next one. is the immediate following condition 63. |
| 01:30:54.05 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:30:54.47 | Michael Rex | And that says any overhead electric wires shall be underground in this area. |
| 01:30:54.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:00.21 | Michael Rex | Well, we're not gonna ground all the electric wires in the area. I would like you to insert the words any overhead electric wires serving the property would be more descriptive and appropriate. Um, And then the last one. is condition number 93. |
| 01:31:22.41 | Michael Rex | Let me go there. Yeah. Um, 93 says fire access to the project, as well as the other surrounding properties shall be maintained at all times. We cannot be held responsible for maintaining access for the fire on surrounding properties that we have no control. That should be obvious. So, I think just striking those words and just say fire access to the project shall be maintained at all times. I'm not sure. because I don't, you know, for obviously, And those are the only suggestions I had, all the other conditions we find, et cetera. |
| 01:32:06.26 | Nastassya Saad | Well, I'm assuming during demolition or construction, the issue of fire access would apply. because sometimes there are lay down areas or equipment or what have you that you certainly wouldn't want any other, property blocked, but that's pretty much standard. standard procedure. |
| 01:32:26.98 | Michael Rex | I'm sure you |
| 01:32:27.03 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sure you do. Thank you. |
| 01:32:27.97 | Michael Rex | Thank you. We'll have a construction management plan that'll have to show exactly how all that is managed and maintained. Sure. |
| 01:32:35.26 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Thank you. Exactly. |
| 01:32:36.07 | Michael Rex | Thanks. |
| 01:32:37.26 | Nastassya Saad | Um, yeah. And that So thank you. So that's, I think 20, 53, 54, 62, 63, 93. |
| 01:32:47.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's it. |
| 01:32:47.94 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, okay. |
| 01:32:48.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chair, can you repeat those numbers? |
| 01:32:50.48 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, of course. 53. 54. 62. 63. And 93. |
| 01:33:01.10 | Michael Rex | That's it. Thank you. |
| 01:33:03.66 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. That leads me to another question and that is part of the need and requirement for a historic architect here, particularly as it relates to and during construction and all of that. And I know that there was a historic architect that was part of the HPC submission and application. And I just, I wanted to confirm who that architect is and that that architect was going to be working with you and continuing on. throughout the life of the project. |
| 01:33:40.57 | Michael Rex | Well, good question. Actually, I suggest two questions that I'd like to mention. In terms of historic architects, his name is Mark Holberg. We haven't considered retaining him further, but we certainly could. I have a longstanding relationship with Mark. In fact, he was my first employee when I opened my office 38 years ago. And then he went on his own because he wanted to pursue a story. |
| 01:34:09.38 | Michael Rex | architecture. we certainly could keep them on. In fact, it might be helpful to have them review the final working drawings before we submit for a building permit. because we know sometimes the details get further developed and might get lost in the shuffle, that could be important. I think we'd certainly be willing to have him look at that I want you to know too though that the city of Sausalito hired their own outside consultant for peer review. That was a historian by the name of the Plank. He was the one that said, he was the one that basically said you have to go through Sika because you're tearing down. |
| 01:34:43.31 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 01:34:43.33 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:34:48.88 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:34:49.00 | Michael Rex | Ashtar resource. And, um, That's what led us to a year and a half of CEQA analysis at great expense. But yeah, I think that would be worthwhile. I'm not sure. Also, I noticed when you talk about adjacent historic buildings, we have two important buildings next to us, one of which is City Hall. And, I was a little surprised to not see a standard boilerplate. or if it is I missed it but I didn't see it. that when you build adjacent, directly adjacent to another building, particularly an important one and a historical one, We probably should set some have a survey or set some monitoring markers to ensure that what we do doesn't cause to adjacent any damage or settlement. And in fact, Commissioner Saad asked about vibration and how we mitigate that. |
| 01:35:45.26 | Karen Shelton | Yeah. |
| 01:35:47.37 | Michael Rex | And, um, I think actually adding a condition to install some monitoring points on the adjacent buildings paying attention to that. would be prudent for all concerned. |
| 01:36:00.85 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, well, I appreciate you mentioning that and also agreeing to that. I know that Sheldon is popped back up on the screen. I don't know, Sheldon, if you wanted to add something to that from your staff report. |
| 01:36:14.52 | Sheldon | I was just gonna say that there is a mitigation measure that deals exactly with what Mr. Rex had just talked about. |
| 01:36:21.73 | Michael Rex | I must have. Oh, it's in mitigation. |
| 01:36:21.91 | Sheldon | Awesome. Yeah. |
| 01:36:24.01 | Michael Rex | Exactly. Not in conditions. |
| 01:36:26.16 | Sheldon | Thank you. |
| 01:36:26.18 | Michael Rex | That's correct. Okay. |
| 01:36:28.29 | Nastassya Saad | Right. And that was sort of why I was asking because it was mentioning that sort of the ongoing work there, because you are sandwiched in between some historic |
| 01:36:36.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:36.97 | Nastassya Saad | properties that there was a need to do that. um, I think perhaps, we agree on that so we can get that covered too if it's not already in some of those. measures. Um, And then. Could you just confirm to me one more time? you said that there were, uh, Mr. Rex, four tables that sat two per table, but is it, two tables at seat. for each, I think I'm seeing two separate seating areas with this fence or barrier around it. I just want to make sure That was clear. |
| 01:37:23.47 | Michael Rex | Our plans call for four tables. two seats per table for a total of eight seats. |
| 01:37:30.49 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Okay, got it. |
| 01:37:33.18 | Michael Rex | I got a quick question on that last item on the monitoring points. |
| 01:37:37.36 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:37:38.24 | Michael Rex | of maybe a good to confirm with Sheldon. Is there a condition of approval that mandates and obligates us to address all the mitigation |
| 01:37:52.70 | Nastassya Saad | Let me pull Sheldon to come back up here and I'm just going to pull up the many, many sheets in this report to make sure I have it correct to before I. before I open my door. |
| 01:38:03.47 | Michael Rex | It'd be good to have them cross-referenced. |
| 01:38:05.57 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, yeah, yeah. Sheldon, do you want to comment on that while I'm pulling up? THE END OF Amen. |
| 01:38:12.43 | Sheldon | I'm checking. I'm also checking the first resolution, which is actually to adopt the mitigation. |
| 01:38:20.12 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:38:20.49 | Sheldon | And I think it also adopts the mitigation monitoring program, so the project would be subject with the adoption of that resolution. |
| 01:38:28.48 | Michael Rex | Well, the subject, yes, I understand that, but the city requires that we post off, we put all the conditions of approval on the cover sheet Thank you. So the contractor doesn't miss it. And if there isn't a condition that we must conform to all the mitigation measures, it seems like it ought to be a condition just to play it safe. |
| 01:38:49.05 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, that's why I thought Forgive my interruption. Sorry about that. That's why I thought that the historic architect is actually the requirement, as we're talking about, because they are, you need to have that historic architect monitoring. And Sheldon, if I'm saying that incorrectly, please do correct me. But that is what I retained from reading this. And I'm just, you know. |
| 01:39:18.41 | Michael Rex | monitoring what . |
| 01:39:23.08 | Nastassya Saad | during the the construction, demolition and construction. to ensure that there's no inadvertent, you know, because they're historic. structures potentially brittle or so on that there that there is um coordination and monitoring by that historic architect. but Sheldon's gonna pull it up here, I assume at work And doing that. And so while he's doing that, we'll put that to the side and come back to it if that's okay. for the, of time. I just wanted to ask a little bit about the finishes just for clarification. Um, the The building is predominantly the gray color that you had on your material board. And that is a stucco. |
| 01:40:11.97 | Michael Rex | It's a stucco and it'd be a smooth stucco with square edges. kind of crisp. give it a slightly pressure, more contemporary feel so it doesn't look cold. |
| 01:40:25.87 | Nastassya Saad | Yep. And then the, um, the metal railings are the black color. And is the lettering on the signage also black. |
| 01:40:36.02 | Michael Rex | Yes. Yes. |
| 01:40:38.48 | Nastassya Saad | And, and then any of the corners detail and design, um, or, you know, around the windows or the cornice trim that, uh, commissioner Luxembourg was asking you about, is that also that blue gray or is that black or is it white or some, some other color? |
| 01:40:55.52 | Michael Rex | All the trim matches the wall color and a stucco as well. But because we're doing smooth and square, they'll have sharp edges. They won't be kind of really pulley stuff. you know. |
| 01:41:05.97 | Nastassya Saad | Right, yeah, no, that's a good differentiation, okay. All right. Um, and then. This is perhaps I'm gonna ask this question, even though it might be a little controversial, but Does the success of this project require three Street trees. for you, is that something that's very important to to this project for you. |
| 01:41:34.91 | Michael Rex | Um, We propose three three straight trees for a couple of reasons. I'm not sure. They seem well placed and balanced to complement the building. Generally the city's policy is when you take one tree out you plant two uh there isn't room for we're taking two out there isn't uh you know, room for four. And so we settled on three. So we think it's both aesthetic and consistent with city standards to propose what we have proposed. Um, The specie hasn't been selected because that's gonna be worked out with the Department of Public Works. And you'll notice there's a condition in there. We need to consult with Saucedet Beautiful. The city has a new street tree program downtown. I suspect that that's what we'll be doing. You've seen the new trees that have gone in and they're wonderful. I'm hoping that's what we end up with. |
| 01:42:31.96 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. All right. I just wanted to confirm that. And Sheldon, did you have something to to pull up and we'll go back to the issue regarding historic architecture monitoring. |
| 01:42:44.65 | Sheldon | Yeah, so let's see. I think it was one of the mitigation measures, um, |
| 01:42:53.41 | Sheldon | was that the 2.5 construction monitoring. So that's what we have there in place. |
| 01:43:01.93 | Michael Rex | Oh. Okay. |
| 01:43:02.83 | Sheldon | Um, And I think, that you're just Just so that is very clear, I think Mr. Rex had a good point about LinkedIn. the documents. we could add a condition approval that, the project is subject to the mitigation monitoring program list those also on the construction drawings. |
| 01:43:23.96 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I would support that. Okay. Thank you for, for, for looking that up and confirming that. Um, |
| 01:43:29.05 | Kathleen Anderson | Okay. |
| 01:43:36.24 | Nastassya Saad | At this point, do any other commissioners have any final questions of the applicant. before we move to public comment. |
| 01:43:48.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | not the poor Republican. |
| 01:43:50.18 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Terrific, thank you very much. So at this time, we would like to open up this this particular project that we're hearing at the moment to public comment. I will ask our community development director to come back up on our screen here and remind everybody how to do that. |
| 01:44:14.50 | Director Whelan | Great. Thank you, Chair Fowler. So it's now the time for public participation and comment. video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand now in the Zoom application. go to the participants button and then underneath that there'll be, a raise hand feature. If you're calling from a phone, you can press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed. When it's your time to speak, we will allow you to unmute yourself and share your video if you'd like. And if you have a presentation, We need to adjust your settings to allow you to share your screen. So thank you for your patience. |
| 01:44:56.67 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Whalen. So at this time, members of the public, if you would like to comment on this item, Now is the time to raise your hand. two raised hands at the moment and I'm going to call on you as I see you here on my screen. You'll have three minutes. for your comment and you'll be unmuted. And if you could please state your name for the record. And if we could put the timer, Maria, back to three minutes, I'm going to call first on a call in user underscore one. So if we could unmute that caller, if you could please state your name and you have three minutes for public comment. |
| 01:45:43.93 | Unknown | Hello, can you give me a minute? |
| 01:45:44.17 | Nastassya Saad | Hi. |
| 01:45:45.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:45:45.67 | Unknown | Please hold. I'm having a problem with the timer. Bye. |
| 01:45:49.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. So yeah, Maria, if we can set that to three. if you're able to do so. |
| 01:46:05.79 | Nastassya Saad | If you are not, I can pull up a timer on my phone and So we don't hold up the public hearing here, I can do that. |
| 01:46:20.35 | Nick Dufert | Just get around this one. |
| 01:46:25.61 | Maria | Taylor, if you want to start a clock on your own while we get this one going over here, because it's going to have to reboot. |
| 01:46:31.61 | Nastassya Saad | No problem, you go ahead and do that. And we're gonna go ahead with public comment and I am calling user number one you have been unmuted so I'm going to start on my phone right here for three minutes, go ahead. |
| 01:46:45.76 | Robert Kahn | Hi, my name is Robert Kahn, and my family owns the Uphill property at 10 to 14 Excelsior Lane. We've been at that property for three generations. The project is located at the bottom of the hill. And when the Langston property was originally built, they cut into the hill. which has resulted in a steep slope on the hillside That's what the city's geotechnical engineer has written that they believe caused the problem with the slope. It's the reason that the Wells Fargo building immediately to the left of the Langston building has constructed a retaining wall. And if you go to the next building over to the left, the apartment building there is constructing a shotcrete wall for that same reason. Page A4.1 on Mr. Rex's presentation showed a cross-sectional drawing which actually really clearly visualizes that vertical cut that was made into the hillside. And over time, |
| 01:47:31.60 | Timothy Rempel | I'm not sure. |
| 01:47:32.96 | Robert Kahn | the lack of downhill support to the hillside as well led to the slope getting steeper and steeper. And it's become an issue where there's been soil movement on the hill during the last few rainy seasons. Um, We submitted a comment letter last March expressing our concerns about the hillside and that we believe the slope stability issue needs to be addressed as part of this project's approval. And I'd like to reiterate that. The city staff seem to really understand the issue here. and drafting conditions of approval 53 and 54 to address this. I would like to convey that I strongly support those conditions as written, and I think they're really sensible conditions. Mr. Rex and Mr. Sincotta both conveyed that we would be further along on a solution to the hillside stability if we simply provided them with a topographic map. But Mr. Rex said in his first meeting with me, He was very, very clear that he did not want to figure out a solution before planning commission approval. What he wanted was an agreement to work collaboratively after planning approval was received. And that is precisely the framework that was reflected in condition approval drafted by the city staff. The other thing I'd like to mention is that, you know, we provided that comment letter in March and we didn't hear from the applicant until mid-October. This is definitely not a situation where we've been dragging our feet over collaborating with them. And I don't think it's. And, really productive to mischaracterize us that way. The issue with the topographic map is that Mr. Rex told us that the rainy season could need to be redone. It's a $4,200 expense. And he told, Kevin McGowan that the city's topographic map need to be redone because of an intervening rainy season. So given that they, they conveyed to us that they, |
| 01:49:09.19 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 01:49:11.55 | Robert Kahn | do not intend to find a solution until after planning approval The fact that it's during the rainy season and might be a complete waste of money We thought it was prudent to wait until after the rainy season and then after this project was approved uh, conditions of approval reflecting, working towards a collaborative solution, which was precisely what Mr. Rex had had conveyed that, you know, the way he wanted to address this issue. |
| 01:49:40.51 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much for your comments this evening. a Mr. David Pseudo Welcome. You have, if we could reset the comment timer and unmute Mr. Sudo. |
| 01:49:56.74 | David Siddow | Good evening, can you hear me? |
| 01:49:58.31 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, we can hear you. |
| 01:49:59.74 | David Siddow | Great. So in general, I really like this project. I think it's a great reuse of that space. My only issue is with the encroachment permit for the outdoor dining. The four-foot clear travel is not kind of in the path, in the direction of travel on the sidewalk. Some of the areas are constrained between the fencing and the proposed trees to the point where it's more like three and a half or maybe a little bit less than that. You know, my thought as someone who has been on the pedestrian and bicycle committee, for almost six years and a couple of years ago was tasked by the city council to look at sidewalk congestion in this area is that, you know, four feet of clear travel is probably the minimum that we need in this area. So I think we really need to find six more inches somewhere. for that fence. that's being proposed and We're building a new building. There's constraints that the architect has built in to the seating, that could be resolved by some creative thought on how design elements are located. to both provide the seating they want and a path of travel to that seating. I just I'm really concerned. My other point of information is that the fire hydrant shown in the drawings is not the location where that fire hydrant is. It's more in line with the trees. And if we remove the trees and leave the fire hydrant, we're gonna have a trip hazard because people won't see the fire hydrant as they're trying to negotiate a busy sidewalk and are distracted by the elephants across the street and all kinds of other things. That's my comments. Thank you. |
| 01:51:55.10 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much, Mr. Siddow for commenting this evening. Um, Do we have anybody else in the public who would like to make a comment? on this item on the agenda. Just gonna give you a minute to to do so in the Zoom application or on your cell phone if you're on one. Um, I see both Mr. Sincotta and Mr. Rex have their hands raised, but you're the applicants, so I can't. I can't offer public comment to you. Okay, I see Monica Finnegan. Monica, welcome this evening. If you could state your name for the record, and if you can see the comment timer, you have three minutes for public comment. Thank you. |
| 01:52:38.84 | Monica Finnegan | Hi, good evening, Monica Finnegan. I'd just like to add a little bit of comment here. I think that this property and this. Okay, there we go. And this property has been a keystone of our South Lido downtown area for 66 years and it's been in the family for that that long period of time and that means that these family owners have paid a lot into the city and a lot of support into the city Um, Revenue and and vitality for for downtown. So I think that's one point that should be considered. The economic vitality of our city right now is really, really important and very impacted. and having a to make it space in downtown that's not bringing revenue to our city and bringing some vibrancy to downtown is really critical. So I think the approval of this project a contribution to our ongoing vitality and our economic components. Um, I think the plan really is a wonderful plan developed by Michael Rex and contributes to the historic preservation of downtown. So that consideration I think is another point. They could have left it there and just put a bandaid on it, but I think they've made a movement. in the right direction. to not only restore the downtown of bringing in a viable tenant, if that all works out. and then preserve the residential portion on top. So I'm hoping that everybody involved can really mediate together and find a good solution to solve some of the little glitches that are there. and bring to the downtown a very, very positive project for us all to enjoy. That's my comments for the night. |
| 01:54:42.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much, Monica. Thank you for commenting this evening. Is there anybody else in the public who would like to comment at this time. I'll give you a minute to find find the raise hand function in Zoom or the star nine on your phone. |
| 01:55:03.85 | Nastassya Saad | I do not see anybody else at this time. Zoom team, could you? Just reconfirm for me, make sure I'm not missing anybody. |
| 01:55:13.52 | Maria | Chair Feller, that is correct. |
| 01:55:16.39 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much. At this time, I'm gonna close public comment. And again, thank the public for participating this evening. It's always very important. I'm glad to have public comment. And I'd like to bring the conversation and deliberation back up to our virtual dais with our commissioners here. and Again, This applicant has requested a continuance to any decision we make. So we should take that under consideration. There are, I want to say, and Sheldon will correct me, I know 93 different conditions and findings we need to make on this particular property. I've heard a lot of and some really good feedback questions of the applicant and of staff. So thank you commissioners for going through this in such great detail. Um, Does anybody want to start off the conversation this evening with any further comment. Yes, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:56:23.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh... Let me see how to phrase this. So, I think this is a, as some of the public has said, and I said a little bit, I think this is a very positive project for the city of Sausalito. So, I think we should try to figure out ways to expedite getting things done so we don't have a vacancy in the heart of the downtown. I think the slope issue is resolvable. In my opinion, those conditions seem reasonable. Some of the other tweaking of the wording that they're looking for seem reasonable as well. But I think that if we can, rather than continue, has come to some consensus about what we're looking for so it's not just being continued to another night, presuming all these X things happen. this is approvable, that might help solve the impasse on what do you do first on the slope issue. But obviously the slope has to be addressed. I don't know whether it's a soil nail wall or what exactly the technical solution is, but I actually went in the back, and that is quite a slope, and it will slide. So that does need to be addressed. Secondly, I think the conditional use permit for the retail use, this is a good mix of something that will be good for local residents and good for tourists. So I think this is an appropriate approval for formula retail. on the trees, in my opinion, The two trees that are there are oversized. They block the sun. They really block the sidewalk. And as nice as the trees they are should be replaced by the three trees they're suggesting. I think the outdoor tables in this COVID era is not a bad thing to have for the future, especially since they're removable. one idea I would throw out to address what some of the public comment was, is if they can move back those tables six inches into their facade. So in other words, the doors stay where they are, but where the tables are, they move it back six inches. They find six inches from the inside so that there's an inset there. So those tables add six inches and somehow they can find that, that they're still outside, but they're now six inches more than they were before. Finally, the fact that we get an affordable housing unit out of this as well, I think, again, right now, two of the units are vacant and the longer this stays vacant, the longer we don't have housing. So I think we get, you know think we'll be back to three units there, one of which will be affordable. So for all those reasons, I think we need to find a way to get this moving on an approvable path. And I would hope it's just not a general continuance to some meeting in the future. And the last time we moved something, it was like two months. So those are my thoughts. |
| 01:59:21.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Pierce. |
| 01:59:25.27 | Morgan Pierce | Yes, thank you, Chair Feller, and thank you, Commissioner of Lexenbury. I generally agree with my fellow commissioners' statements. I think they were well-worded and Uh. really express the sentiment of, um, I think what the community is asking for in this project. I do have a couple of concerns. Uh, I will regarding his, uh, suggestion about the six inches, uh, recessing of the, uh, of the fencing and outdoor dining, I will up that to 12 inch total to result in a 60 inch, which is a natural minimum sidewalk width. 48 inches is a minimum passing width around an obstruction. This is much longer than an obstruction. This would only, if approved as drawn, would only exacerbate all of the pinch points and the congestion we have downtown. I can't tell you how many days I see pedestrians walking in streets in this very location. I do not want to contribute to that. That is, I would not be able to make a finding for this if it was left as drawn. I think maintaining 60 inches gives the applicant what they need and provides adequate safety for our residents and visitors. The other thing is regarding the slope stabilization geotech issue. I again would love to find a way to not have to continue this, but I am concerned how we actually do that. I fear that there's more onus being put on the the property owner up above for a condition that was clearly exacerbated by construction of the building along bridgeway, you know, decades ago. Um, so how has that resolved? I, you know, in one circumstance, they may ask the Excelsior residence or homeowner to pay for 50%. And I'm not sure that's equitable. I'm not sure I'm ready to relinquish it without some sort of concrete methodology for getting them to the finish line without having to come back to us with Mm-hmm. a different writing in the conditions. So I'm interested to hear other ideas regarding that. |
| 02:01:29.91 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Pierce. I think that's a good question. |
| 02:01:35.43 | Nastassya Saad | DIRECTOR DEWOLF- Thank you Chair Feller. I think Commissioner Pierce took the words almost right out of my mouth. I think I'm concerned about the onus on the on the adjacent property owner. I totally agree with the project overall and to the vitality of downtown. And I think most of the conditions make a lot of sense. personally think that 53 and 54 makes sense I understand what Mr. X is saying as well, but I think to, to put that back onto the property owner at the top of the slope, um, is, um, you have to work with your neighbors. I completely understand that, but it's a little unfair on the cost and the concern to that property. So, Um, I would if we're at an impasse, unfortunately, I'm not at the point to offer other verbiage, um, other than saying that I think 53 and 54 makes sense to myself as as written if that would be accepted by by the applicant. um, Otherwise I would also agree with a further pushback on the outside seating I think Mr. X does have a good point that other properties downtown do have that luxury and it's not to take away this this potential luxury for outside seating, It's almost, we're at a point downtown. And I think it also came in public comment from, somebody who's been on the pedestrian committee, it's becoming terribly crowded. And I think we need to find a way that, It can be suitable for everybody and I would completely agree with pushing back to 12 inches if they can find a creative way to do that to save some space for safety. |
| 02:03:15.41 | Nastassya Saad | Great. Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Vice Chair Graff. |
| 02:03:21.14 | Richard Graef | Um, Thank you, Chair Feller. Yes, I agree with my colleagues. I think it's a good project. I think it's, I would like to compliment the applicant on the design and the design thoughtfulness of the whole thing. Um, I... don't have a problem with this particular formula retail or not retail, whatever it's called. Business, I think that it would work there. um, I, uh... they The whole business of the slope in the back, I think the applicant and the neighbor are gonna have to hammer that out. And I don't see that happening this evening. Um, but I would like to move this along. I can certainly make the findings Um, And then with the minor issues, or maybe they're not so minor, of the conditions And that I think has to be worked out. the seating on the sidewalk, Um, I, uh, I realized that that there are other conditions, many of them along the way there that are really pinched. And, um, I don't go there much. but I have found it sometimes difficult to walk down the sidewalk. So if there is a way by somehow manipulating the face of the building in the opening the main opening that goes in to get a little more width for those, uh, outdoor seating niches. if we could get five feet in there, five feet is the standard for, you know, uh, disabled access wheelchairs, turn around, all of that. ramps. So I think five feet is a good target. and I would support that. and I'd like to hear if that uh in the end this evening, whether the applicant might uh feel confident. I'm figuring a way to do that. Otherwise, I like the project and I would like to see it move ahead. |
| 02:05:57.89 | Nastassya Saad | Great, thank you very much, Bikes and Graf. I'm just going to echo everything that, that, My fellow commissioners articulated so beautifully and better than I, I love this project and I would just love to see something vibrant, down here in this part of downtown, in this historic district, sort of bring back you know, some, a more contemporary version of that historic flavor. So I commend the applicant for a very, very handsome design that I think would work. beautifully down here. Um, I think I'm leaning towards granting the applicants request for a continuance because of these issues regarding that Hillside as a member of the landslide task force as well. This is absolutely a critical issue that needs to be resolved before. we move any further. And if there is issue with the language in 53 and 54, we need to iron that out now. I have a quick question. for staff for clarification of the CUP So if I could ask Community Development Director Whalen to quickly come back up on the screen here I want to understand if a condition of that CUP, if if there is a signed or back-to-back lease that conveys into this CUP or is it just the CUP as the use for the conditional use permit just for the type of business and not specifically the anchor tenant. Can you just confirm that? |
| 02:07:43.46 | Director Whelan | So if I'm understanding the question correctly, Commissioner Feller, or Chair Feller, apologies. Your question is, is the CUP tied to the specific business or the type of use? |
| 02:07:57.30 | Nastassya Saad | Is it tied at all because it is formula retail? to the specific tenant to Napa farms? Is it tied to that at all? |
| 02:08:06.32 | Director Whelan | It would be tied to the type of use, So if there was another formula retail business that was similar to Napa Farms. they could take over the conditional use permit as it runs with the land. |
| 02:08:28.45 | Director Whelan | Thank you. |
| 02:08:28.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I propose a hypothetical in that regard, Lily. |
| 02:08:28.50 | Director Whelan | going to use. |
| 02:08:29.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:08:29.12 | Director Whelan | Thank you. |
| 02:08:32.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If if 7-Eleven, who sells groceries, sandwiches, pizza, and all of those kinds of things were to come in here and they wanted to use their 7-Eleven logos and all that kind of stuff. In my mind, that's that should require, but I don't know, legality, a new CUP or whatever, because it's a different aesthetic and part of this is to look at the aesthetic and whether they've adapted it to look more like Napa Farmers was in there. Napa Farmers sort of looks like what they have at the airport, but not totally. So I guess my question is It would seem to me that that if it's a national brand with national signage. and like it's not a restaurant, or if it was a McDonald's and I want to put arches in there, that even if they had all the same components, it would logically come back in. That's just a guess, but I'm not asking, I'm not looking at the legality, just the wording in the zone. |
| 02:09:40.65 | Nastassya Saad | Let's see if our city attorney can also help us. Just, I wanna make sure we're clear on what we're approving and that we're giving the proper feedback to the applicant regarding this matter and that we're clear as a commission. |
| 02:09:53.35 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Chair, fellow members of the Commission. It's a really good question. formula retail is always a little bit complicated and I think complicated in this situation too so I appreciate taking the time to think through these questions. I think if the commission is leaning toward a continuance on this item, We as staff would like a moment to review the specific question and provide you with a more detailed response. I agree with Lily's. general question that it's the type of use, but I understand the the nuances or you know, even broader implications that the commission is indicating that that could have so we need to look at the specific findings, we need to tie that back to the fact that it's a conditional use permit. And conditional use permits run with the land as stated in your ordinance. So we need to reconcile those two pieces for you and bring that back. |
| 02:10:44.90 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you very much, Mary. I appreciate that. |
| 02:10:48.10 | Mary Wagner | Sure. |
| 02:10:48.14 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. And then. just regarding, um, the trees. A couple of you have discussed the issue with the trees and the clearance, which I think we're all very concerned about. Um, It's one of the reasons I was asking the applicant about how committed they are and how important the trees and having three instead of the two. I mean, even if we replace the two that are existing there, which I agree, commissioner Luxembourg are, are, um, a little overgrown at this point. But if you either placed the outdoor seating behind those barriers in areas where They're not. where the trees are being planted. And so you're kind of exacerbating the problem by putting three in there instead of two. And so you only have, you'll have three tree grates and not two. It would, it would maybe help the flow down there if it was staggered. So that was my thinking just for the benefit of of the commission here. Um, But I think... Unfortunately, it's very, very tight, particularly in that one little stretch, you know, between the stairs at Wells Fargo, you know, south of Wells Fargo. And then further up, because you also have a little bit of a bend there in the sidewalk. But I love the idea of outdoor dining or open air dining, whatever you'd like to call it. And so I'd like to figure out a way that we can this applicant can accommodate that. I would support a 60 inch clearance instead of a 48. And I think if we can be work with the applicant and they could be clever about where to place that so it may be it's staggered a little bit from the tree placement we might just solve a problem right then and there and still have a beautiful and enjoyable the outdoor dining area. Other than that, other than those small weeks, I'm leaning again towards granting the applicant the |
| 02:12:51.53 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 02:12:58.99 | Nastassya Saad | continuance that they desire, that they requested from us. Um, for the purpose of working on some of this language around the back slope I think if we add in there are comments about outdoor seating and clearance from trees. and so on. I think that that's Those are important findings. The rest of them. and the rest of the other issues that were raised by the applicant, these other finding 62, 63, 93, I really don't have much of an issue with. |
| 02:13:39.15 | Morgan Pierce | And if I may, Chair Fowler, I'd like to touch on something you said. I think you make some important points regarding the treaties and the clearance and If it were up to me, I would choose trees over outdoor dining. So I would suggest even moving that back to keep the trees. I have noticed on the African historians, they're calling out for tree grates. I'm not sure if that's specifically tree grates. I know downtown, there's been use of the pervious tree grates. the gravel matrix over the trees, which is perfectly walkable and ADA accessible surface. I would advocate that they call that out as their recommended tree bed covering, which obviously helps to minimize any concerns people have about walking over tree rates and would again help further support a wider walking path. |
| 02:14:27.98 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, that's a great, great suggestion. Okay. Any other? |
| 02:14:33.79 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I... I concur. with Commissioner Pierce's suggestion there. I think that's a really good one. I do like the three trees. the relationship to the building and everything. Um, So it's a question of, getting the clearance. between the trees and the Temporary. realm. Um, So I think since we're going to continue this, maybe that's something that Um, Michael couldn't. Um, chew on in the interim. I'm sure that he can find a way to do that. uh But... Yeah, I like the three trees. I like the scale of them. Um, So, Yeah. |
| 02:15:33.38 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Yeah, we're going to ask the applicant back up here in just a second. |
| 02:15:34.51 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:15:38.45 | Nastassya Saad | Um, just to confirm that they understand the comments that we're making and that that we're clear on our input and direction. before we make a final motion here. Um, Hold on, city attorney is. What did we do wrong, Mary? |
| 02:15:55.84 | Mary Wagner | No, no, I just have a question and I'm sure this is probably really more of an issue for your public works director. But I wanted to make sure I understood either the question or the direction on tree grate or tree well or whatever it is the commission was discussing. I think we need to make sure we check in with public works on that, you know, and ensure that we're, We're keeping the area as safe as possible and doing what they would recommend. |
| 02:16:23.80 | Morgan Pierce | There's examples of it elsewhere on Bridgeway, Mary, down by Napa Burger. So you might have... |
| 02:16:27.38 | Mary Wagner | Understood. There's also been some issues throughout town with various features. So I just want to make sure we're not exacerbating anything. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. |
| 02:16:37.40 | Nastassya Saad | No, no, thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 02:16:43.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So as we bring back the applicant to ask us, I'm not sure, usually we're continuing things and they would prefer not. But in this case, they're asked for this continuance. But let me throw out another idea that, because I really do think things need to move along. Is it possible that rather than continuing all of this, that we approve the draft resolution adoption of the MND and then we continue the project. So in other words, we get at least one thing done, which is the mitigation. I guess that's a city attorney question of whether we can adopt the MND at this point. So that's out of the way. and then continue the project approvals to the next whatever. |
| 02:17:31.15 | Nastassya Saad | Question. So Mary, can we approve the Neg-Dec here? |
| 02:17:36.07 | Mary Wagner | It is a great question. And I mean, technically, yes, but my I'm not sure. It's not a concern and it's more of a observation or suggestion. If the project is going to change, then we don't necessarily we want to necessarily look at the MND in that context too. to make sure that any of those project alterations have been addressed in the MND. So it's somewhat of a technical issue because we would need to do that anyway. But if you adopted the MND tonight, and it needed to be modified, you know, it'd be different than having a somewhat different process. So My recommendation is that we just bring it all back to you. I think it's going to happen pretty quickly. I don't think you need to, you know, rehash all of the issues that you've you've put to rest tonight necessarily, but I think we should bring it back to you as a package if that's okay with the commission. |
| 02:18:24.96 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, thank you. Thank you for that. Yeah, particularly if we're dealing with slopes, Commission, I think we need to. Let's just bring it back all at once. Any other comments from commissioners before I ask the applicant to come back up here just to confirm their understanding of, of our input and comment, I think. We are all looking for Um, greater clearance distance between whatever outdoor seating barrier there is and the, and the trees. We'd like consideration and coordination with the city and DPW for an appropriate Great. That is. ADA acceptable and compatible. that would actually help that, that how one measures that distance I think that would be helpful. And then, Specifically, we want this back hillside resolved. We want this project to move forward. And the sooner that the applicant and the neighbor and the city can hash out whatever those conditions are and the wording of that and bring it back to us the better. So we will also ask if I can bring the applicant back up here. Mr. Rex and Mr. Sincotta because we'll want to find out If... if this is, if we grant the continuance as you ask if this is to a date certain or a date uncertain. So if we can bring you both back up here, Mr. Rex and Mr. Sincotta. |
| 02:20:08.35 | Nastassya Saad | We... Zoom team, can we? unmute them. And share video, there we go. |
| 02:20:18.36 | David Sincotta | Thank you. |
| 02:20:18.40 | Michael Rex | I'm not getting my video, but. Hi. Maybe I can. address most of these, David. You could fill in. Let me get |
| 02:20:25.06 | David Sincotta | Let me get started first. |
| 02:20:26.93 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:20:26.97 | David Sincotta | Okay. |
| 02:20:27.25 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:20:27.29 | David Sincotta | Thank you. |
| 02:20:27.73 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:20:27.74 | David Sincotta | I, um, I appreciate it. of praise. Thank you. deliberations tonight. I really think it's been and very helpful. I would want to schedule this to a date certain. I don't think that the needs to have an unprecedented amount of time I don't believe that we need to have a final plan in order to get this, we just need the language in there to make sure everybody's protected. uh, And I would want to follow up on something that Commissioner Luxenberg said in order to move this project along I don't, I guess this is actually a question for uh, City Attorney Wagner. and direct Lily. I'll wait. and that is, is it possible to |
| 02:21:14.08 | Richard Graef | who, |
| 02:21:15.30 | David Sincotta | you know, to give, have the commission give its intent to approve the project with only the conditions of approval to come back and you'd probably find so that we know that the design those issues of blue salt except for the trees. That's just a suggestion. I don't know if it's possible. here, but it's really a question for for the attorney. |
| 02:21:38.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:21:38.53 | David Sincotta | Thank you. |
| 02:21:38.70 | Nastassya Saad | What I think is you've heard here tonight on the commission, there is support for this project and there's actually, |
| 02:21:38.74 | David Sincotta | Thank you. |
| 02:21:46.85 | Nastassya Saad | a lot of enthusiasm for your project and a lot of positive comments about the design But those are not the issues that we have really focus in on and as you heard the commissioner say that we can make because of finding the issue with the exception of course the issue being this outdoor seating and the encroachment permit for the, for the, the, the, four tables, sidewalk tables and the barrier and the clearance you have there. So we do think that that's an issue that we would like to be resolved in whatever you bring back. to this commission. |
| 02:22:28.33 | David Sincotta | Thank you. I have to date certain. And to how far out, I would see. um The hard part about this is We really need the participation of the Department of Public Works, Director McGowan. as well, and the geotechnical engineer. |
| 02:22:43.54 | Unknown | Wow. |
| 02:22:45.93 | David Sincotta | Um, I've read, I wasn't at the site visit, but I've read the comments from them. Uh, Aha. that he made his meeting minutes. And I think they disagree with the uphill neighbors comments. I just want to, I believe it's going to take the city's involvement in working that out and I just don't know what his schedule is. So I would suggest something like about a month out Maybe it's not time. do all that. It's the end of my comment. |
| 02:23:15.08 | Michael Rex | I'd like to offer comments on I agree with David, no question we would like a date certain. I think a month is sufficient. I think actually having a deadline will help us get to a finish line with the neighbor and the city. I'm confident we can work this out. Uh, the, um, of. I think there are some reasons to come back in a month besides the slope stability wording Um, You want to see some changes for the sidewalk cafe use. So we can study that and come back and show you. recommendation. Um, I also went back to the plans to respond to your question about mechanical rooftop equipment. I think it's omission on our part. I don't see any equipment. I think there's bound to be needed We need to show that on the drawing, so that should be a revision that we come back. with. MR. the The other thing is the on the tree grates and clearances, okay? Um, we're kind of, going in circles here. Because we originally proposed a recessed storefront. THE FAMILY. so the tables didn't stick out as far. And we were told no. by the city's consultants that that was inconsistent with the downhunt historic guidelines because the pattern of the downtown Thank you. is that the storefronts come right up to the sidewalks So we actually had to go back and revise the drawings to remove the recesses. I looked at the drawings and these tables aren't just in front of the storefront. They're in front of the building supports, the walls that support the upper floor. They're right against those pilasters. Uh, However, I think uh, I think it's a great your suggestion of adjusting the tree positions is something we can do. And we'll revise the drawings accordingly. To get you five feet, I'd like for the record to stay 5 feet is not ADA standard. Um, Four feet is ADA standard for all sidewalks in California. . . Obstructions. I also am a little frustrated that we're held to a different standard than other adjacent property owners or nearby property owners. I can kind of hear you saying, well, two wrongs don't make a right. What we approved in the past seems to be a bit crowded. Can you do better? Because you haven't built yours yet. I hear that. That's reasonable. Even though we are held to a different standard. Maybe the city should adjust its code. accordingly, okay? Um, But nonetheless, I will go back to the drawing board. I think we can adjust the trees a little bit. I hope we can get five feet and get it right. We will see what we can do there. We studied those tree grates and we studied the city's new solution to go with pervious concrete. and we rejected the previous concrete. We think it does not belong in a Stark District. We have wrought iron on this building and we think the wrought iron tree grates are really appropriate. And there's been problems in the past for tree grates because they were higher than the sidewalk. That was a disaster downtown and a big mistake. The tree grapes, we actually proposed the tree grapes. They're exactly what's in front of Poggio. Go down and look at those. They're beautiful. They're completely flat and flushed with the sidewalk. They don't impede. circulation at all. And I'd like to stay with those. We gave them that great thought. And it's not an arbitrary decision. And I think the last thing I want to mention, and this is for the record, Rob Conn is right when he said Wells Fargo has a big retaining wall back to stabilize the hill. Hey, that's on their property. This place where this slope is unstable is not on our property. It's on his property. The city's GITEC and Kevin McGowan agreed with that and they put that in the meeting notes. Um, . are willing to participate in developing this solution and providing access to it. What we're not willing to do is completely shoulder it, responsibility, pay for all of it. and tie the fate of our project to the actions by the neighbor. So I'm confident we'll work it out. In fact, when Rob Khan says we should wait till the rainy season ends, well, guess what? We're practically there, so that's a non-issue. It's gonna, when I said that We don't want this solution to prior to the project being adopted. It's because it's going to take quite a while to solve that problem and we have to get moving with this project. I never suggested we wouldn't solve this. in a timely manner, okay? So I think Ms. Karen raised our comments and I want that to be clear, thank you. |
| 02:28:31.92 | Nastassya Saad | We understand that. We brought you back up here just to confirm that you understood the nature of our comments and the feedback and our intent to grant you the continuance for the reasons also related to specifically to 53 and 54, which had to do with the Hill. I just wanted to ask one question for clarification to you. What city consultants did you refer to? in your comment regarding outdoor seating. |
| 02:29:07.68 | Michael Rex | Oh, it was the city's Environmental consultants, Turnbull, and fierce LAMPFORD What's her name? Lamford Pierce. It's Lamford Gregory, sorry. They had a historical firm that were specialized in historic restoration. And they had a firm specializing environmental analysis. Um, uh, They came back and said, Uh, We think you're making a a significant negative impact because your design is not consistent with the downtown guidelines. One of the main things was They wanted muttons in the windows |
| 02:29:53.78 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 02:29:57.19 | Michael Rex | They wanted a few other changes. We made them all. Okay. |
| 02:30:02.41 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. I just wanted to know who the consultant was. |
| 02:30:04.85 | Michael Rex | Yeah, Liz City's consultant. |
| 02:30:06.22 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for clarifying that. |
| 02:30:07.58 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:30:09.36 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Can I ask a question about that? Did you have the tables out at the table? |
| 02:30:09.73 | Michael Rex | Can you ask a question about that? |
| 02:30:10.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But did you have the tables out at this time? |
| 02:30:13.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Hold on, hold on, Commissioner. I'm sorry. |
| 02:30:15.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:30:15.06 | Unknown | So. |
| 02:30:15.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:30:15.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:16.53 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, Director Whelan. |
| 02:30:18.59 | Director Whelan | So sorry to interrupt there. Just wanted to mention that Stacy with Paige and Turnbull is here tonight. If the commission has any questions about the CEQA analysis and the |
| 02:30:30.72 | Nastassya Saad | No, no question. I don't think we have questions on CEQA, but thank you. Okay. |
| 02:30:35.61 | Michael Rex | You wanted to answer Jess's question? |
| 02:30:37.67 | Nastassya Saad | All right. I think at this point, um, Let's get back to the deliberation. ask if there's any other comments from the commission and if not, I'll entertain a motion Thank you. |
| 02:30:54.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | My comment is, I mean, Mr. Rex sort of dismissed this setback. I think this setback is important. I think that I don't know that the historical consultant knew that they were putting something in front of the building, which is in essence now a building. And if we set that back, it might meet their concerns by setting it back and still, I'm not suggesting recessing the whole front, just recessing the stuff so that the tables are now at the building line, so to speak. So, but I believe that he dismissed that and If it comes back without addressing that, we're going to go back and continue it again. So I think he's really got to look at that. |
| 02:31:39.03 | Nastassya Saad | I think he's really good. Sure, and I think that those are the comments that are perhaps part of the condition Um, uh, for continuing this particular application. And which is why we asked the applicant to come back up here just a moment ago to confirm his understanding of what we're asking for. So at this point I would entertain. a motion from the commission. It appears that we are all leaning towards granting the continuance that this applicant has asked for with the comments that we've made. Um, so do I have emotions? |
| 02:32:20.80 | Morgan Pierce | I'll move that we continue to date. Do we have a date certain? It was the request. Do we have a date certain from staff? |
| 02:32:27.24 | Nastassya Saad | Director Whelan. Do, can you help us with your, with our calendar there that you're keeping for us? Is there a date certain that we can identify? |
| 02:32:37.62 | Director Whelan | Sure. So the, um, The two meetings in April, I heard a month out. So the first meeting in April is the 7th. The next meeting is the 21st, both meetings. are full at this point. However, if the commission anticipates this item will be abbreviated, we can add this to the agenda for either the 7th or the 21st. |
| 02:33:05.40 | Nastassya Saad | I think without seeing the agendas ourselves, is there one that is lighter than the other? |
| 02:33:11.32 | Director Whelan | I think the seventh would actually be better. in terms of what we have on the agenda right now, April 7th. |
| 02:33:19.22 | Nastassya Saad | So I think we should continue it till April 7th. |
| 02:33:23.59 | Morgan Pierce | So move to continue the meeting to the regular planning commission meeting of April 7th for the project at 719-725 Bridgeway, project ID DRCPEATMTRPSP17-487. |
| 02:33:44.80 | Nastassya Saad | Excellent. Thank you, Chair Brad. |
| 02:33:48.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'd like to amend that motion. if I could. and add to that, a requirement that the applicant submit the revised plans in enough time to the Community Development Department so that Lily and her staff and through her outside consultant can review those and in the event that I think there are, I know, we've been pretty clear tonight what we're looking for. If it doesn't meet that, they send it back to them to for revisions before we see it so that we're not going to be in the situation where it comes in the Friday before Wednesday and and then clearly we're going to have to continue it again. So I think the staff understands what these were fairly clear. If they haven't done all these things, then send them back and refine the design, fix the designs, whatever, so that when we get them, they can be relatively quick on that very alignment, Jen. So I motioned that the amendment is just to have the staff look at and send back to the applicant anything that has not addressed to be addressed before the final submission. |
| 02:35:10.88 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. And... |
| 02:35:11.74 | Morgan Pierce | Madam Chair, I assume that's implied, but if they'd like me to accept that amendment to the motion, I will. |
| 02:35:18.24 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I mean, I do agree that it's implied, but for the avoidance of any doubt, let's just make sure that amendment is there And if you want to confirm that that's the motion and if I can confirm the second on that motion. |
| 02:35:32.46 | Morgan Pierce | I will confirm the motion as amended. |
| 02:35:36.28 | Nastassya Saad | chair. |
| 02:35:39.87 | Richard Graef | Oh yes, the second, yes. |
| 02:35:41.59 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you very much. Okay. |
| 02:35:42.60 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 02:35:43.79 | Nastassya Saad | Community Director Whalen, can you please call the roll? |
| 02:35:48.48 | Director Whelan | Commissioner Saad? Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 02:35:52.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:35:52.90 | Director Whelan | Commissioner Pierce. Thank you. |
| 02:35:54.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 02:35:54.52 | Director Whelan | Vice Chair Graff? |
| 02:35:55.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:35:56.21 | Director Whelan | Cheer Feller. Thank you. |
| 02:35:57.24 | Karen Shelton | Yeah. |
| 02:35:57.49 | Director Whelan | that carries 5-0 to continue to the April 7th meeting of the Planning Commission. |
| 02:36:04.36 | Nastassya Saad | Excellent. We're looking forward to seeing that back up here. So thank you very much, everybody. And Director Whalen, can you Please identify the next item on our agenda. |
| 02:36:15.65 | Director Whelan | I'd be happy to. Your next public hearing item tonight is item 4B, which is a request for approval of for a tree removal permit to remove four trees at 21 Atwood. And we have our assistant planner, Larissa Alchin, who's going to be giving the staff a presentation this evening. Hi, Larissa. |
| 02:36:35.61 | Larissa | to share my screen. |
| 02:36:42.22 | Larissa | with it. Karen Baxter, everyone see that. Yep. Yep. Okay, so this is for a tree removal permit at 21 Atwood. |
| 02:36:56.84 | Larissa | The tree location is in our one six single family residential zone. There are three trees that are proposed for removal. There's also the fourth tree which has brought up in the Arborist report which is a column instead but because it was mentioned in the Arborist report it's included here. but it is already, um, falling down. And you can see from the map, provided where exactly on the property the trees are located. |
| 02:37:40.53 | Larissa | Um, The project description is on the applicants submitted for the tree removal permit. This is a property they, the applicants live in the house next door. This property they just closed on a couple days ago. Um, The trees are budding the existing house. And the tree that fell down is actually over the deck in the back. The property has not been cared for over the years, which has led to the overgrown nature the property and the trees, That house right now is uninhabitable and unsafe and will be either demolished or substantially remodeled in the future. That project has not been decided on yet. So the ARBURST report shows tree one as Eugenia shows. not quite sure how to say that name, Eugenia, 18 inches in diameter at breast height. It's located along the front stairs and is pressing on the Holmes foundation. |
| 02:38:52.99 | Larissa | Tree two is a similar tree. It's 11 diameters in height. I'm located along the pathway. I'm also pressing on the foundation of the home. Tree four, I know the label on the tree, sorry, it's tree three, but it's labeled tree four on accident. That's just mislabeled. It is a beech tree. It is located near the back patio. pressing on the home, the roof, and the storage room foundation. The arborist found that these three trees should be removed as they have outgrown their planting space and are causing damage. And tree four, which is what you're seeing the branches over the patio in this photo is falling onto the back patio. and will also be removed at the same time. So the findings for tree removal are, there's three findings. While the first three trees are in good health, they are pushing up against the foundation of the home. And because the home will be remodeled or demolished at some point, |
| 02:40:00.69 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:40:05.33 | Larissa | Um, would help in that way. So finding one has been found, finding two, The applicant would like to request the planning commission waive the true replacement requirement There was a late male attached. to the agenda from property owner Jane asking for a waiver on this requirement. Alternately, you could require tree replacement in the future. And then finding three, we could not find anything that would prevent finding three. And so that part has also been |
| 02:40:50.30 | Larissa | And the staff recommends that the group overclass be approved and the attached resolution also approved. |
| 02:41:01.88 | Larissa | And that's the end of my presentation. Do you have any questions? |
| 02:41:07.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much, Larissa, for the presentation and for taking the time to go to site and have a look at these yourself. At this time I'd like to ask the commissioners if they have any questions for you, Larissa or staff at all. Um, uh, chair. Yeah. Commissioner Pierce. |
| 02:41:28.56 | Morgan Pierce | I have one question. It's regarding the late mail from Jane Hook. Yesterday, who offered another possibility to contribute to Sauslito's street tree fund in lieu of replacement trees. And I wanted to ask staff, is there a Sauslito street tree fund? How might that work? |
| 02:41:48.49 | Larissa | We, um, I'm sure Lily can add on to this. We did talk to public works and we do not have a street free fund It was something we had discussed Lily, do you want to add on to that? |
| 02:42:02.58 | Director Whelan | Sure, thanks, Larissa. Yeah, we actually have crafted a condition if the commission would like to consider that direction that would require the applicant to contribute to street trees or trees in city parks. to be I mean, the tree would be determined by the Public Works Department and then paid for it by the applicant. if the commission wants to consider offsite trees. |
| 02:42:34.67 | Morgan Pierce | but it's not just a year. |
| 02:42:36.67 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Actually, Laura, you can probably stop sharing your screen here. Um, |
| 02:42:42.76 | Morgan Pierce | Oh, I did have one question for staff, sorry. |
| 02:42:45.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:42:45.59 | Morgan Pierce | And again, thank you for providing the the location of tree removal permits for 2021. I think in the future, we'd like to look back more like 12 months or maybe even up to 36 months just to see where the impacts of tree removal permits have been done recently in the community. |
| 02:43:03.75 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. That's a great point. push your thoughts You're on mute there. Here we go. |
| 02:43:12.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Chair Feller I had one question of staff I just heard you correctly did you say that we can require that a tree replacement can be done at a Later date. Does that mean that we would take an action now and clarify a date or that we can make some type of ruling at a later time. |
| 02:43:36.34 | Larissa | Well, I think it would be a condition that would say prior to removal of the trees, arborist would need to put together a plan for the future trees to be planted. It's difficult at this time because the plans for the property are, are not clear. So, location or species of tree at this point might be difficult to determine by an arborist. So, but that is something we could add in that within two years of approval of this permit, a tree replacement should be planted. |
| 02:44:19.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:44:19.72 | Larissa | Thank you. |
| 02:44:21.58 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for clarifying. |
| 02:44:22.79 | Larissa | Thank you. |
| 02:44:22.81 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:44:22.83 | Larissa | Thank you. |
| 02:44:22.96 | Nastassya Saad | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:44:23.98 | Nastassya Saad | Any other questions, Commissioner Saad? |
| 02:44:26.25 | Nastassya Saad | No, thank you very much. |
| 02:44:27.99 | Nastassya Saad | Um, Okay, I'm gonna go to Vice Chair Graph. |
| 02:44:33.37 | Richard Graef | I have questions. Not really, except for the tree replacement it would be pretty hard to anticipate the future of the development of that property, not knowing whether I'm not sure. structure is going to be, you know, like, uh, fixed or taken down on something new put there. In either case, it would be coming before the commissions. and it would probably include or be required to include a landscape plan with trees. And at that point, we would probably figure out what's okay Um, So I'm not sure that that we can condition this in such a way that that you know. that we could evaluate what that future condition is. I'm, kind of interested in the idea of that Jane Hook suggested I know that's been done before. I know that's been done before. We need all the trees we can. I'm not sure. but I think if I'm reading this right, whenever they knew Whenever they're I'm going to ask you a question. I'm not sure. I would like to a project next door would include Um, all the vegetation and the trees, and we'd deal with it at that time. |
| 02:46:21.64 | Nastassya Saad | So is there a question like that, are you asking if, if, if, are you asking staff if, how to if this- |
| 02:46:30.11 | Richard Graef | I'm asking if I'm reading that correctly. In other words, rather than specifying right now what kind of we might want to replace on the property, We can't do that because we don't know what the development is gonna be. Ahem. And we would have to deal with that anyway. when there was a proposal made. if I understanding our usual procedures. spot. In lieu of that, but in addition to that, I think it would be good to advocate Okay. they, in the meantime, um, Thank you. donate trees to the city. I think that's a good solution since there's no knowledge of what that's gonna be developed next door. |
| 02:47:27.96 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. I mean, we can deliberate that after we also hear from the app. |
| 02:47:30.75 | Richard Graef | So, yeah. Sure. |
| 02:47:31.91 | Nastassya Saad | But. |
| 02:47:32.43 | Richard Graef | My question was, I was just trying to clarify the situation. |
| 02:47:39.69 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 02:47:40.18 | Richard Graef | So. Oh. That's it. |
| 02:47:43.88 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Okay. Commissioner Luxenberg. I see her off camera and on the edge. |
| 02:47:51.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not yet. |
| 02:47:53.12 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Okay, there you are. |
| 02:47:55.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 02:47:56.06 | Nastassya Saad | Grabbing dinner, hopefully, something. |
| 02:47:58.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, no, I'm just sitting here listening. |
| 02:48:00.78 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Did you have any questions for staff? |
| 02:48:04.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | for this project. |
| 02:48:06.66 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:48:07.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, as I said earlier, I excluded myself because I live within 500 feet. So I can't participate. That's why I turned my video off. |
| 02:48:14.44 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, hi. |
| 02:48:18.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:48:18.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I muted myself. |
| 02:48:20.73 | Nastassya Saad | That was my oversight, forgive me. So you can go back to camera off and unmute. So forgive me for that. |
| 02:48:27.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. My mistake. OK. I'm here when you need me, but I can't comment because of the material. |
| 02:48:27.78 | Nastassya Saad | My mistake is Bye. Thank you. |
| 02:48:34.96 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 02:48:34.99 | Nastassya Saad | My mistake. |
| 02:48:35.33 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 02:48:35.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:48:35.40 | Morgan Pierce | my mistake. Thank you. The dynamic of the Zoom environment. |
| 02:48:36.64 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, we're wrong. Yeah, exactly. I do actually have a couple questions for staff that maybe you can help me clarify and Jeff, Jeff go back to off camera. Um, So If I'm reading this correctly, Larissa, this house is not only not occupied, but it said it was not occupiable, like not livable. Is that correct? Yes. It's uninhabitable. |
| 02:49:02.04 | Larissa | Exactly. |
| 02:49:05.05 | Nastassya Saad | Uninhabitable. There we go. |
| 02:49:05.18 | Unknown | in the community. |
| 02:49:07.10 | Nastassya Saad | Um, And so the owner of this property is going to be looking for some kind of, to, to renovated or bring up to a livable standard habitable standard. Um, I don't have a problem. It's clear that these are very, very healthy trees, but we also don't really know the future of what they intend to do. So I don't know if these trees can actually be, have you looked at or spoken to the arborists to see if these trees can be, salvaged if this is remodeled in a way or torn down and rebuilt in a way that that is away from those roots. |
| 02:49:47.35 | Larissa | I haven't spoken to the arborist and it wasn't addressed in the report in any way. |
| 02:49:53.00 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. And, um, And and. Is there a reason why the applicant is looking to remove these trees now without a plan on how to their property. Do you know, have you asked them that? |
| 02:50:10.01 | Larissa | I can let them answer a little bit further when they Sure. |
| 02:50:15.23 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:50:15.63 | Larissa | but I'm, know they they don't want any further damage to the property while they decide on what they want are going to do so the trees are already causing some damage and it could further damage the home in the meantime. Sure. Probably won't. |
| 02:50:30.21 | Nastassya Saad | I mean, it's pretty clear Um, yeah, I understand that. Okay. Well, I would, I think I, most of my questions should be probably saved until such time as we can, maybe the applicant can help answer some of them. Uh, at this time, do the commissioners have any other questions? for staff at this time. No? Okay. Then I'm going to ask the applicant come up on screen. to provide their presentation. And Lewis, I'm not sure who that will be for the applicant. This is Jane Hook. Jane Hook. Okay. Well, welcome. Welcome, Ms. Hook. You'll have 15 minutes. |
| 02:51:12.70 | Larissa | Yeah. |
| 02:51:20.05 | Nastassya Saad | to provide your presentation, your If we stop you and ask questions in the middle of that time will not count against you. And if there's anybody else that you would like, to present with you. you can do that as well or save time until the end if you want to do that. So hopefully you can- |
| 02:51:36.97 | Morgan Pierce | We typically don't give 15 for tree removal just because they're much simpler than Other applications, you may want to modify that. |
| 02:51:46.57 | Nastassya Saad | modified to 10, do we usually give it to 10? |
| 02:51:48.80 | Morgan Pierce | We've done it to ten, we've done it five, depending on how much ten has probably happened. |
| 02:51:52.26 | Nastassya Saad | Let's go ahead and do 10 then of course you've heard some of our questions so if Zoom team, you can put that to 10. And then Ms. Hook will hand that over to you if you can see the comment timer and welcome. |
| 02:52:08.00 | Jane Hook | Jane Hook, I'm the property owner of the I share a driveway with this house. that has been poorly maintained since before I bought my house in 1993. and is the houses in a, condition of great overgrowth and disrepair It is not safe to live in at present. The water and all utilities are off. The... Please. in the front yard are Um, quite overgrown. But those aren't the ones that we're requesting to remove. We're trying to remove the trees that are directly next to the foundation so that we can measure the house so that we can rebuild it as is on the current footprint. That is going to be a substantial remodel. We think that's the best way to handle it given the It's a long, narrow lot. and that this would be the best use of the space. Plus it was a Camel and Wong, I believe, designed house. I'm not positive, I'm still working on that. But it's a beautiful house and it's a really nice aspect on Atwood. to have. That is our intention. Um, The house is in much more worse condition than it was before. We only got in the house for the first time in January. So we bought it basically sight unseen. And because it is in our direct view line and we would like to preserve our property as well. end develop it. I think it's a nice addition. So the trees are near the foundation or in the foundation. They are grossly overgrown. the backyard right now is not accessible. You saw the Debris, there is substantially more debris that has come out of the house now as the owner started to move out. And we, um, It's also overgrown with a lot of ivy. Several years ago, there was a tree dispute with an adjacent neighbor an arborist was involved. I didn't bring that report in. It's not my report. But I do know that there's a lot of other trees further up on the property line back behind. So the backyard is going to be gorgeous when it's finished and we would probably have to be taking out other existing trees, smaller trees, that once we clear off all the ivy and underbrush and this dead oak tree that's fallen down, it was a beautiful big tree. that's fallen down the hill. we would be having to probably remove something in order to plant a replacement tree. That's one of the reasons we asked for the waiver If nothing else, we'd like to ask for postponement until we can get closer as I'm going to be suggested. until we get closer to doing building plans and things like that. I've run into that before. you know, in terms of a landscape plan further down the road. But right now we don't even have asked built so. Respectfully, we ask that you allow us to take out these trees They're doing nothing for the house. In fact, they're digging, they're undermining the foundation. And they were poorly poorly located from the beginning. And, um, They're growing up through the wood in the house. It's just I did not submit a total picture. But there's plenty of green around. And we do intend to keep green. So. Thank you very much. Any questions for me? |
| 02:56:18.40 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much, Ms. Huck. I appreciate you, your presentation and trying to take care of a property here in Sausalito. At this time, we can go ahead and stop the clock, Zoom team. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicants? Jennifer Pierce? |
| 02:56:38.78 | Morgan Pierce | Um, I don't think so. I guess I do have one. Ms. Hook, the suggestion you made about donating trees to Sausalito, whether it's in parks or something, is that still something you'd be willing to consider? |
| 02:56:53.27 | Jane Hook | I would be, I don't know. You know, it was just suggested to me that I might pop that out as an idea. I do donate to Sausalito Beautiful anyhow, so I don't mind donating a little more. |
| 02:57:03.06 | Karen Shelton | Yeah. |
| 02:57:06.17 | Jane Hook | But, um, You know, of, Yeah, I would do that if I, if I, yeah, I guess so. I don't know how much it would be. |
| 02:57:14.88 | Morgan Pierce | It's just nice for us to know all the options available. |
| 02:57:17.80 | Jane Hook | You know, would it be per tree or whatever? I mean, these, you know. Um, Who knows, right? Or do I just bump up my contribution a little bit? |
| 02:57:29.61 | Morgan Pierce | Well, just for clarification, I typically do a value value for value. Traditionally an arborist would have given us some value for the trees that are being removed and we would apply that to what would be proposed to be replaced. I'm not sure that's Different in this scenario, perhaps, but I'm interested to hear what my fellow commissioners' questions are |
| 02:57:52.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Pierce. Commissioner Saad, do you have any questions for the applicant? |
| 02:57:57.62 | Nastassya Saad | You know, actually just listening to all this, I think I have a question for staff. Um, and maybe it's just a legality question, but if a tree has fallen over, does that require Our approval. Um, I can understand those other three trees make sense to come before us, but do we need to rule on a fallen tree? |
| 02:58:23.67 | Larissa | the fourth tree I don't think they state that it had fallen. I don't think they state that it had fallen. I just wanted to leave that into the staff report and the presentation. Don't think you need a tree removal permit for that, |
| 02:58:38.96 | Karen Shelton | it was. |
| 02:58:39.66 | Larissa | mentioned and I wanted to make sure it was covered and so you knew where the tree was and what was happening with that tree. Now. |
| 02:58:47.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Okay. DIRECTOR HAMPSON- Thank you. I don't think I have any questions for the for the applicant though. Thank you Chair Feller. |
| 02:58:57.95 | Jane Hook | Thank you. |
| 02:58:58.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:58:58.98 | Jane Hook | Thank you. |
| 02:58:59.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:58:59.15 | Jane Hook | I'm going to make it. |
| 02:58:59.23 | Nastassya Saad | May I? |
| 02:58:59.97 | Jane Hook | address something. |
| 02:59:01.69 | Nastassya Saad | Well, hold on just a moment. Let me ask if Vice Chair Graff has any questions for the applicant. |
| 02:59:09.35 | Richard Graef | Um, no. Not now. |
| 02:59:12.90 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, certainly. Yes, you have some time left on your on your clock. So absolutely. |
| 02:59:19.21 | Jane Hook | I just wanted to speak to the oak. that was fallen. The root ball, I don't think the arborist walk could climb up the hill to get to it. because there's so much debris. and the branches have fallen down. The root ball is exposed. It's significantly up the hill. And the tree is maybe has a few little dead piece, a few little live parts on it where the root ball is still attached in the ground But it is a four foot root ball. that is sticking up through the ivy. So. |
| 02:59:58.87 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. It's quite |
| 03:00:00.07 | Jane Hook | It's quite dead. It's not salvageable. |
| 03:00:01.89 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Bye. I'm not. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I guess the question that I have for you is with your intent to sort of restore this property, to not only habitable, but a lovely addition to your neighborhood along Atwood. Um, You mentioned that there were a number of other trees that you thought might have to be removed in doing so. And so if, if this commission um required replacement of the trees that you're requesting that that you have a tree removal permit if we, um, uh, applied that to whatever design you would be coming up with. uh, later on for the design of the property. and the landscape plan and so on, and that it be included in there and that be part of the, approval that would have to be Um, considered for a permit in the future, would you be willing to do so? |
| 03:01:14.09 | Jane Hook | Would I be willing to, the question is, would I be willing to include replacement trees in the up in future land? Possibly, yes. Yes. You know, I think so. Um, I think that it's the property is going to be quite crowded, but you know, There's a bay tree, a bay laurel. There's a Chinese elm. There's a grove, there's some oaks back there. This might be another Eugenia or two. I don't know, the Eugenias are very fast growing, so Like I said, I haven't walked the back of the property since 2015 when there was this trade dispute and I was allowed back there. |
| 03:01:57.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:01:57.30 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 03:01:57.92 | Jane Hook | So that's when I saw the dead oath. |
| 03:01:58.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:01:58.41 | Nastassya Saad | And that's when |
| 03:01:59.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:02:00.60 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. I think it's just premature to sort of defer any tree replacement, you know, until we really know, particularly if no one's been up in the top, So I just wanted to make sure that you were open to the idea. Yeah. |
| 03:02:15.54 | Jane Hook | Yeah, yeah, I just don't think that, In the staff report, they were asking to have Um, in two months planting or a planting plant, |
| 03:02:26.98 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:02:27.11 | Jane Hook | And I mean, they'll probably take us that long to clear the back of the property. And there was no water and no power right now. |
| 03:02:35.70 | Nastassya Saad | No, no, I don't. |
| 03:02:36.14 | Jane Hook | Those services have been terminated. |
| 03:02:38.72 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, no, we understand that and understand, you know, there's not, without knowing what you're going to do with the property there's not a lot of sense in rushing to plant something today or in a couple of months. Certainly trees are an important part of the environment of Sausalito. and to the properties, individual properties in Sausalito. So I just wanted to I asked that question. I don't have. |
| 03:03:05.83 | Director Whelan | Oh, yeah. |
| 03:03:05.89 | Jane Hook | Thank you. |
| 03:03:07.48 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, absolutely. |
| 03:03:07.68 | Director Whelan | Absolutely. |
| 03:03:08.27 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:03:08.36 | Jane Hook | Thank you. |
| 03:03:09.27 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, great, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hook. Director Whelan. |
| 03:03:13.84 | Director Whelan | Thank you, Chair Feller. If I could just clarify the condition that was just discussed, I think there's a little bit of a misunderstanding. The condition does not require replacement trees within two months of removing. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, The trees, the condition requires that within two months of the timeframe identified by the arborist in. the tree planting plan that they would provide. that the trees be planted. So the arborist could suggest a timeout in the future, the Planning Commission could put a cap on that time. |
| 03:03:43.19 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 03:03:43.41 | Director Whelan | THE END OF THE END OF THE um, And that would guarantee that replacement trees are thoughtfully placed on the property at an appropriate time. And if that coincides with development, plans for the property owner, then the Planning Commission could consider the replacement trees at that meeting and the condition would be fulfilled. |
| 03:03:58.00 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:03:58.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:58.04 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 03:04:03.49 | Nastassya Saad | Great, thank you, Director Whelan, for clarifying that. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you, Ms. Hook. I appreciate your presentation. Let's pull it back up here to our virtual dais for discussion. Yes. |
| 03:04:20.55 | Unknown | Do we listen to public comments? |
| 03:04:22.71 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, okay. Yes. |
| 03:04:24.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:04:26.59 | Nastassya Saad | I've been off on this one, thank you. for keeping me on the straight and narrow commissioner Pierce Yes, at this time. We'll take public comment. And, um, Thank you. if you could please raise your hand virtually in the Zoom application or on your phone, I think it's star nine. the Zoom team can help clarify that. So if you could do so, I'll give you a minute or so to find all those... functions and buttons in Zoom. |
| 03:04:57.44 | Nastassya Saad | I do not see any hands raised in the public Zoom team, can you just confirm that you don't see anything either? |
| 03:05:10.09 | Maria | That is correct, Chair Feltler. |
| 03:05:12.57 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you so much. So let's go ahead and close public comments. and bring the discussion back up to the virtual dais. Anyone want to start us out here? Mr. Pierce. |
| 03:05:27.76 | Morgan Pierce | Why not? I'll jump right in. Yeah, no, I appreciate the presentation and information provided by the applicant. You know, I have great concerns about |
| 03:05:27.78 | Nastassya Saad | I know. |
| 03:05:38.73 | Morgan Pierce | trees growing in that proximity to houses and the implications they have on foundations and framing and drainage and fire. So with that, I would be able to make the findings to grant the tree removal permit. However, since the applicant It's sort of an indeterminate timeline for the approval. I applaud their intent to restore this Campbell and what alleged Campbell and long mid-century home. The glimpses I got of it, clearly showed that it was something special and worthy of consideration and restoration. So I wish them great success in that. I also know that things like that can take much longer than any of us anticipate. And that being the case, I would hate for us to prolong some way to address the tree replacement to some indeterminate timeframe, or even, you know, who knows if Ms. Hook wins the lottery between now and that time and moves off to Fiji and sells it to somebody else and they forget about it. replacement trees. So with that in mind, I'd be more inclined to pursue a path of some sort of in-kind contribution to the city for a replacement tree or trees in a park. the value of which we can leave up to the planning department to determine, or we can ask them to have the arborist determine the value of the trees that are being removed and that the replacements would be, have some commensurate value. So those would be my recommendations. |
| 03:07:08.67 | Nastassya Saad | and I think that's a good thing. Anybody else's thoughts on, on that or, or another idea? proposal. Yes, Vice Chair. |
| 03:07:18.93 | Richard Graef | Um, I would just... I would like to echo Pierce's um I agree. All right. I think those trees need to go. I'm not sure. What happens in the future, we'll deal with in the future. if Ms. Hook is willing to, eat some trees to the town. I think that would be a wonderful thing to do. |
| 03:07:50.08 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Saad, do you have any thoughts? |
| 03:07:52.53 | Nastassya Saad | I'll keep it brief I completely agree I definitely support a motion that, um, supported some type of donation completely agree that they need to go. I think we all hate to see trees go, but I think it's quite obvious that there's some issues and definitely potentially fire hazard. definitely agree with my fellow commissioners. |
| 03:08:12.92 | Nastassya Saad | Great. Thank you. Yeah, I think there's no question I can make the findings to remove these trees. Absolutely, without question. Um, And I agree, Commissioner Pierce, it's, you know, we don't know the timeframe we're talking about here in terms of replacement, But I think that based on the comments from the applicant and taking four times. fairly mature trees off of this property. and the potential of more coming off this property, Hope that part of the restoration of this property is, is, replacement trees on the property. |
| 03:08:53.64 | Karen Shelton | the process. |
| 03:08:55.19 | Nastassya Saad | Um, Not that our parks and our public realm don't always want and need more vegetation. But I think that we're taking a lot out of that area, and I would hate to not require replacement in there as part of that restoration project. So perhaps there's a way or a caveat that we can identify or a requirement that conveys with any future building permit or demo permit on that property that those replacement trees go are placed there. I don't know the answer to that. We'll have to ask our community development director Um, but I would just hate to I would hate to leave that property without proper vegetation. |
| 03:09:50.45 | Morgan Pierce | Well, yes, as you can see from the aerial photos and going by there, there is no shortage of vegetation. And as the applicant presented, she would have a difficult time finding places for the replacement trees to go that obviously wouldn't grow into the house. again. So I'd be more willing to consider replacement trees when there's an applicable, not replacement trees, but obviously if new trees, if other trees are going to be |
| 03:10:04.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:10:15.65 | Morgan Pierce | removed at a future date Um, the planning commission could address that then, whether it's this commission or another commission. But if we're able to, this commission can address this, these trees now, at least there's no net loss of trees in our community. |
| 03:10:34.18 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, that's a really good point. That's a fair point. And certainly from the aerial, it's hard for me to determine which trees are on this 21 out which which aren't but but your point |
| 03:10:42.80 | Morgan Pierce | you |
| 03:10:42.97 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 03:10:43.02 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 03:10:45.79 | Nastassya Saad | Your point's well made. So I guess we'd have to assign some type of monetary value to the trees and ask that that in kind be donated to the city tree program preferably for perhaps a park or or something like that. |
| 03:11:04.79 | Morgan Pierce | And we'd leave that up to the city to determine where their needs are. |
| 03:11:10.25 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Yeah. I'm community development director. Waylon. Can you? Back up on, yeah, there we go. So If we approve the tree removal permits here for these, let's just call it four trees, even though it's questionable one, whether it's removal or not, Um, And there's an assigned value to these trees. Can, is there a mechanism or vehicle for you to work with DPW to determine where those trees should go and can we give you a time frame for which to do so. |
| 03:11:57.84 | Director Whelan | Yes, thank you, Chair Feller. Yes, we can definitely work with the Public Works Director and his staff on where the trees would go and what species they would be. I would recommend similar to Commissioner Pierce's comments that once the value PB, Sarah Silver, Of the trees be removed as assigned by the arborist then possibly the that condition could read that the applicant would be responsible for contributing up to that value. and first retreat so that it leaves some latitude with the public works director if there are trees that, um, that would work in a certain area. that it could be. less than that value. |
| 03:12:43.08 | Nastassya Saad | Right, but in terms of the timeframe, I mean, we would want them, I mean, obviously, certain trees need to be planted in certain seasons and times of year. But we don't. We don't want to wait 10 years for this to be done either. We can identify to you. |
| 03:12:56.21 | Unknown | either. |
| 03:12:59.47 | Nastassya Saad | um, sort of when things have to be done within a certain amount of time. Planted. |
| 03:13:05.85 | Director Whelan | I could if I could recommend maybe a year time and that would give us time to go through the seasons here and pick the right time for that planting to occur. |
| 03:13:14.61 | Nastassya Saad | How do you guys feel about that? |
| 03:13:14.67 | Director Whelan | That makes sense. |
| 03:13:18.39 | Nastassya Saad | Bishop here. |
| 03:13:18.74 | Director Whelan | Thank you. |
| 03:13:18.77 | Richard Graef | There. |
| 03:13:19.72 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 03:13:21.54 | Richard Graef | Thank you. I have just one question, and I'll let it go. um, the the concept of of in-kind donation. which Jane has I offered Can that be a requirement? Can it be a condition? I mean, backing off from that just slightly, just to get a little perspective, So, I frankly don't see the need to replace the trees that need to be taken out. since they are and the property that's potential fire hazards and all that. Um, because there's no place to replace them on the property. under the present conditions. So, I'm just wondering, is uh, is the in-kind replacement something that can actually be a condition of of approval of the removal permit. I I'm supporting the idea, totally. I'm just wondering if it's... |
| 03:14:36.77 | Unknown | Yes, it's a future. |
| 03:14:41.28 | Richard Graef | where that fits in the sort of big legal picture. |
| 03:14:45.34 | Nastassya Saad | So if maybe we can ask our city attorney I'm not sure. that question and perhaps she can. clarify. if that has legal standing or if that's enforceable. |
| 03:15:03.50 | Mary Wagner | Sure, thanks. I'm actually looking at your tree ordinance at the moment and trying to find that section and if Lily or Larissa has at their fingertips, we can We can get there probably a little more quickly. |
| 03:15:15.74 | Lily Whalen | Thanks. |
| 03:15:16.02 | Director Whelan | Thanks, Mary. |
| 03:15:17.03 | Director Whelan | now at 11, 11, 12, 030. be that's the criteria to grant to treat permanent. It must be determined that either it's replaced by a desirable trait or you waive the requirement, Planning Commissioner waives the requirement. definition of The desirable tree is a tree that's been approved for the location. the specific location by the Planning Commission or City Engineer, in consultation with an arborist acting on behalf of the city. So I think that gives the latitude to direct the location of the tree offsite, but I'll let Mary weigh in on that. |
| 03:16:00.71 | Mary Wagner | So to the first question, can you condition this tree removal permit on the replacement of the tree? And I think the answer to that is yes. |
| 03:16:08.94 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:16:09.47 | Mary Wagner | to whether or not you can require it or condition it on being planted in a different location, I think that you can do that as well. And in this case, you also have an applicant who's agreeing to that that condition. |
| 03:16:25.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:16:25.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:16:25.45 | Mary Wagner | So I think you're |
| 03:16:25.46 | Nastassya Saad | So I think- |
| 03:16:26.54 | Mary Wagner | You're on strong legal footing. |
| 03:16:28.91 | Unknown | Sure. OK. |
| 03:16:30.22 | Nastassya Saad | That's good. Thank you so much for confirming that to us. Okay. So I actually think we're we're in agreement here. Um, about proving the tree removal permits. as required. |
| 03:16:47.70 | David Siddow | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:16:48.19 | Nastassya Saad | and requiring replacement trees. to be planted Um, as direct, you know, on city property. as directed by DPW. and add a value that is identified by the arborist, and we can direct the city to work with the arborist to identify that. Sounds like to me. |
| 03:17:14.86 | Morgan Pierce | Is that emotional? |
| 03:17:16.10 | Nastassya Saad | No, I'm not making the most. It sounded like one. |
| 03:17:17.91 | Morgan Pierce | I'm sorry. |
| 03:17:17.96 | Nastassya Saad | Sounded like one. Thank you. |
| 03:17:18.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. . Including. |
| 03:17:20.85 | Nastassya Saad | It was perfectly worded. Remember that. You're allowed to make a motion. |
| 03:17:22.50 | Morgan Pierce | You're allowed to make a motion. |
| 03:17:24.02 | Chris Park | Thank you. |
| 03:17:25.69 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, well, okay, I'll make a motion. I make a motion that we approve the the tree permits. at 21 Atwood. and that we require replacement trees to be planted at the direction of DPW on city land in lieu of on at 21 Atwood. and the species and the value to be determined between city staff and And... and the applicants. |
| 03:17:59.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:18:00.03 | Morgan Pierce | Mm-hmm. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not sure. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:18:02.26 | Nastassya Saad | I have a second. |
| 03:18:04.00 | Morgan Pierce | I'll second that. |
| 03:18:05.55 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Director Whelan, could you please take the roll? |
| 03:18:20.62 | Lily Whalen | Commissioner Saad. |
| 03:18:21.46 | Director Whelan | Thank you. |
| 03:18:21.83 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 03:18:21.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:18:22.09 | Director Whelan | Thank you. |
| 03:18:22.93 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 03:18:23.03 | Director Whelan | Commissioner Pierce. |
| 03:18:23.86 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 03:18:23.89 | Director Whelan | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:18:24.09 | Lily Whalen | Yes. |
| 03:18:24.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:18:24.48 | Director Whelan | Thank you. I mean, I'm going to go to Vice Chair |
| 03:18:27.35 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:18:28.09 | Director Whelan | and Chair Feller. Thank you. So that carries four, zero with one abstention. Absolutely. |
| 03:18:37.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much, Director Whalen. Would you like to read the next item on our agenda? |
| 03:18:45.27 | Director Whelan | For our next and last item this evening we're moving on to from our public hearing items to our. study session items on our agenda. This is item 5A, which is a request for A study session to review a design review permit and a lot line adjustment to renovate and expand an existing single family home and construct a new detached single family residence at 110 fourth street. Study session of the planning commission will be held this evening. to familiarize commissioners and the public with the proposal and provide an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments. The study session meeting tonight is obviously open to the public and includes a public comment period. and no decisions or actions on the requested entitlements will be taken tonight at the study session. and We have Cecilia. I thought I saw Cecilia. There she is. There's Cecilia a contract planner who will be giving the presentation this evening. |
| 03:19:50.48 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Good evening, Madam Chair, Vice Chair and Commissioners. I'm Cecilia. Jaroslavsky contract planner presenting this item to you tonight with your permission. I would like to share my screen. |
| 03:20:11.72 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Mm-hmm. And can everyone see my screen? |
| 03:20:18.49 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 03:20:19.22 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Great. Thank you. You have before you a proposed project located at 110 4th Street to be reviewed in the study session. Please note, Commissioners, there's a reference in the staff report to an attachment D. that should have read attachment E for neighborhoods So I apologize for that error. The applicant supplied for a design review permit for the renovation of an existing single family residence and new construction of an additional detached single-family structure on a parcel located within the general plan medium high density residential land use designation and within the two family residential zoning districts. The existing structure is over 50 years of age Therefore, on January 21st of this year, the Historic Preservation Commission review the project and determine that the subject property does not satisfy any of the qualifying . The project site is located on two legal lots on the east side of 4th Street between Main and Valley Streets. the larger of the two parcels, parcel 12, on 4th Street. and is 55 feet wide by 100 feet. and contains the 870 square foot, one story single family structure with a 750 square foot basement constructed in 1952. This lot contains 5,500 square feet and a one car vehicle carport along the front property line. The smaller of the two parcels, and we will be able to It's landlocked. located at the rear of the lot and is 55 feet wide. by 10 feet deep. and contains 550 square feet. The project includes a lot land adjustment to merge the two lots, creating a lot 55 feet wide by 110 feet T containing a total of 6,000 50 square feet. |
| 03:22:19.23 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The project includes the expansion of the existing single-family structure from 1436 square feet to 1,994 square feet. removal of the existing carport and new construction of a detached enclosed garage car lift. and new construction of a 1,764 square square foot detached single family dwelling unit at the rear of the project site. Access to both residential structures would be from the front property line at 4th Street via an 18 foot wide curb cut, which would be 20 feet deep. The new detached single family structure would be approximately from the front property line. and set back from the rear of the renovated structure approximately 25 feet. creating an open space centrally located on the parcel. The first access to the second detached single family unit 8-inch wide. stairway fronting on 4th Street. and curving downward towards the southeastern portion of the lot. |
| 03:23:25.09 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | the existing residents would retain the majority of the footprint and add approximately seven feet at the basement level at the rear of the structure. The renovation includes raising the structure of one foot six inches to update and repair the foundation. stabilize and create an eight foot ceiling height on the lower floor. while enlarging the footprint to add two bedrooms, two bathrooms and a laundry area. the basement area would be incorporated into the house via new interior stairs. The upper level would add approximately 10 feet into the front of the lot by adding a study over a new carport. due to the incorporation of consistent materials on the carport and the main residential structure. carport would not be visible from the public right of way on fourth street |
| 03:24:16.24 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The height of the renovated structure would be 17 feet, one inch above the elevation of fourth street. for a total height of 21 feet above natural grade further down slope on the wall. |
| 03:24:33.03 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The new single family structure would have an entry located at the lowest level and include two bedrooms, each with a bathroom and one laundry room. The second level would include a kitchen, dining area, and living room. The third level is a partial floor and would include a guest room study area. The main roofing area would be a sod green roof. |
| 03:24:58.53 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The height of the new structure at the tallest section would be a maximum of 30 feet above natural grade. and 20 feet six inches at the shortest section. |
| 03:25:13.08 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | slide demonstrates the elevation of the proposed roof line as compared to fourth street which would be a maximum of 17 feet, two inches above street level. the adjacent structure can be seen behind the proposed buildings. 108 4th Street. |
| 03:25:33.72 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The roof line of the rear structure would be 11 feet, six inches above 4th Street. |
| 03:25:43.05 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The project as proposed requires the approval of a design review permit and the design review. lot line adjustments. detached dwelling units, and a variance for reduced side yard setbacks. As the project proposes a building wall greater than 40 feet, the addition will be required to be set back. the applicant is proposing to maintain the existing setback of the home Therefore, The project will require the approval of a variance to encroach into the side dart setback. applicant would like to review the merits of the proposal with the planning commission during this study session |
| 03:26:24.24 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The applicants conducted a neighborhood outreach on July 22nd, 2019, contacting 22 neighbors. To date, staff has received several communications which are opposed to any increase in the height of the existing structure and concern that structures would obstruct the view from their respective to the bay. One resident is in support of the project. The structure adjacent to the project site is a three level approximately 30 foot tall residential building Although the proposed project would not exceed 16 feet nine inches at the front property, which is approximately half the height of the neighboring structure. residents across the street may experience a partial loss of views of the day. |
| 03:27:11.91 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I've included photographs from my site visits for the purpose of this presentation. and as I'm not able to take photographs from the inside of neighbors' homes, neighbors participating in this hearing will be presenting their own photographs. |
| 03:27:27.67 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you, commissioners, that concludes my presentation. I will do my best to answer your questions. and the applicant is also available and attending tonight. |
| 03:27:40.21 | Nastassya Saad | Wonderful. Thank you so much, Cecilia. Thank you for your presentation and for all the photos and walking us through that very succinctly. It's much appreciated. um, At this time, I want to ask commissioners if they have any questions of staff. |
| 03:27:59.77 | Nastassya Saad | Mr. Saad, do you have any questions? |
| 03:28:03.09 | Nastassya Saad | I don't have any questions of staff at this time. Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 03:28:06.15 | Nastassya Saad | All right. Let's see. I'm going to do this in order. Vice Chair, Graph, do you have any? questions. Oh. |
| 03:28:13.59 | Richard Graef | No. No, I don't. |
| 03:28:17.03 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Commissioner Pierce. |
| 03:28:19.76 | Morgan Pierce | No questions for staff at this time, thank you. |
| 03:28:21.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 03:28:24.44 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:28:24.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have two questions of staff. The first is in your table one in your staff report, Cecilia. Uh, you're, In that chart, you identify four houses, four properties on Forest Street in addition to the proposed one. and a couple on Main Street. It would be helpful if you could add the rest of the properties on Main Street, on Fourth Street between Valley and Maine. And also, to I will add to the chart which have detached units and which don't. properties on 4th Street that are detached. |
| 03:29:10.02 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | and the detached multi-residential |
| 03:29:13.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, so in other words, two houses on one property. |
| 03:29:13.83 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yeah. Yes, there are at least two other lots, I believe. on 4th Street that have two separate buildings, I believe. Um, |
| 03:29:26.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. So I guess for the next time, if you could update that, And then my second question is related to height. Can you bring back your screen? I think the section that's going through the property. The one that shows, you can see the roofs and I think it's a section. |
| 03:30:15.97 | David Sincotta | Thank you. |
| 03:30:21.26 | Nastassya Saad | Are you able to show that? |
| 03:30:26.23 | Nastassya Saad | See, I think you're on mute, Cecilia. |
| 03:30:34.01 | Nastassya Saad | There we go, Cecilia. Now you're not on mute. Oh. |
| 03:30:36.23 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Oh, great. I think I was kicked off. I'm trying to share my screen and it's not taking. |
| 03:30:43.71 | Nastassya Saad | Well, it looks like you're at the end of your slideshow. So if you get out of the slideshow, maybe we can just find the right slide and put it back up. |
| 03:30:51.98 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Unfortunately, I have a completely dark screen with the exception of the participants in the meeting. Oh, here we go. Okay, now I have you. Okay, now, Are you able to see my screen? |
| 03:31:07.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:31:07.11 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | It's a great day. |
| 03:31:07.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 03:31:08.92 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Right. Okay, I'm sorry, Commissioner, what slide would you like to see? |
| 03:31:12.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm looking for the section. I think it was a section that showed you could see the roofs for both properties. Oh, man. |
| 03:31:22.74 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Here we go. |
| 03:31:24.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, yeah, so there is one of the comments you make, I think it's on page 17, is the height follows the downward slope. And I think I would argue... that the rear property, at least the three story portion of the rear property and the front property is not really stepping down And I did have the opportunity to view this site from at least four or five of the abutters' houses, and both the front roof significantly blocks the view and even the rear portion appears to block the view. The story poles are a little hard to see at a distance, but it appears that it's not really stepping down at the same slope. If you look at the slope on the bottom part of that slide, the top part, the roof height is not dropping down at the same slope. So there is definitely some mitigation that is going to be needed. My misunderstanding of that slide, No, no. |
| 03:32:25.40 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | No, no. No, not at all. What I wanted to mention was that the top level is only a partial level. So it's less than half. the footprint of the rest of the structure in terms of the top level. So... |
| 03:32:43.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That is correct. It's just that second, that other part does block some of their view as well. |
| 03:32:48.70 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yes, yes, there's definitely some view loss. |
| 03:32:53.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So those are my two questions, Chair Bello. I have some questions of the applicant when we get to that. |
| 03:32:59.33 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, sure. So thank you so much for those questions. I just have one quick question for you, Cecilia. Um, of the neighbors that have commented on this, Are they all the neighbors along fourth or were their neighbors on third that sort of back up to this property? that have commented as well. |
| 03:33:25.27 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | To the best of my knowledge, most of the comments I received were from residents on 4th but I believe. I believe several of them are in attendance and probably would like to speak. Sure. |
| 03:33:37.81 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, no, we'll absolutely get to get to that point. And then because this is heightened design review, you know, views are certainly a priority and important. Um... But Were you not able to assess as the planner assigned to this project any any potential view obstruction where you're not allowed to go into any other property. |
| 03:34:04.34 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I would not go into anybody's home just due to what's going on with COVID. go to the front doors and I took photographs from their front doors as best as I could. |
| 03:34:17.70 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. All right, great. All right. Thank you very much. I don't have any further questions at this time. So. Let's go ahead and... |
| 03:34:27.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:27.05 | Richard Graef | We have one. |
| 03:34:27.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:28.79 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, okay, yes, Vice Chair. |
| 03:34:29.85 | Richard Graef | Thanks. One quick question. It's mentioned in here, but it's not shown anywhere in the drawings. about a Mmm. car lift. In other words, they were saying that there's two cars parked in that garage, and I don't understand how that works. Yeah. |
| 03:34:48.19 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I'm going to go. you |
| 03:34:48.60 | Richard Graef | Thank you. What's the story with that? Or should I wait for the applicant? |
| 03:34:52.43 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Well, I'm happy to show you the elevation, but I believe the applicant will have a presentation. So on your screen, the detached garage is to your |
| 03:34:57.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:57.81 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:34:57.93 | Unknown | or, |
| 03:35:02.56 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | left with the |
| 03:35:03.43 | Unknown | No. |
| 03:35:04.11 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | two figures and that is a car lift that you pull into car will lift up. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO the applicant will be able to give you more details on how that works. |
| 03:35:14.08 | Jane Hook | All right. |
| 03:35:14.42 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you. |
| 03:35:15.14 | Nastassya Saad | Great. Thank you, Cecilia. So let's go ahead and to ask the applicant to get ready to make their presentation um, Do we have the applicant here this evening or who is making |
| 03:35:33.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:35:33.01 | Nastassya Saad | the presentation for the applicant. |
| 03:35:33.03 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:35:36.64 | Morgan Pierce | It's like cheerfella. I've, Is it possible to ask one more question, Stan? Of course. Um, Thank you, Cecilia. On A1.1 of the applicant's drawing set, they mentioned an ADU, and I'm not sure I picked up on that in the staff report. Did you? present anything on the ADU? |
| 03:35:59.22 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I'm sorry, no, the attached dwelling unit |
| 03:36:03.62 | Morgan Pierce | Uh-huh. |
| 03:36:04.20 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Are you referring to the single family residence that's in the rear? |
| 03:36:07.35 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. They're calling, there's a note on the drawings that call for an ADU entry or leave at the lower level of the existing house. |
| 03:36:15.57 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | No, to the best of my knowledge, it's going to be two single family residential structures on the property. One in the front and one in the rear. |
| 03:36:23.42 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Thank you, Chairfell. Thank you. |
| 03:36:26.46 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you. |
| 03:36:26.51 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:36:26.64 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 03:36:26.71 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you. |
| 03:36:26.81 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:36:27.52 | Nastassya Saad | Any other questions for staff? No? Okay. All right. Um, so Cecilia, who, who is the applicant presenting this evening? |
| 03:36:38.78 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I believe Mr. Timothy Rempel. |
| 03:36:42.13 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, good. The Zoom team please unmute. There I see Mr. Timothy Rumpel. If we could unmute him and... There he is. Welcome this evening. of people to be here for this study session. |
| 03:36:57.71 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:37:00.86 | Nastassya Saad | Um, We'll go ahead and let you present. The Zoom team will have a timer available to you. We will have questions for 15 minutes. So if for any reason we interrupt you, that timer will stop. It won't take away from your time. I look forward to hearing from you. So I'll hand it to you. Thank you very much. |
| 03:37:23.58 | Timothy Rempel | Good evening, commissioners. I'll have to activate my screen and the share screen in a second here to get screen access. I just wanted to start that we've been working at this for a while. We've been living here for almost four years. We've previously lived in Sausalito and going back and forth to Sausalito-Mill Valley. Thank you. so we started this process i'm an architect my wife is a designer where this is our home we're building this for ourselves uh and We have spent a considerable amount of time trying to reach out to neighbors who know them and invited them to sessions before we ever submitted anything to the city. We try to have outreach meetings. and say they were incredibly successful. We put up story polls when told by the previous planner it was okay to do so. Then they were told to take them down and we were putting the story polls up so we could talk to our neighbors and show them what we were intending to do. And after our first meeting, when there was a pushback, because we were trying to raise this house we're living in by 30 inches. And there was pushback. So we dropped it down to raising only 18 inches to allow us to get underneath and add some peers and some other things we need to do to help with the foundation and to create eight foot ceilings, et cetera. So we did take their comments very seriously. And we adjusted the height downwards on the building and put up string lines to do that. Um, Additionally, when confronted with some opinions that we were blocking their views, I asked them if I could have access to their yards and their balconies so I could take pictures. So as I, as an architect, Good work around it. And I was roundly rejected by the neighbors. I attempted to reach out. I wanted to go to my neighbors across the street to go to the balconies, their living rooms, shoot pictures of this entire Uh, setting so that I could properly design and move the volume, which we wanted for a study, appropriately. That was not granted to me. and uh so it's something that didn't happen and so today and today and yesterday the first times i'm seeing any photographs i had previously asked them to provide photographs so that i could see it none were provided so um i just wanted to say we've done our best to reach out be cooperative and to ask our neighbors uh for access and to work with them on this issue of height we're raising We're attempting to raise the front building a very modest amount. I believe the primary issue based on seeing our neighbors is the small study structure, which is in the front, which I do believe has some visual impact based on the photos I've seen of the neighbors, and I'm very willing to work with them to reduce the mass of that. second house which we're proposing at the back of our property is essentially 90 of the bulk is invisible to anybody it's it's it's only portion which is and it does step down the hill it mediates with the landscape we've set the rear of the structure into a basement setting is uh the only part that sits up in any way is a is a study on the top which is pulled off to the side against the trees the neighbors and i think that would be the one that where i would have uh we would need some additional study to see if it does indeed have any impact and i heard hardly encourage all the commissioners to come out when we reset this story polls for the appropriate hearing to really see from the neighbors and to assess from them what are the significant and uh uh critical if any on that portion critical views which are to be protected the view ordinance is a little unclear and we asked the commission for guidance on that and again but we ask that it be verified by their feet on the balconies or in these rooms it's easy to not have clear photographs or have them be somehow a little deceptive having said that let me start my screen And I'm going to do my share screen here. Host disabled, participant sharing screen. Can the host please engage? |
| 03:42:00.62 | Nastassya Saad | Zoom team, can you please enable Mr. Rumpel's screen? I'll keep an eye on the clock here so we're not taking time away. All right, you can go ahead and share your screen. |
| 03:42:14.30 | Timothy Rempel | Okay, I don't know how. I'm clicking share screen and there it is. And I need to do desktop. I believe it is this one here. There we go. Is that visible now? |
| 03:42:27.94 | Nastassya Saad | not yet but zoom team can we stop the clock while we're trying to get this handled |
| 03:42:33.57 | Timothy Rempel | That's not up. It's a Google Docs web-based app. Okay. That's unfortunate. No, it's not visible. So a second screen with the Google Doc is not visible. |
| 03:42:35.29 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:42:50.21 | Timothy Rempel | That is gonna be difficult. So let me try here one more time. Liz, you sent that to me in fucking name. Pardon my French. Okay, so you can't see this. That's great. |
| 03:43:04.67 | Nastassya Saad | If you have two screens it should it should ask you which screen you'd like and if not you might want to drag whatever you have on to your main screen it should share. |
| 03:43:15.05 | Timothy Rempel | I'm going to unmute my wife's phone. Can we make a share screen work on Elizabeth Miranda's computer? I might be able to do this this way. |
| 03:43:23.18 | Nastassya Saad | That's fine. |
| 03:43:24.03 | Timothy Rempel | this. |
| 03:43:25.85 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. So Liz, Miranda, if we can |
| 03:43:32.84 | Timothy Rempel | See you. |
| 03:43:33.09 | Unknown | Video. |
| 03:43:35.67 | Timothy Rempel | There we go. How's that? And is that at all an option? I'm gonna close this light, sorry about that. Oh, technology, okay. Let's see if this works. This is not going to work. It is not going to work. Sorry about that. I'll go back to my computer, please. My apologies. And my wife was trying to do this on her computer, and her PowerPoint went out, crashed on the computer. So that's why we're trying to jerry-rig this online. If you can get me back to my screen, I will see if I can pull up. some appropriate |
| 03:44:14.99 | Nastassya Saad | You have the ability to share screen. There we go. We can see your screen. |
| 03:44:19.87 | Timothy Rempel | Okay, so let me get this out. |
| 03:44:21.32 | Nastassya Saad | Let's start the clock and keep going. |
| 03:44:24.31 | Timothy Rempel | this is working off the software um i just wanted to point out to commissioners that i i'm looking at ways uh for the portion of the building in the front which is uh is hitting the views of some of my neighbors to see how i can reduce the mass and bulk of that so that's the key area i believe that it is in the view shed it's not the back here, but it's this piece in the front that appears to be the view shed and it's from the lower levels of my neighbor's homes. Um, uh, Basically, if I wanna start with the residents, We're looking at expanding to the lower level, which is a basement. and raising The ceilings to a minimum of eight feet and do some foundation work. In the back, the residence is a three bedroom, two bath house with a living level in the middle. And I don't have the cross section this way, which would actually show it stepping down the hill. This is longitudinal and it's a little deceiving this section as to what is happening on the site. |
| 03:45:35.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:35.45 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 03:45:35.47 | Unknown | Let me just click this back and go in here on desktop and do something else. |
| 03:45:55.16 | Timothy Rempel | I don't know where those are, Liz, those documents you sent me earlier. |
| 03:45:59.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:46:04.66 | Timothy Rempel | Email folder desktop. So I wanted to get the ones from Joply. Anyway, could you, can I pass this? I'm just going to have to, I'm sorry, I'm a little jet lagged. I'm just back after six months abroad and this is late. So I'm sorry, I don't have a better presentation together, but I can go back to the section. I really wanted to get more impact and feedback from the neighbors about their views. I would really like to figure out a way in which we can discuss what portion, what portion of the views I need to really be concerned with and see feedback from commissioners that have been to the site to see about, you know, my main concern is not whether the study works or not. Obviously it's the entire setting and being able to figure out how to fix our foundations on our building and do the residents in the back. So I think at that point, Liz, unless you have something to say. |
| 03:47:07.28 | Timothy Rempel | No, I can't. I'm gonna try to open up PDFs and others. But right now I don't have that accessible. So I would, if it's possible to stop my presentation while I'm looking and let some of the neighbors weigh in or whatever the next step of the process is with the commission. |
| 03:47:22.42 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, well, I mean, you're welcome. We can stop the clock right now and you're welcome to, we'll, I'll see if any commissioners have questions for you. We'll also be taking public comment and so on. And that will leave you some time towards the end if you want to address any of that at a later point. Um, so let's open this up, uh, for questions from the commissioners to the applicant. Do any commissioners have anything to start with? |
| 03:47:55.14 | Richard Graef | Well, I was wondering about the car level the garage, I didn't understand how that works or what's being proposed there. for starters, |
| 03:48:08.56 | Timothy Rempel | I could. |
| 03:48:08.64 | Nastassya Saad | Like, |
| 03:48:09.39 | Timothy Rempel | answer if that's appropriate. |
| 03:48:11.78 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, please do. |
| 03:48:13.18 | Timothy Rempel | Okay. uh, Proposed a car lift on Residents, we did back in 2009 on Casno. at 88 casno and uh it was approved by the planning commission back then um the other option was to pave about 50 square 50 feet of a downhill site to make a four-car garage or two residences so they uh they saw the merits of doing a two-car garage with the car left inside in this situation here we have we're blessed with a better site So the carport and parking Vingerdes, I don't know if Cecilia, you can pull up the site plan. |
| 03:49:01.58 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yeah, I have all of your plans. So I'm happy to pull up whichever sheet you'd like me Thank you. |
| 03:49:08.47 | Timothy Rempel | Just the side plan or the picture of the front of the carport, front of the building, that was a 3D drawing. But for the commissioner, the car lift works fairly straightforwardly. They are in use on Casno. It allows you to park tandem. Okay, there you see on the left, perfect. To the left of the woman in the white shirt is actually an eight-foot garage door. |
| 03:49:08.50 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you. |
| 03:49:31.53 | Timothy Rempel | You drive the car in, Yeah, I want you to leave it there, that's great. You just drive the car in and, this car is lifted up into the air and then you can park another car below it so for owners uh who are in the same basically two cars in the same household you have one car in the garage and one car in the driveway this is the same thing you have one car up on the lift one car under the lift and the other two cars park to the side one in the carport and one in front of the residence uh parallel parking so when this thing is fully parked with four cars you would see one car in front of this in front of this home which I think is a a good way of not seeing all the vehicles which we otherwise have uh this is a a good shot uh I don't know if that explained if I answered your question commissioner |
| 03:50:23.61 | Richard Graef | Yes, it's just I'm not familiar with that hardware. with that idea, but it's interesting. And so the height of this structure will accommodate two cars stacked Correct. |
| 03:50:38.02 | Timothy Rempel | Correct. |
| 03:50:38.38 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Right. |
| 03:50:39.08 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. And it's, I've used these before. Actually, the first time and only time I've used it is on the Casno project. And it went successfully. I'm still friends with the current owners of the property, and they enjoy the benefits of the vehicle car park. It works in about, takes about 30 seconds, 35 seconds to raise the car up and to be able to then pull a car in below it. So it's not something you're waiting for for 10 minutes. |
| 03:50:49.92 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:51:10.10 | Timothy Rempel | And they're very quiet. They don't make any noise. And if you need a demonstration, I can meet any, if there are any neighbors concerned with that, I can meet over in Casno and have my friends run the car lift up and down. |
| 03:51:25.07 | Nastassya Saad | They're a terrific solution to parking issues. They're used all over the place. They're great. Any other questions? Vice Chair Graft for the applicant. |
| 03:51:40.76 | Richard Graef | Well, I, Some of them are kind of detailed questions about materials The drawings And the particularly the elevation perspective drawing that we're looking at right now. Um, Not quite sure. Um, There are no shingles in this elevation. Is that right? The shingles are in the... Besides Um, It's a little confusing to me. The look of this. from the street. looks much, much different than the elevations from the side. from your drawings. Um, somehow I'm not being able to quite put all the characteristics of the of of the building together So I'm not sure. It's a little confusing to me. |
| 03:52:45.86 | Timothy Rempel | I can- |
| 03:52:46.51 | Richard Graef | Yeah. I'm not sure. |
| 03:52:48.18 | Timothy Rempel | Can you explain a little bit about that? We had a 3D renderer working on this with whom we had some communication issues. Very good renderer, does beautiful work. But on the main body of the building, what you're seeing, these vertical, like almost boards there on that building, they're supposed to be shingles. And that's it's a rendering gaffe. So if you consider where you see this sort of siding... |
| 03:53:11.97 | Sheldon | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:53:13.37 | Timothy Rempel | We like the shingles that are in the current building. We'd like to keep using them. There is historically what's been here and if we can still get more of those, we want to use that as the main thing. |
| 03:53:22.32 | Richard Graef | I got it. So it's a drawing error. |
| 03:53:24.53 | Timothy Rempel | or, |
| 03:53:25.05 | Richard Graef | Right. All right. Thank you. |
| 03:53:28.81 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Great. Any other commissioners have questions for the applicants? Commissioner Pierce. |
| 03:53:36.10 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Well, I do have a question. I believe that the applicant highlighted side yard variances is one of the things they wanted to address tonight. So I thought I'd ask, the applicant to bring that up and address it so we could ask specific questions and give any necessary direction. |
| 03:53:54.24 | Timothy Rempel | I don't believe we actually, there we go. I don't believe we actually asked for that variance. I think that variance was imposed on us by the planning department. I think, correct me if I'm wrong Cecilia and Lily. My understanding is we need a five foot setback around the property and we have it everywhere. And then in a more recent review of this drawing, The front building, because it has a pop out, we have five foot setbacks as it is right now. There's some sort of rule about not having a building wall longer than 50 feet or whatever it is. |
| 03:54:30.79 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 03:54:31.10 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 03:54:31.52 | Timothy Rempel | 40 feet in the finger plane. Well, this building is one story. for the first 15 feet. And you can see the sidewalk coming in. Then it drops down about eight feet to the lower level. This that's when the historic in the building was made. So the side yard, there we go. Perfect. So you can see the main bedroom has a little pop out bay. And I was doing that actually to animate the facade and to bring it in, bring it in aesthetic. And in the intent of the rule of the 40 foot linear thing is not to have some banal building with a single block side. If you go by the residents, you see the overhang, you see the proposed piece in the front and this box coming out the back. It's a very animated non-box like result. So I believe it complies with the intent of the code. We are permitted the, the, the, you Placing of a bay of this kind is partly within the code without triggering a variance. So I don't know what the variance is other than the far right lower corner. what would be trigger a side yard variance? I'd like clarification on that because I didn't realize we had triggered that with the design. |
| 03:55:46.31 | Morgan Pierce | Can Steph tell, I've got the code in front of me. I'm trying to remember what the exact verbiage is. Does Steph know what number? 10.40 or 10 point what section? |
| 03:55:56.72 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I believe it is 10.40. |
| 03:55:57.06 | Morgan Pierce | it is. |
| 03:56:03.66 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | but I do have the exact language. I'd be happy to read it. Please, that would be lovely. Thank you. |
| 03:56:06.85 | Morgan Pierce | you're taking. Please. |
| 03:56:09.33 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | . The length of a structure shall be measured along a line parallel to the adjoining side lot line. where the length of a structure, building wall or series of attached building The walls exceeds 40 feet measured parallel to the adjoining side lot line the minimum setback shall be increased at the rate of one foot, for each five feet. Such length exceeds 40 feet. So he's just over. the amount he does exceed it, the total length of that of wall including the second story Carport is 53 feet. |
| 03:57:00.44 | Morgan Pierce | Right, and based on that, I think We're saying that We're probably looking at just a little north of two feet. of additional required setback for that, the portion that's beyond 40 feet. |
| 03:57:07.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:57:07.97 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Okay. |
| 03:57:13.55 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Correct. But right. And that portion needs to be set back. |
| 03:57:18.50 | Morgan Pierce | And so the question to you, Mr. Rempel, is you really don't have a lot of restrictions on this lot. I mean, there's plenty of additional developable area. I'm unclear whether it would be the intent of this body to award a variance just for convenience of design when there's ways you can manipulate the geometry. to not require a variance? Thank you. |
| 03:57:42.26 | Timothy Rempel | Um... You are correct in your question. I believe I tried to find something which was the most aesthetically pleasing. We have, if you look at the plant back, go back one place. |
| 03:57:53.01 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:58:00.31 | Timothy Rempel | right there we have an existing lovely ceiling structure you see the living room kitchen area those are all existing beams in the ceiling they're on four foot bays they have a lovely slope through the through the space and the carport is where it is it needs to be where it is that's why we have the study up on top of it to sheath it and to bring the sheathing down in a way with an open lattice in the front to screen the car from the street i believe it's all good design design looks better if design. If I were to change it, I would have to change it. and to do something along the lines that they're suggesting to you know exactly follow the rules here not ask for or inadvertently ask for this side yard uh this additional this variance that would be right there that would be to shorten the study by uh the required two feet so instead of being 16 feet long it would be 13 feet six i'm not opposed doing that. I think it's not as attractive on the building and not as attractive to the street. But if it's something which is required, and certainly, you know, we're certainly willing to do that. But I- |
| 03:59:15.66 | Morgan Pierce | Conversely, you could also do some manipulation at the bedroom number two. Thank you. |
| 03:59:19.24 | Timothy Rempel | facade. |
| 03:59:19.85 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:59:20.03 | Timothy Rempel | It was very narrow. Already it's only outside 12 foot 3 inside it's like 11 and a half feet and it's going right up against a series of open structures in the living room so it's already a narrow room. So I wouldn't do that. That's set. that's more valuable for interior space. |
| 03:59:39.44 | Morgan Pierce | Well, again, and it's not our job to dictate design from the dais, but we're giving you objective feedback. And, you know, if there are ways to avoid having to grant variances, we typically look for them. I'm not saying that you shouldn't ask for it. I'm not saying that we wouldn't grant it, but you do run that risk and complications. |
| 03:59:58.37 | Timothy Rempel | If I could ask a quick question, I'd be more inclined to shorten the study, maybe on the forefoot bay, pull back three feet. Uh, live with that then to cut the back we would then be at 43 feet six in the length of a building which isn't a single plane it has an indented entry and it has a projecting bays that's still something which which from your standpoint you would still seek an additional one foot setback on that very last piece of of projection at the end to be perfectly compliant just wondering where |
| 04:00:31.14 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I think to adhere to not have a variance, you'd have to be fully compliant. So I would leave that up to the interpretation to |
| 04:00:39.02 | Timothy Rempel | provide guidance. If it's a requirement of the commission to do so, we will do so. We prefer leaving it like this, but if we won't gain your approval without doing so, I would certainly change it. |
| 04:00:52.05 | Morgan Pierce | Again, I'm not sure we can provide a yes or no answer for any questions regarding our decision-making process once we finally, you know, deliberate on this, when it comes before us for that. But providing guidance that I understand. |
| 04:01:07.10 | Unknown | That's cute. Thank you. |
| 04:01:08.12 | Unknown | the second. |
| 04:01:08.52 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:01:08.60 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 04:01:08.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:09.03 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 04:01:09.13 | Sheldon | Thank you. |
| 04:01:09.31 | Morgan Pierce | As I just what? |
| 04:01:10.26 | Sheldon | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:01:10.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:10.76 | Sheldon | Yeah. |
| 04:01:11.39 | Nastassya Saad | I would just add in that, you know, because this is a study session where we're identifying these things for your benefit and for the benefit of your neighbors and anyone else in the public who's listening in on this. |
| 04:01:12.76 | Sheldon | you know. |
| 04:01:24.42 | Nastassya Saad | And so, You could do with that what you would like. These are the regulations in Sausalito that we use. And, um, as Commissioner Pierce, very aptly said, you know, where we can look for ways to avoid variances, we prefer that. But that doesn't mean that we haven't granted them before. You know, sometimes there's no other option. Here it sounds like you have other options. |
| 04:01:49.95 | Timothy Rempel | Yeah. |
| 04:01:53.49 | Timothy Rempel | All right, appreciate that. And we'll work to correct that so that we don't need a Any variances? You're online. |
| 04:02:01.73 | Morgan Pierce | And then my other question for the applicant was regarding the note pertaining to the ADU on the lower level of this. Would you like to? Thank you. |
| 04:02:09.84 | Timothy Rempel | talk about that was something we had under consideration originally that we thought it'd hassle we want to be able to allow for of my parents, some of my siblings to stay longer time. And if we understood it would be more difficult to do this, so we just decided not to do the ADU. And that's. |
| 04:02:29.81 | Morgan Pierce | I'm not sure if it's more difficult. Maybe staff can weigh in on that or somebody else |
| 04:02:33.23 | Timothy Rempel | It's been awesome. that's drawing Detroit is leftover from the previous version where we had an ADU there. on. |
| 04:02:43.00 | Morgan Pierce | Well, you may want to... Speak with staff after this regarding that, because I mean, Generally, ADUs are encouraged in our community. So I would I would get with them to discuss the the benefits and challenges of that. |
| 04:02:57.68 | Timothy Rempel | I mean, we'd like to do an ADU there. And but we don't want to imperil. There are already comments from the neighbors about parking issues, etc, etc. We don't know how this all plays. And so our desire is to have an ABU there, but we also want to get our project approved. And if that's going to be a stumbling block, we'd certainly not do it. |
| 04:03:16.57 | Morgan Pierce | I see that the Community Development Director, Willie Whalen has popped up for if she provides some enlightenment. |
| 04:03:23.77 | Director Whelan | Sure thing. So the ADU permit is a ministerial permit over the counter permit. If the project meets the standards of our ADU regulations and its size, height, coverage, all those sorts of things in the code. So the applicant could incorporate an ADU as a part of this proposal. The planning commission could only consider those ministerial standards in their review and approval of the ADU. The applicant could also consider moving forward with the application as submitted and then at a later point in time. apply for an ADU for ministerial over-the-counter approval by staff. Does that assist? |
| 04:04:12.73 | Director Whelan | Thank you. |
| 04:04:13.20 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 04:04:13.69 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, yeah, thank you. Thank you, Director Whelan. I'll ask the applicant if that was helpful |
| 04:04:19.36 | Timothy Rempel | That was helpful. Thank you. Yeah. |
| 04:04:21.60 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Okay. |
| 04:04:23.46 | Morgan Pierce | I think my last question, I think you were starting to allude to this on your, on some of your marked up elevations, Mr. Rempel, regarding the potential view obstructions created by the studio roofline. And it looked like you were starting to investigate some alternatives to that. So I would ask you just to consider that as you, as you move forward with this, because that may help you. mitigate some of those concerns. |
| 04:04:46.65 | Timothy Rempel | Absolutely. I mean, our intention is to be a good neighbor, and I certainly would not want to block somebody's living room view they've had for many, many years. I value the one I have out of our window. So I do want to work with the neighbors. I would encourage, I would love to be able to get up there and shoot a photo. That way I can actually zoom in on exactly where I need to make the cut and move it and that sort of thing. It's hard working in the dark. |
| 04:05:19.23 | Richard Graef | I had another question related to Commissioner Pierce's inquiry about side yard. and setbacks. Um, are all of the, if you were to look at the site plan, Are all of the setbacks that are shown, are they all Um, Uh, up to code. I mean, with the exception of this one stretch of building that that exceeds the limit. but are all the other setbacks everywhere okay? |
| 04:06:05.83 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yes, the project complies with setback requirements. |
| 04:06:09.39 | Richard Graef | Good. this one for sure. |
| 04:06:13.20 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair Graff. Do you have any questions for the applicants? |
| 04:06:19.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, just a couple. I had similar ones to others. I'll just try to add new stuff. The height, I was able to, for the applicant, to not go in the abutting buildings, but be on their porches and stuff. So clearly the height is an issue, both of the front section of your study and I think your study in the back building. So hopefully they can make that available to you so you can get your photographs and address the hype there. On the parking, I now understand two cars in the garage I guess one has to leave, go out to the street, bring the other one down, bring it out, put it back. So it's a little bit of a convenience issue. One in the carport, one in the front of the house, just outside the carport, if I understand it. That's two for each unit. But the code under heightened review requires guest parking. So was that going to be in the the driveway or what were your thoughts on guest parking to meet the code for heightened design review? |
| 04:07:28.12 | Timothy Rempel | I am not familiar with the heightened design review requirement of an additional parking space. That is news to me. And maybe I didn't read enough of Cecilia's report, but that is the first time I understand that we need a heightened design review here. And I'd like to understand what portion of the code requires us to have the heightened design review. My understanding was that we only needed to provide two PARs per year. per residence. |
| 04:08:02.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the just to define heightened design review is not related to parking, it's related to views from the abutters, parking and a bunch of issues, but it comes into play at 80% if you exceed 80% of the FAR. So if you reduce your square footage down, then you would not need heightened design review And to make, I think you got on the side yard setback, you need to bring your length of your wall in total down to 40 feet or less, and then you will not have the variance required. So if it's over 40 feet at all, it's going to trigger that. My last question relates to exterior materials and there's a requirement if you have two detached buildings on a lot, if I understand it correctly, that they're supposed to tie together architecturally You seem to be doing very different architectural treatments and you've got some vertical cedar stain, some horizontal and the drawing is clearly not correct. And then on your back building you've got an F and a G legend that's not identified of what those are, which are cement panels, which are concrete. have you looked at the possibility of trying to tie these two buildings more together in an architectural sense per the requirement that we have for detached buildings. |
| 04:09:37.42 | Timothy Rempel | I would just ask why that's even necessary here. I'm an architect of 30 years in the practice, and I don't believe it's necessary for these two distinct separate residences to look alike. I think that would be, personally, I think that would be inappropriate. They are tied together aesthetically. They're tied together in how they deal with light, how they deal with space. We do have, they are two distinct buildings. You can't really see the back building, back residence from anywhere other than the front residence. You can see it from the street through the buildings, but it's really sitting down so low. If you look at the photo right in front of you from the cover sheet, that pretty much shows what you'll see. You'll look straight the front residence you only see the front residence the one behind is really sitting in a glade it's it's it's it's a hunkering down into the hill and only the top portion of the residence projects up it would have been my hope to treat that curved wall i don't know if we can get this other drawing up very quickly. Can we click to Elizabeth Moran's computer? I have the PowerPoint up. I have some 3D drawings I could show you. It might be helpful here. |
| 04:10:56.45 | Timothy Rempel | as you'd. |
| 04:10:56.83 | Nick Dufert | Thank you. You look like the gym there, guys. |
| 04:10:58.47 | Timothy Rempel | Okay, so it's on her screen, on the share screen. Let me see if I have it here, Zoom. Okay, there we go. Share screen, I'm there, host disabled screen. If I could be connected to the share screen. |
| 04:11:14.43 | Nastassya Saad | Can we allow, Zoom team, can you help and allow the Liz Miranda computer to share screen? |
| 04:11:24.20 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, there you go, Mr. Rumpel. You should be able to do so. |
| 04:11:27.87 | Timothy Rempel | There we are and here we are wherever that went. |
| 04:11:37.60 | Timothy Rempel | I don't know how to get there. |
| 04:11:40.02 | Nastassya Saad | So we think you're sharing your screen, but we just don't see anything. |
| 04:11:43.49 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:11:43.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:11:44.69 | Timothy Rempel | You can pull that up once. That'd be great. I didn't, to put it out of the way, no, it's there. It's, it's. |
| 04:11:53.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:11:54.38 | Timothy Rempel | It's here, it just disappeared. |
| 04:12:00.08 | Timothy Rempel | No, no, no. |
| 04:12:00.47 | Unknown | No, no, no. |
| 04:12:01.03 | Richard Graef | 3.30. |
| 04:12:01.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:12:02.39 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you. You have to let me find it. |
| 04:12:04.32 | Timothy Rempel | Okay. |
| 04:12:05.60 | Nastassya Saad | So while she's trying to find it, do you want to just keep talking to him? |
| 04:12:08.77 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:12:08.79 | Timothy Rempel | Just keep talking. Okay, so anyway, I was trying to try some 3D. We, the rear building is, is a similar to the front. It has some. Projecting volumes. There we go. Okay. Okay. So here you can see the relationship between the front building, the street, the driveway, and the rear building. This rear building portion here is literally below street level or at the same level as the street. And this volume here is the one that sits up. And the front of this building is about the same height as the eave over. As you can see, the only, you can see there's five feet on there or 10 feet between these two buildings. And this volume is lined up with this area here. So it allows in the front residence, it allows a continued enjoyment of the view over the rooftop and the green. In terms of the materials, let me click through here. There's the entry sidewall coming through. the wood. |
| 04:13:05.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What is that material? the front material. |
| 04:13:09.03 | Timothy Rempel | material is horizontal rain screen cedar in the front, and then wood shingles. It's a scarified sort of gridded ridged shingles that they made about 20 years ago. Some people are still making them. They're very sort of a lovely finish on shingle. So the whole building is wood, wood shingle cedar siding. And let me see if I have the other image down there. There we go. So here is a shot from sort of an aerial from the back. And it allows you to see that again, this is the roof prior to our meeting. This, this, these renderings are done before we had our last meetings with our neighbors. Since then, we clipped the roof downwards in the back to lower this edge, to, to work with their views, to prevent those from blocking it. And this is a little, this is not at the right height. This is lower than is, than is this, this has been pushed down from where it, from where it's shown here. But we were looking on the back building to be using on the street side a series of um uh black colored material that are window screens these again don't allow any light to be seen from the street so from the street and i you don't really see the light of the rear building and the rest of this building we considered using it an integral colored plaster, cement plaster mostly as a type of, as a, step towards fire protection it's much more fire resistant than other materials and uh we're farther away from the street so i thought it might be prudent to have something of that kind the windows are the same they're black aluminum windows in both buildings and uh there's a similar uh using a similar aesthetic in the amount of glass relationship glass to views and orientation i agree it is different stylistically. This volume here, if you can see my cursor, this is the stair volume and my intention, our intention with that was to pour that in place in concrete, almost like a climbing wall, so that from the front and from the street, this appears sculptural. and it provides a nice backdrop in the yard. And this has a few small openings that are very, very tiny, let light into the stairwell. But that's the main feature on the back of this directly facing the house. And along here, you can see the path between the between the car lift here And the two stories, the street, you only see one story, but as soon as you come down the stairs, you're two stories at the rear yard. And here's the yard stepping down and you can sort of get an idea of the level. But that's the reason now this I believe the compatibility Commissioner Luxenberg could be achieved by choosing colors Commissioner Luxembourg, I believe the compatibility you're speaking, you're addressing here could also be achieved with color of the material use on the back that if we had a compatible stucco color that worked either identically or as close to the cedar shingles, which are gray. We might have the visual compatibility you're addressing with the aesthetic coming. |
| 04:16:18.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I think you should look at 10.44.090 number three, because it's appearing to me like you've got two separate single-family homes on one lot, and that's exactly what the zoning prohibits. So this is a study session. I'm just trying to help you so that you're not coming in here in the future, and then we send you back to the drawing board. I think you need to spend a little bit of time with some of our zoning provisions so you know what they are. Because I think you're not aware of this thing on the 40-foot wall and also this provision if you wanted to put two separate buildings on one lot. sort of your architectural vision for that is inconsistent with the zone. |
| 04:17:06.97 | Timothy Rempel | I wasn't familiar with that part of the zoning ordinance. We've done another two unit buildings here that are similar, but so that's a requirement to have these be quote unquote compatible. That's good. |
| 04:17:19.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It says to encourage permitted two-family or multifamily use development in a manner that discourages the appearance or use of the property. as two or more distinct separate single family dwelling So, |
| 04:17:34.02 | Timothy Rempel | I wasn't familiar with that. Frankly, I, I don't exactly understand the wisdom of that ordinance, but we will discuss that with the planners. That wasn't raised to us as an issue, that stylistic difference between these two was an issue. I am aware, or we are aware of the side yard setback issue in the 40 foot length, which is why this was switched from a hearing to a study session. |
| 04:17:59.65 | Morgan Pierce | I would build on what Commissioner Luxembourg just said because there are three almost very disparate volumes. You've got one on the left that looks almost international style. You've got |
| 04:17:59.81 | Timothy Rempel | I would build all that. |
| 04:18:11.13 | Morgan Pierce | the original house that now looks almost like Bay Area third tradition. And then you've got the parking volume. That's something of the, of the 21st century. And, and maybe it is as simple as you're just sort of sharing some of the materials or some of the coloring that provides a little bit more compatibility between them. |
| 04:18:28.12 | Timothy Rempel | I'm not sure. |
| 04:18:28.21 | Morgan Pierce | Sure. |
| 04:18:28.27 | Timothy Rempel | Sure. |
| 04:18:28.97 | Morgan Pierce | THE END OF |
| 04:18:29.03 | Timothy Rempel | Right. |
| 04:18:29.25 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 04:18:29.29 | Timothy Rempel | I apologize for the rendering. These are supposed to look more consistent than they do. These renderings were done before our meetings with our neighbors a year ago, and they need to be updated. I apologize for there not being more consistency between these. You're right. |
| 04:18:45.45 | Nastassya Saad | I think the conversation is actually helpful. I'm hoping it's helpful to you. I know Vice Chair Grapp, you wanted to weigh in on this as well, didn't you? |
| 04:18:54.28 | Richard Graef | I just have another question. drawing perspective and I'm seeing the garage structure. but then it looks like another space below that, which I didn't discover in any of the drawings. Is that another habitable space down there, a usable space? space or our utility space or something. It's got a window. |
| 04:19:22.02 | Timothy Rempel | That's a storage space for garbage cans. garbage cans and maybe a bike or two, but it's apparently, It's about five feet wide. |
| 04:19:31.62 | David Siddow | I think it's a good one. |
| 04:19:34.27 | Timothy Rempel | Because it's partially, it's a substructure for the car left, five feet wide and about eight feet long. So you put the car in. |
| 04:19:41.31 | Richard Graef | It just didn't, there was no indication anywhere else in the drawings of that surface. |
| 04:19:49.95 | Timothy Rempel | It's the foundation of the parliament. |
| 04:19:50.35 | Richard Graef | I don't know. |
| 04:19:54.32 | Richard Graef | Yeah. OK. Great. |
| 04:19:56.40 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:19:56.60 | Richard Graef | Well, there's a space. There's something else down there, okay? |
| 04:19:56.85 | Nastassya Saad | So it is a space. |
| 04:20:00.11 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:20:00.16 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Commissioner, I wanted to make sure we got any of your questions in here. |
| 04:20:05.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Yeah I feel like most of my fellow commissioners have made some of the points I was thinking of. I had a kind of general question. Um, that you had mentioned your foundation, strengthening your foundation. Is that separate from this project? Does your foundation for the primary residents need support or is that in relation to building a second building the second residence on the lot. |
| 04:20:31.36 | Timothy Rempel | Uh, it needs the support we're, historically this section of the valley was a deep valley and it was backfilled with a bunch of mostly not too much good material. And there was a question one of the neighbors letters of a culvert. The culvert was down about 20 feet. at the very base of between our property, the neighbor's property that was originally the bottom of the valley. So it's all backfilled in because of the backfill. The residence in the front is moving and has been slightly sinking over 50 years to listing about six inches because of weakened subsoils. We do not need to add new foundations to fix this. I need to put helical piers and that sort of thing. And by raising the building by 18 inches, we'll be able to have, instead of seven foot or six foot 11 ceilings to the underside of those joists, we'll have eight foot ceilings. And that's the purpose of what we have to stabilize the foundations. And we can do so with helical peers. I've worked with engineers on this already about how to address the movement. |
| 04:21:42.35 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:21:42.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks for clarifying. Through the chair, you mentioned this box culvert, which the neighbors have mentioned. Is there a box culvert under there or it's no longer there? |
| 04:21:42.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:42.94 | Timothy Rempel | Thank you. |
| 04:21:43.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:52.44 | Timothy Rempel | I believe there's a WPA five or six foot diameter culvert that was built in the 30s. And it runs from, I believe, from 4th, 5th Street all the way down to the sea underground. Actually, across the street from us is where it originates a block up. And it was built and it's buried. It's not exactly where but in the street you see the culvert the drainage swales and they're actually under our neighbor's building which leads me to deduce that the culvert is actually under our neighbor's building which was built in the 70s so i don't believe the culvert is is actually on our property i believe it's under our neighbor's building The inverts in the street should normally drop right above the culvert, and that's exactly where they are. They're in the low part of the street. |
| 04:22:31.21 | Karen Shelton | that's not going to be. |
| 04:22:38.18 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay. I while you still have this rendering up, I did have a question if you could just. give us the, the, the, a broad brush idea of what your landscape plan is here. for the whole property. |
| 04:22:52.70 | Timothy Rempel | Uh, sure. Maybe I can click that one. |
| 04:22:56.77 | Nastassya Saad | And while you're describing it, I mean, have you a consultant with Southern Marin fire on acceptable species? |
| 04:23:04.70 | Timothy Rempel | I've done a lot of work with Southern Marin Fire on a lot of projects. So yes, familiar with the proper types of species and distances and whatnot necessary to create spaces. |
| 04:23:04.75 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, I've... |
| 04:23:18.15 | Timothy Rempel | This is a better image from a sort of view from above. And the idea here is to create, basically in the front, we're working with the existing curb cut. We're not creating a new curb cut. It's right here, looking at doing some sort of interlocking paver and provide an attractive front garden on the street. These are existing plants along the side yard, and we're planning on continuing that Down the slope, we have a large, beautiful spruce tree here, which has disappeared off the rendering. But there's a giant tree here, which is about 80 feet tall, right here. Yeah. doesn't show properly it's half on my neighbor's property half on our property and uh basically we're just looking at low ground cover along here um down along the path from the carport to the rear structure and then on between the two structures uh this is primarily intended to be a solid wall and uh ground covering the bushes and whatnot to provide a attractive rear yard area for for us in the front And at the very back, I can't even see it now. Let me get close over here. At the very back, there is a small yard off the back of the house. And again, we're trying to set it up in these zones using low water use ground cover and native species. We have a landscape plan, which we've done and submitted. I don't have all the species names in my head, but they're available there. |
| 04:24:52.97 | Nastassya Saad | Great. All right. Thank you. I'm also mindful of time here. So do any commissioners have any more questions for the applicant right now? Otherwise, I'd like to open this up for public comment as our public's been quite patient here. |
| 04:25:11.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just a quick question. In the future, the site was not, the inside of the building was not made available for the study session for when this comes for formal public hearing, will you be able to make the building available for to review how that renovations into the renovation as opposed to new construction. Would you make that available? |
| 04:25:33.58 | Timothy Rempel | Absolutely, I have to apologize because I didn't even know there was a request to see the interior, we would have granted that. There was, we received no formal request to for any of the commissioners to come inside the residence. We would have certainly made it, had made it available and it will be available for you to come inside, of course. |
| 04:25:50.35 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay. I think at this time, if you wouldn't mind Stop sharing screen. Uh, everybody. |
| 04:26:02.13 | Kathleen Anderson | Uh, |
| 04:26:04.57 | Nastassya Saad | up on a comment screen. And I'm going to open public comment here. I'm just going to ask our wonderful community development director to remind people one more time. how to raise your hand in the Zoom application or raise your hand on your cell phone. |
| 04:26:29.90 | Director Whelan | Thank you, Chair Fowler. And for members of the public, now is the time for public participation and comment. video or audio, public Comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand right now on the Zoom application. If you go to the participants list, there's a little icon that says raise your hand or raise hand. If you're on the phone, you can press star nine and each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed here. Thank you. |
| 04:27:00.65 | Nastassya Saad | Right. Thank you so much, Lily. I am going to start calling on you just as I see you in order on my particular screen, which might be different than yours. So don't worry, I will get to you. And, um, As the zoom team unmutes you and shares the screen or you turn all that on on your end. You'll have three minutes for public comment if you could please announce yourself. for the record so we know who you are. That would be very, very helpful. So let's go ahead and start with Karen Shelton. If Zoom team, we can go ahead and unmute her. very well. |
| 04:27:41.03 | Karen Shelton | Come. |
| 04:27:41.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:27:41.33 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. Thank you. So I'm Karen Shelton. I apologize for not being able to share my video. When I do that, I freeze. So sorry that I can't do that. So I reside at 411 Main Street and My backyard shares the side yard of 110 floors. And so the main question I have is just what the plan is for privacy between the two. um, yards because, um, I checked in with Bradley Evanson last March when the first story polls went up. and the plans that I was shown had a window that looked directly into my backyard. I had shared photos with them, but it didn't make it into the packet, but I did give Cecilia photos. So, Just wondering what that plan is so that we both have privacy between our properties. |
| 04:28:36.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:28:36.85 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. |
| 04:28:36.99 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 04:28:37.01 | Karen Shelton | No, that's it. |
| 04:28:38.68 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much, Ms. Shelton. And we'll be able to address some of these after we finish with public comments. So I'm taking notes here. |
| 04:28:40.67 | Karen Shelton | All right. |
| 04:28:46.41 | Nastassya Saad | So thank you so much. Next person for public comment is Nick Dufert. If we, if I, hopefully I've pronounced your name correctly, if we could unmute. Nic, and welcome. You have three minutes for public comment. |
| 04:29:03.79 | Nick Dufert | Can you hear me? |
| 04:29:05.17 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 04:29:06.60 | Nick Dufert | Great. I'm trying to share my screen. |
| 04:29:09.96 | Nastassya Saad | Zoom team, can we allow that to happen? There you go. |
| 04:29:16.97 | Nick Dufert | Okay, give me a moment while I find the correct screen. Here you go. Can you guys see that? |
| 04:29:25.98 | Nastassya Saad | We see that you're sharing screen, but there's nothing on it. Here we go. |
| 04:29:31.46 | Nick Dufert | Okay, great. And you can see the photos of the view for my house? |
| 04:29:34.55 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 04:29:35.48 | Nick Dufert | Nick Dufour, Okay, so my name is Nick Dufour I've lived at 107 Forestry across from 110 Forestry since 2013 I sent detailed comments and photos and emails to Cecilia and the Planning Commission. I hope that everybody read it because all of the stuff that Tim and Cecilia presented has inaccuracies. |
| 04:29:43.26 | Karen Shelton | I can't believe it. |
| 04:29:48.18 | Karen Shelton | I hope that everyone |
| 04:29:53.60 | Nick Dufert | There's also a lot of confusion and contradiction in Tim's plans and lots of comments and photos that weren't presented in the staff report. I cannot support a project that impacts my very narrow Bay view, including completely eliminating my Bay view and part of Angel Island view from my patio and front yard, as you see in this image right here. I would also lose Oh, pardon me, that's the view from my living room. This is the view from my patio showing what I would lose. And you can see the second unit right here. And then here's the view from my living room showing the small narrow bay view that I'd lose about a third of. And you can see where the second unit is definitely visible for my property. |
| 04:30:28.85 | Karen Shelton | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 04:30:35.57 | Nick Dufert | Also, one thing that hasn't come up, Tim's plans show very large trees on the front and the side of the building. Those aren't shown in the visual simulations. I'm not sure if that's a rendering gaffe or what, but they're not shown there. I don't support having 50-foot trees in front of this house. I shared my view inputs directly with Tim on the one and only occasion that he reached out to me, and I adamantly disagree with his characterization of the outreach. I have dozens of emails that I sent to Lily Wayland, Brad, and other city staff for updates on these plans, and I only saw the plans and the story polls in the last couple weeks. Like Tim says, he's been gone for several months, so we wouldn't even have the opportunity to speak to him since these polls went up or since the plans were available on the e-tracker website. I also have issues with the large scale of the project relative to other buildings on the block. with likely effects on parking. This block has parking on one side of the street. There's a total of seven parking spaces for all the houses on the block, seven public parking spaces. I don't believe Tim when he says he's going to live there. Tim and Liz have developed multiple properties and sold multiple properties in southern Marin. I don't think that this one will be any different. They have not tried to be part of the neighborhood or be friends with the neighbors. that. You know, Very briefly, in short, you know, they're looking to turn a sub 1,000 square foot living space into a 4,000 square foot compound spread across two multi-story units, a detached garage, |
| 04:32:14.91 | Maria | Nick, your time has elapsed. |
| 04:32:15.44 | Nick Dufert | Yeah. Okay, thank you. |
| 04:32:18.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Mr. DuPort. And appreciate you sharing these photos. |
| 04:32:23.74 | Nick Dufert | Sure, thank you. |
| 04:32:25.51 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, our next question. public comment is from Chris Park. Welcome. You have three minutes for public comment. |
| 04:32:37.46 | Chris Park | Hi, this is Chris Park and Lisa Lee. We're one of the houses directly opposite the project in question. And a couple of concerns, and just to elaborate here, The level of the impact on our primary views is actually far greater than has been led to believe throughout the earlier part of this discussion. If you look at the picture, and let me share my screen really briefly, if I could. We're looking at a complete loss of view, our primary view from our living room on the second floor of the house, directly opposite the property in question. and the balcony. The views of the Bay was one of the primary reasons why my wife and I decided to move out here from San Francisco and now we're looking at a case where. the view is going to be completely and permanently lost. and eliminated. And you know this is as Nick has mentioned, this is one of the first times we've been looking at actually what just how massive the scale of this project is going to be. Which was never in any of the materials that we've been given in that one location about a year ago when we were invited to. comment on it that one brief afternoon. This is Truly massive. And I just don't know why you know, whatever the intent is to make profit or live there. Why it has to come at the expense of other homeowners on the streets and their views, especially the front structures height increase, none of it like even an inch, it's going to interfere with our view, our primary views of the water. Secondarily, um, As I think other folks have mentioned earlier, the parking situation is quite bad as it stands with the narrow street, one-sided parking. And now, given the scale of the project, we're very worried that it's going to invite more vehicles onto the road, both during the duration of the project and once it's completed. So that's additional concern. And then finally, we have raised our concerns with Brad Evanston in 2020 with our objections comments and photos however as of last night we realized that many of our neighbors including ours our feedback have not been part of the agenda packet for the review by the commissioner We're sincerely worried that the feedback is not taken. And as the project further develops, we're finding more new details about it that we weren't privy to. which makes us really concerned that, you know, the inputs aren't being taken seriously. Thank you. |
| 04:35:10.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Mr. Park. Um, let's see. Martina Quinn. Welcome this evening. You have three minutes for public comment. |
| 04:35:23.78 | Martina Quinn | Martina Quinn, hi there i'm Martina Quinn myself my husband and my family, we live right across the street at 111 fourth street we've been here since 95. We're not opposed to development of 110 at all. But the plan that was submitted represents significant impact to our property because it takes away a huge portion of primary views from our master bedroom. and also from our porch deck. You know, the architect is correct in that an outreach was made. That was only two years ago. At the time, we conveyed our our belief that we could look favorable on a plan that didn't take away our primary views. But that plan never came about and what plan we were shown at the time has not changed to the one that you're seeing today. So in fact there were no changes made to the plan to mitigate the concerns of the neighbours. I would take issue as well with the staff report in saying that the property, the new proposal is located and designed to minimize interference with primary views on that basis. And I would also take issue with the contract planners description of that impact is minor. In our view, it's not minor. And at the very end, I will show you the loss of view from our master bedroom It's certainly not minor. Any raise of the roof of that property is in our primary view, and it's not just the front part. It is the back part as well. So we're affected on both levels of property. We're concerned also, like our neighbours, about the mass and scale of this project. In terms of the neighbourhood, this will be an outlier. and the presentation in the staff report that relates to other properties and comps in the area is wholly inadequate. Several properties left out, and properties on Main Street added in. one property described that is 108 4th Street as having more than 5,000 square feet and four units. In fact, that property has two units, and is less than 2000 square feet. very inadequate representation in the report. Parking is an issue. We're concerned about the car lift. We don't think that's a practical solution. Looks good, sounds good. But how likely is it that it's practically going to be used when people have to take out one car, put in another car, On this street, we see that as being an issue for density. And landscaping, the plan shows huge birch trees at the front of the property. It doesn't show up in the rendering that we're looking at tonight. They're huge trees. They would definitely be in our primary view. And we think that, you know, that property can be developed nicely. without having to take so much away from the neighbors. Um, And with that, I think I can just share my screen really briefly to show you. |
| 04:38:38.82 | Nastassya Saad | actually we're out of out of time okay but |
| 04:38:40.73 | Martina Quinn | Okay. Okay, that's fine. I did submit my visuals to the Planning Commission, so I hope you have had a chance to look at that. And I welcome any of you coming to our home to view it as well. |
| 04:38:55.68 | Nastassya Saad | I appreciate that too. I think that's always important. So thank you very much for being here this evening and for your public comment. Next we have Kathleen I hope I've said your name correctly. I'm... Welcome this evening. You have three minutes for public comment. |
| 04:39:14.05 | Colleen Hovsepien | Can you hear me? |
| 04:39:15.32 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 04:39:16.21 | Colleen Hovsepien | Okay, it's Colleen Hovsepien. I live directly across the street. this will affect my primary views. AND I THINK THAT'S A It's just... Thank you. The scale of the project is massive. I also am the lady that brought up the boxed the culverts. the storm during Culver. that runs. parallel to my house. That starts at the Waldo grade that was built for the Golden Gate Bridge. back in the 30s. It runs all the way down, it cuts through the back of their property Through Third Street. then juts out and then goes out through 2nd Street. My concern is the car lift is going to be built over it. as part of my litigation with the city And Eric Shaw was my attorney. The city of Sausalito is going to protect the covert. and maintain it. I want to make sure How are you protecting it and maintaining it with these structures? on My house sank six inches. because of the leakage. I wouldn't want to have anybody else go through that. as well as that backfill on the back of the lot. So I do have concerns about that. my primary view, I've been here close to 30 years. So these are a lot of my concerns as well as the parking You can only park on one side of the street. I share the same views as my neighbors. going in and out, lifting up and down. That's going to be inconvenient when you want to run to the grocery store. It just doesn't seem practical to me. those are my views. I, I, Did go to Tim and Liz's home. The plans that I saw are different now. I was not a part of the whole loop Um, It's. very confusing to me. And I feel like a lot of the neighbors haven't been in the staff report, we haven't been getting the emails, we're getting left off. And it's our views then there's like five neighbors here that are our property values are going to go down. So, That's all I have to say. |
| 04:41:51.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you so much, Ms. Josephine. I hope that that right this time. Appreciate you being here and thank you for your comments. Kathleen Anderson, you are next. Welcome. You have three minutes for public comment. |
| 04:42:06.82 | Kathleen Anderson | Hi there. um yes i have been 10 years at 108 fourth street the property next door that's uh misrep misrepresented in the staff report it is two units not four 2,000 square feet of living space It is the lower unit that would block the view here. The story polls at first, we spoke with them also a couple of years ago, and the story polls at first were much lower In the last few months while Tim was out of town, news story polls have gone up. They are much higher than they were at first. And the scale of that lower unit will block the view from our property. So that's a concern. And I think all of the other neighbors have talked about all of the other concerns we all have here in this. community. Thanks. |
| 04:43:00.77 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Ms. Anderson. I appreciate you being here tonight. Lisa Lee. You are next. Welcome, you have three minutes for public comment. |
| 04:43:12.36 | Lisa Lee | Perfect. Thank you. My name is Lisa Lee and along with my husband Chris Park who spoke earlier I'm a resident of 115 4th Street which is directly across the house or the property in question. I really just wanted to echo my husband's earlier point about the obstruction of our primary view. I wanted to share my screen if that's the possibility. |
| 04:43:35.67 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, Zoom team, if we can allow a share screen. There you go. |
| 04:43:47.56 | Monica Finnegan | Thank you. |
| 04:43:47.58 | Lisa Lee | Yep. |
| 04:43:49.28 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Yep. We can see it. |
| 04:43:52.05 | Lisa Lee | As you can see in our photos, primary views of the bay from our main living room. This is our second floor, our main living space. And it's adjacent balcony on the same floor. will be entirely lost and eliminated due to the proposed height increase as you can see from the red story polls. The story polls also do not have any height measurement markings. nor are the red lines straights or tightens, so it's really impossible to tell the accuracy of the height with the naked eye on a day-to-day basis. Um, As you can clearly see from the photos, the height increase will severely negatively impact the enjoyment of the bay. um which as my husband mentioned before along with all of our neighbors on the street was one of the main reasons we decided to move in to this property um And it will continue to be you know, what the biggest merits of living out here in Fasolito. My last comment really is I believe the applicant in his earlier presentation mentioned that he got rejected by his neighbors when trying to access our view While the applicants did invite us to their home to discuss the project initially two years ago, They actually never asked to visit our place. for their consideration. So it's our first time hearing that they were you know, ever wanting to take pictures from our living space for consideration. So that came as news for us tonight. Um, Those were all the comments from me tonight. Thank you. |
| 04:45:28.78 | Nastassya Saad | Great, thank you so much, Ms. Lee. Appreciate you being here tonight. Let's see if you could. Stop sharing, see, there we go, okay. Um, at this time I do not see. Any other hands raised? Zoom team, could you just confirm that I'm not missing something? here. Roll. No, I don't see any other hands. |
| 04:45:58.94 | Maria | That is correct. |
| 04:46:00.81 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Maria. So at this time, I'm going to close public comments. Um, |
| 04:46:12.12 | Nastassya Saad | Let's see. |
| 04:46:17.21 | Nastassya Saad | Let's see, do we have Any other comments right now? from the commissioners based on what we've heard. I think we got a lot of very good feedback here and certainly appreciate everyone's time. I will remind not just the commission, but more importantly, the public, this is a study session. So this commission is not taking any action this evening. the feedback and the comments and assistance we're trying to give for this applicant. is meant to be constructive, it's certainly meant to eventually yield a design review application and a successful project that that is also reflective of working within the neighborhood and community. So we won't be taking any action this evening, but comments are welcome. So. Commissioners, any other thoughts? Yes, Commissioner Pierce. |
| 04:47:15.40 | Morgan Pierce | I will offer that I think the applicant has heard pretty well prior to the public comment our concerns on the commission regarding anything regarding zoning so I think that's pretty clear and I think obviously the takeaway here from hearing from his neighbors is that views are of critical importance and scale and parking those are things that we all uh, look at very carefully when we review projects that come before us as actual applications. And neighbor outreach outreach is really high on our list of things to do. And it seems like most of the neighbors here are willing to offer availability to let you see view impacts. Clearly there's some height issues with the front structure that possibly need to be addressed. I'll reiterate that while entire view preservation is not required by our code, obviously there are impacts that this commission looks at in certain ways. So take that under advisement that we will be looking at it from a variety of perspectives. Not from the standpoint that we have to preserve every single view, but that we are concerned about impacts to our community. Take that under advisement, reach out to your neighbors, Come back to us as something that you think can sell. |
| 04:48:43.57 | Nastassya Saad | Yep. Thank you. Well put. Well put. Any other commissioners have any more thoughts? Thank you. |
| 04:48:52.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:48:52.16 | Nastassya Saad | I would. |
| 04:48:52.21 | Richard Graef | I would, uh, |
| 04:48:52.88 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:48:54.03 | Richard Graef | I would offer that that they The drawings need to be considerably more complete than what we've seen here. I realize this is a study session on You can't have everything. all totally nailed down. For example, a section through the garage would have been |
| 04:49:14.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:49:17.40 | Richard Graef | very informative. I don't know. And so obviously, Most of the issues I think have been raised. Um, uh, So I think the landscape is an issue, certainly. Um, the placement of all the vegetation Um, I, in all the discussions here now, beginning to really kind of react to the overall scope of the project. um, and I think, Um, they're her. There have been some comments along those uh, listen to those comments again. . As far as design goes, Oh. the two entirely different looking structures Since they're really not together on a streetscape, I don't think that makes that much of an impact. Um, So I won't say any more about that. except that, uh, You know, certainly if they were more integrated, I think it would be looked on favorably. um, That's pretty much it. |
| 04:50:48.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Saad, do you have any comments to add? |
| 04:50:54.01 | Nastassya Saad | I think there's some clear concern with the height. And I would just echo Commissioner Pierce. I think the neighborhood, you know, we don't want to get in between all the neighbors and the applicant of He said, she said, but there's very clear whatever happened prior, the outreach needs to be there, and I think working with your neighbors, moving forward on those and the views is of importance and I think I think everyone raising the parking was not something that I initially thought of but is probably going to be. come up. as a potential issue considering all the public comments. So I would just highly suggest to work with work with your neighbors in your immediate vicinity for some outreach. |
| 04:51:39.85 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg, did you have any? |
| 04:51:44.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I thought Commissioner Pearson that's in summary of the issues around the zoning I encourage the applicant to read the zoning carefully, height and materials, things that are teeth Thank you. |
| 04:51:58.21 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:51:59.40 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Vice Chair Graff. |
| 04:52:01.82 | Richard Graef | Oh yeah, just one more thing. in favor of the project, and that is that it's adding to our are proposing to add to our housing stock, which I think is conceptually a good idea. |
| 04:52:15.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:52:15.70 | Richard Graef | all. |
| 04:52:15.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:52:16.73 | Richard Graef | That I think is in its favor. |
| 04:52:19.06 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Well, that's a good question. |
| 04:52:22.94 | Unknown | That's it. |
| 04:52:24.38 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Well, you guys you guys definitely I mean hit on a lot of that. I mean, I would encourage the applicant Obviously. you know, to familiarize yourself with some of our zoning requirements and also as as Mr. Pierce earlier mentioned, you know, what triggers the heightened design review and, um, Or you know, triggers variants and stuff like that. I mean, so if you want to stay out of that and make this more straightforward, then, um, you know, we, we use those very We apply those very academically and evenly. So if it's a little bit over, a little bit one way or the other, then those are the regulations that we use. I would also really encourage the applicant When you're presenting renderings in 3D, they're always incredible and amazing tools to use, but make sure that they're accurate and representative of the actual project. |
| 04:53:27.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:53:28.40 | Nastassya Saad | not just the landscape or not just the materials, but also what really does the roof look like? Because when we're talking about, you know, views and heights and things like that. on your existing home you have a very, very tall exhaust fan as an example, or chimney. And that's all fine and well in your existing home. But if you then put something like that on top of you know, the various roofs you have on your structure, that's also gonna impact view and we wanna be aware of what all of that looks like. So we're very, very interested in that, particularly in a heightened design review situation. So we would encourage you to think about that. and look at the parking as it relates to calculations for the two separate dwellings even though it's one on one piece of land, one property, you have two separate structures there and how that might trigger parking. is pretty important. One of the... neighbors. Also talked about privacy between yards. And so I would encourage the applicant to really take that into consideration and whether that's handled with fencing landscape or or thoughtful consideration of where you're placing windows or staggering them against your neighbors and the property line. I think that's important, very important and something we will continue to look for. Um, So with that, Um, I think that we've given some pretty clear direction and some pretty clear guardrails in terms of zoning ordinance and what heightened design review is versus regular design review. Bye. I think that about sums it up. So because we're not taking any action, tonight Cecilia, I will just ask you to make sure our comments and thoughts are clear so you can continue to work with the applicant for a successful project. We absolutely want a successful project here. Obviously this property needs a some upkeep and has a big future ahead of it, hopefully. If we can be of any more help, please do let us know. |
| 04:56:05.59 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Absolutely, Commissioner, thank you. |
| 04:56:07.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Okay. That's that. So community Development Director Whalen, I think we're ready for the next item on our agenda this evening. |
| 04:56:26.52 | Director Whelan | Thank you Chair Feller. We're at our last item here, which is communications between the planning commission and city staff. I just wanted to mention that the city council did assign a proposal review committee to review the RFP to review the proposals that come in. from the solicitation for the housing element update and So commissioners providing representation from the planning commission, are Cho Feller and Commissioner Lefsenberg. I've been working with those commissioners along with Vice Mayor Kalman and Councilmember Cleveland Knowles And we've reviewed the RFP and hopefully but we'll get out tomorrow to perspective consultants and we'll start getting proposals in. schedule interviews and then make a recommendation to the city council. Council in the meantime, we'll be working on the formation of a housing Um, Housing Element Advisory Committee group to purpose to be decided by the council to help with the housing element update. That's kind of the big project that's coming up in community development right now. and one that I wanted to provide an update on. |
| 04:57:44.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:57:44.77 | Director Whelan | Thank you. |
| 04:57:45.12 | Nastassya Saad | Your staff have done a great job, so Thank you for that, Lily. Do you want to give us any update on some of these recommendations that EDAC is looking into on permitting? |
| 04:58:02.22 | Director Whelan | Sure. I haven't been able to watch the meeting from Monday myself yet, but it acted have a meeting on Monday and I understand that they went over Some streamlining ideas that developed from a number of meetings that their subcommittee had with community and then also some meetings with me and my staff, a series of meetings that I had with them. and working together. on a variety of different streamlining ideas for the department, from the very low hanging fruit to the fruit that's probably at the very top of the tree. and working through which items, you know, need to go to the council and in what priority order for the council to consider. And so some of the low hanging fruit are just updating our forms and our information online. maybe some of our graphics and, you know, essentially, trying to provide more self-help to the public in their their applications that they submit to the city. And then some of the larger items are working on you know, permit tracking system that will suit the needs of the department. And then also looking at some potentially targeted Um, updates to our code and seeing where some of the sticking points in the code are. And if those can be smoothed out. So it's kind of a high level. overview |
| 04:59:33.91 | Nastassya Saad | No, I think it's important. I did not see the EDAC meeting either, but because of the email that we received from Tom Riley, who's now, I guess, chairing EDAC, that he had expressed interest in meeting with the Planning Commission. So I just wanted to give everybody a heads up on what's going on there. I think a lot of what he is great, the more the merrier in terms of moving us as a city and a community forward in all of this. Some of it is redundant with some of the conversations and efforts we've already been making. But at least we're all seeing the same thing. And I think as much as we can all work together, it would be beneficial to everybody involved. So I believe that sometime soon we'll have a a discussion about that. So. Um, That's all I had. Does anyone have any other communications? Anything to report? As for agenda items in the future. All right. |
| 05:00:38.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I do have a question, I did submit to Lily directly Um, because of this, I'm not sure if you have any questions about this materiality thing, project across the street. If you have things scheduled out for two months or two, three months, even if you don't know the exact date, you could just send us a list so that when something comes up, we can check and determine that so we're not getting it Friday before Wednesday. |
| 05:01:08.43 | Director Whelan | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. And that's definitely on my streamlining list for myself and something that I'm working on right now is, working on those procedures, especially for staff and processing applications. And one of the things on the list that they've already been communicated to them. is the doing the check of the conflict maps early on in the process. I'm recommending when the project is deemed complete to do that check. So that we can give any commissioner who is conflicted out a notice that you don't have to worry. about that project. Or if you're between the 500 and 1000 feet, we have some time to work with you to see if there actually is a complex. So hopefully some of those issues will start to get ironed out a little bit more over the next couple months as we come up to speed with the new process. |
| 05:02:00.88 | Nastassya Saad | Great, thank you. |
| 05:02:02.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:02:04.74 | Nastassya Saad | All right, well, all in favor of adjourning this evening? |
| 05:02:09.82 | Richard Graef | Bye. Bye. Bye. |
| 05:02:13.15 | Nastassya Saad | Great. Thank you guys so much for all your hard work. It's truly impressive. So thank you. |
| 05:02:13.48 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:02:19.93 | Larissa | Thank you. |
| 05:02:20.03 | Director Whelan | Thank you all. |
| 05:02:20.60 | Nastassya Saad | I remember. |
| 05:02:20.72 | Larissa | Good night. |
| 05:02:20.89 | Director Whelan | No. Mm-hmm. |
| 05:02:21.48 | Richard Graef | Yeah, really. It's only 1130. Good night, everybody. The night is young. |
| 05:02:25.16 | Director Whelan | The night is young. |
| 05:02:26.36 | Morgan Pierce | . Thank you. |
| 05:02:27.88 | Director Whelan | Good night. Bye, everyone. |
| 05:02:28.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:02:28.45 | Richard Graef | Good night. |
| 05:02:29.03 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 05:02:29.16 | Morgan Pierce | All right. Good night, everyone. |
| 05:02:29.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:02:29.77 | Director Whelan | Thank you. |
| 05:02:30.66 | Sheldon | Thank you. |
David Siddow — Neutral: Siddow, a member of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee, stated he generally liked the project but had concerns about the encroachment permit for outdoor dining. He noted the required 4-foot clear travel path is insufficient for the busy downtown sidewalk, and that some pinch points narrow to 3.5 feet. He urged finding an additional 6-12 inches of clearance and noted the fire hydrant location shown on plans is inaccurate, creating a trip hazard. ▶ 📄
Monica Finnegan — In Favor: Finnegan emphasized the property’s 66-year history under family ownership and its contribution to downtown vitality. She praised the project’s design by Michael Rex as enhancing historic preservation, and stated that approving the project would support economic vitality during a challenging time. She encouraged all parties to mediate and resolve remaining issues to bring a positive addition to downtown. ▶ 📄