| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:07.12 | Morgan Pierce | we have a cutoff time tonight or are we going to the nether regions Willy nilly. |
| 00:00:14.00 | Kristina Feller | Well, we are going to try very hard to keep to aid time. Thanks. We are ready. Great. |
| 00:00:23.32 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. |
| 00:00:23.35 | Laura Bowen | Thank you. |
| 00:00:23.88 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. |
| 00:00:26.64 | Kristina Feller | All right, good evening everybody and welcome to the regular planning commission meeting of Wednesday, April 21st, 2021. Community Development Director Whalen, could you kindly call the roll? |
| 00:00:39.13 | Director Whalen | Good evening Chair Feller and planning commissioners. This meeting is being held pursuant to section three of executive order N. 2920 issued by Governor Newsom on March 7th. of 2020 and all members are joining this meeting telephonically through Zoom. And I will now call the roll. Commissioner Saad. Here. Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:01:01.46 | Bruce McMillan | Thank you. |
| 00:01:01.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | here. |
| 00:01:01.76 | Bruce McMillan | Thank you. |
| 00:01:01.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:01:02.42 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Pierce. |
| 00:01:03.62 | Bruce McMillan | I'm not sure. |
| 00:01:05.10 | Director Whalen | by ShareGraph. Yep. And Kira Fowler. |
| 00:01:08.16 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:01:08.19 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 00:01:08.21 | Kristina Feller | Here. |
| 00:01:09.15 | Director Whalen | All members are present. |
| 00:01:10.03 | Kristina Feller | and we have a quorum. Excellent. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve? |
| 00:01:19.97 | Morgan Pierce | remove them. Second. |
| 00:01:21.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:22.79 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. |
| 00:01:24.19 | Director Whalen | Mr. Saad. |
| 00:01:25.54 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:01:26.35 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:01:27.92 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:01:28.59 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Pierce. |
| 00:01:29.81 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:01:30.46 | Director Whalen | Vice Chair Graff. |
| 00:01:31.71 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 00:01:31.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:01:32.29 | Director Whalen | Cheerfeller. Yes, that carries five zero. |
| 00:01:34.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is public comment. This is for items not on the agenda this evening. So if you would like to make public comment at this time. Director Whalen will explain how to do so. |
| 00:01:52.10 | Director Whalen | Thank you, Chair Feller. This is the time to hear about citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda this evening. . |
| 00:01:59.45 | Unknown | is. |
| 00:01:59.67 | Director Whalen | state law precludes the Planning Commission from taking action on or engaging in |
| 00:01:59.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:04.37 | Director Whalen | discussions concerning items of business that are 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. video or audio public. Comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment about an item not on tonight's agenda, please raise your hand in the Zoom application under the participants list. |
| 00:02:20.53 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:02:27.79 | Director Whalen | and you'll be called upon when it's your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star 9. And for all who would like to speak tonight on any item on the agenda and this one too, We will allow you to unmute yourself and share your video and we will need to adjust your settings to allow access. So thank you for your patience and please state your name for the record before beginning your comments. |
| 00:02:51.11 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Director Whelan. At this time, I'm looking for raised hands. I'm just going to scroll on my screen here. for any hands right. Give everybody just a moment to do so. |
| 00:03:09.55 | Kristina Feller | Zoom team, could you just double check? I am not seeing any hand. Oh, hold on. One just went up. Um, . to the planning commission meeting. You have three minutes for public comment on items not on the agenda. |
| 00:03:26.41 | Mickey Allison | I beg to ask if I can make a read a letter into They would get records. and I beg your pardon, but I have another meeting I have to attend. This letter was sent. from the Sierra Club and we would like to Read the letter to you. |
| 00:03:42.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Is this an item on the agenda or not on the agenda? |
| 00:03:45.14 | Mickey Allison | for an item on the agenda. It's on the agenda, but it needs, did you receive the letter from the Sierra club today? |
| 00:03:54.58 | Kristina Feller | We have, and it is also posted and noticed for this meeting So we're only taking public comment. I beg to apologize for interfering. |
| 00:04:02.32 | Mickey Allison | Okay, that's fine. |
| 00:04:07.32 | Kristina Feller | Not at all. Thank you so much for attending this evening. Thank you. Anybody else for items not on the agenda this evening? I'll just scroll one more time and Zoom team, if you see a hand, please. please let me know. |
| 00:04:25.12 | Director Whalen | Chair Keller, I don't see any hands raised. I think we can move on to the next slide. |
| 00:04:28.18 | Kristina Feller | . |
| 00:04:28.38 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 00:04:28.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Very well. So at this time I'll close public comment and let's move on to the next item on the agenda. Director Wehrling. |
| 00:04:36.21 | Director Whalen | Next item on your agenda are public hearing items. Before we begin our public hearing items, this is the time for any commissioners to provide any declarations regarding ex parte communications. |
| 00:04:50.33 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:04:54.08 | Nastassya Saad | I have an entry report. Thank you. |
| 00:04:56.42 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:04:59.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I visited both 181 Spencer again and 99 Wolfbeck again. I saw somebody in the distance but did not talk to anybody. on that one. And I attended three. I visited Three Marion on Saturday and I saw some people in the distance, but I did not talk with them. |
| 00:05:19.61 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Pierce. |
| 00:05:22.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:05:22.14 | Morgan Pierce | I have no expert communications to report. |
| 00:05:25.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Grouse. |
| 00:05:27.42 | Morgan Pierce | I know. |
| 00:05:27.76 | Kristina Feller | the next week. |
| 00:05:27.96 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | THE END OF |
| 00:05:28.03 | Kristina Feller | Why? |
| 00:05:28.32 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. |
| 00:05:29.18 | Kristina Feller | Okay. I do I went by three Marion on my own and started to look around and the. owners of the property came out and allowed me access into the back yard did not discuss the merits of the project. But I did meet Dan Kaufman and went on my way. I also visited 99 Wolfback yesterday with the applicant's architect to review the changes in the story polls and understand what those issues were. And otherwise everything from previous Hearings on 181 Spencer and 99 Wolfback still stand. And that's all I have. Director Whalen, let's move on to are Next item. |
| 00:06:20.63 | Director Whalen | Thank you. The first public hearing tonight is item 4A, which is a request for a design review permit With heightened design review and encouragement agreement and nonconformity permit and a true removal permit at 181 Spencer avenue. This is an item that's returning from a prior planning commission meeting that was continued to date uncertain and we re-noticed this evening. and assistant planner, Mike Janusek will be giving the staff presentation. Thank you. |
| 00:06:57.91 | Mike (staff) | Good evening, commissioners. Thanks, Lily. I'll go ahead and jump right into the presentation, which is the staff report. As Lily mentioned, this is 181 Spencer, the requester for designer view permit heightened designer view, approach agreement. non-conformity permit and removal permit. This is project ID 2018-00193. And, um, continued from the February 24, 2021 special meeting and continued to a date uncertain for more information. As Lily mentioned, it was noticed that occurred on April 6, 2021. And as of the deadline to this afternoon at 4.30 PM, no correspondence has been received from the public. And so in general, from from the previous meeting on February 24, the commission requested further investigation in several aspects of the proposed application. primarily related to the designer view, the heightened designer view, and the tree removal. And so those are listed on the screen for you. Item one was to confirm the building coverage calculation and to confirm the calculation was identical between the 1958 building coverage and the proposed 2021 building coverage. Item two was to provide a landscape plan, a comprehensive landscape plan that demonstrated how the proposed design considered the impact of any vegetation removal on the front slope. and how landscaping could be used to soften the massing of the addition. Item 3 was Thank you. to identify a replacement tree species for the removal of the 10-inch baleoro. and for that replacement to comply with condition of approval number eight, and the last Um, the last. concern during the discussion last meeting was four and that was to supplement the details on the materials pallet to include details on the wood cladding of the storage area, the exterior finishes of the garage, the deck surfacing, and the deck railing. So jumping right into it, item one, The applicant has provided revised materials as you'll see Sheet A 1.2. in attachment F. in the packet and That sheet includes a table Um, outlining the the history of the lot coverage on the site and includes not only the deck footprint, but also the main residents. |
| 00:10:00.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:06.65 | Mike (staff) | And so you'll see that it increases and decreases over time and Um, that in fact it is identical to the 1978 Um, gross square footage. Item two to provide the landscape plan for visual relief and slope stabilization, so you'll see Sheets L1.0 and L1.1 are now provided by the applicant. Therein you'll see nine upright shrubs are proposed along the north Elevation. as well as by Japanese privet along the bottom of the slope along the roadway at Spencer Avenue. In addition to proposed plantings, you'll see that there's been some shifting and of the retaining wall and the driveway widening. While it's still widening, it is narrowed a bit at the throat of the driveway and the retaining wall is actually shifted eight feet to the west. And this allows for this um, effectively minimizes the vegetation removal on the slope. And so it allows more plants to be retained on the slope, including two silver dollar eucalyptus and about between five and eight feet of more of the the existing Japanese privet hedge to be retained, and that's 15 feet in height. Um, And so the landscape plan provided is quite comprehensive in nature. And in addition to the plans provided, there's, um, L there's color elevations and there's also a 3d renderings. And you'll see that there's also two new windows on the north elevation on that middle story where the storage room will be. And that breaks up the massing a bit and softens the edges. And then this really layers the combination of the proposed and the retained vegetation and shows how it marries together and provides that visual relief that was requested. Then again, the 3D rendering, demonstrates how the applicant is achieving visual relief and and preserving and, mitigating any impact from public manage points. of any impact of the addition. |
| 00:12:48.28 | Mike (staff) | And so item three was the more details and selection of replacement tree. This is the Japanese privet. There are five that are proposed to supplement the existing hedge along the roadway. And this is a species that is consistent with conditional approval number eight. It will achieve slope stability. it flowers so it'll attract diverse pollinators. And it's also, it has a waxy leaf. It's also known as the wax privet and that coating It's not oily in nature, so it's not, it doesn't, it doesn't pose a fire risk, but it is that waxy coating helps retain water and reduces the fire risk. And then lastly, the revised materials provided were a material study. And there's details on the finishes for the railing of the deck, which is glass panels and metal posts, the wood decking surface, And It specifies that the The exterior of the addition as well as the garage door will match the existing hardy planks. cladding. And the door will be custom made and it will be solid. There will not be glazing on it. And so tying everything together, findings. which enabled the commission to ask for these revised materials. Now the new materials are incorporated into the staff findings for you tonight and you'll find that You'll see that in the draft resolution and attachment E. and So, design review finding number four, to minimize obstruction of public views, This has been updated to reflect the new plantings proposed as well as the shifting of the retaining wall at the base of the driveway. We'll move on for more plants. retention. And likewise, design review finding number six, the landscaping will serve to provide visual relief And also the two windows will break up the massing. So that's been updated to reflect the new materials. For the heightened review findings, there were two that were affected. Again, public very similar to what we've gone through related to public manage points and minimizing obstruction of these views. Again, just just wanting to make sure we speak to the staff speaks to the proposed plantings at the top and the bottom of the slope to screen the addition. from view along Spencer Avenue. and heightened it by interview finding number four. I wanted to make sure I included for you tonight the geotechnical report and that's the attachment B in your packet. as well as as well as including the finding that, um, the retaining wall and the redesign allows for more plant retention, and that'll help preserve the stability of the slope. And so with that, all findings from the prior meetings are still valid and so all findings are made by staff for their respective requests. And the recommendation for tonight is Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the attached draft resolution and attachment E, and that's for approval of the design review permit with heightened design review. approval of the non-conformity permit. approval of the tree removal permit and lastly a recommendation to the city council for approval of the Encroachment agreement. Alternatively, the commission may deny the application Um, and direct staff to prepare a resolution with specific findings for denial, or they can continue the hearing for additional information. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your your time and attention to make my presentation. |
| 00:17:40.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much, Mike. Thank you for a thorough staff report and all the work you've been doing behind the scenes and And also, um, Clarifying a couple of questions I know the commission had prior to the hearing tonight. So thank you very much for that. At this time, let me ask the commissioners if they have any specific questions for staff at this time before we go into public comment. Commissioner Luxenberg, would you like to start us off this evening? |
| 00:18:09.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. My questions were answered by late mail, so I'm all set at this point. |
| 00:18:14.34 | Kristina Feller | Terrific. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:18:16.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:18:16.05 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Sun. |
| 00:18:17.80 | Nastassya Saad | I had, previously asked some questions through the department this morning. So I think I'm good. |
| 00:18:25.46 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:18:25.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:18:26.00 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Pierce. |
| 00:18:29.31 | Morgan Pierce | Yes, agreed. I believe my questions were answered by staff earlier. |
| 00:18:32.97 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Vice Chair Graf? |
| 00:18:35.18 | Richard Graef | No questions? |
| 00:18:37.00 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. None for me either. So Mike, you did a thorough job At this time, let's go ahead and actually ask the applicant first. to come up here and I don't know if that's Mr. Zwick who will be presenting for the applicants. Okay, Mr. Scott. |
| 00:18:58.96 | Mike (staff) | Just Marty's available. I don't know if I can find him in the crowd right now. |
| 00:19:05.45 | Kristina Feller | So if I can ask the Zoom team to |
| 00:19:07.31 | Mike (staff) | I see him. |
| 00:19:07.82 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. |
| 00:19:08.54 | Kristina Feller | Okay, good. There's Mr. Swick. |
| 00:19:09.27 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | There are. . |
| 00:19:11.99 | Kristina Feller | unmuted. |
| 00:19:12.85 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. |
| 00:19:13.25 | Kristina Feller | Welcome to Swick. Thank you for being here this evening. |
| 00:19:17.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:17.76 | Kristina Feller | This is your time to present as the applicant. So you will have 15 minutes to present and certainly if we interrupt you or ask any questions that does not count against your time So with that, the floor is yours. |
| 00:19:32.93 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Well, thank you very much. This modern technology seems to work after all. I'll need far less than 15 minutes. I wanna thank Michael and whoever wrote the questions because he didn't identify the questions, but somebody was thinking about the project. We got a bunch of questions from the commission and we were pleased with the direction of the questions and the specificity and granularity of the question. I wanted to, I don't wanna go over what Michael just did. It was wonderful. But I would like to add that there's a public safety aspect to this project. And that is, you've all been to the site. And you've seen how narrow the driveway is and how blind that corner is. And that really was the instigation for the process that we've gone through to get to this point. |
| 00:20:10.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:10.14 | Riley Hurd | And |
| 00:20:10.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:17.36 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | We've widened the driveway. We've added a turntable. This will allow people to face out as they go out. And that's certainly a public benefit. In addition, I think Michael mentioned it last hearing, but not this one. There was a side yard setback intrusion that was built before our client ever bought the project. And we're removing that intrusion into the side yard. which is also a public benefit. Additionally, we've had a successful community outreach program, which resulted in letters of support and, as you saw today, no objections to the project. Finally, we were responsible to the planning commission in regards to screening landscape architecture and we have a landscape architect. His name is James Bradenini. He's wonderful and he's available if you have any questions. Um, |
| 00:21:14.67 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Michael did touch on it. I'm just going to reemphasize one more point. And that is that the Planning Commission asked for additional screening and we have 15 foot privet hedges already along Spencer for a good portion of the site. And we were able to retain from about five to eight feet more of them by reconfiguring the driveway. It's still... provides a good sight line for exiting or entrance, but it provides additional screening, and that was something that we heard last time we were here. |
| 00:21:46.64 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Additionally, it wasn't clear last presentation and I hope it is now that we're retaining two of the silver dollar eucalyptus trees which are the tallest and most effective at providing screening and those show up in the combined landscape and materials that Michael showed you as part of his presentation. |
| 00:22:07.91 | Unknown | you |
| 00:22:08.55 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | I think that's enough for me right now. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions. And if there's some time at the end and we need to respond. I'm sure you'll give the rest of the 12 minutes and 16 seconds. that I have left back to me if that's required. Thank you. |
| 00:22:24.78 | Kristina Feller | Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Zwick. Zoom team, if we could stop the clock, thank you. And you did also mention that the landscape architect is here so Zoom team, if you could find that gentleman in the crowd here. I think I know I'll have a couple of questions, but I want to first turn to my fellow commissioners to see if they had any questions so far from Mr. Zwick. regarding the architecture I'll start again with you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Do you have any questions specifically on the architecture? |
| 00:22:58.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I just want to comment Mr. Zwick and his landscape architect. I appreciate the response and the changes that were made. since the last hearing. So that's all I have at this time. |
| 00:23:09.82 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Hear, hear. Commissioner Saad. I don't know. |
| 00:23:13.77 | Nastassya Saad | have any questions at this point. |
| 00:23:15.05 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:23:15.39 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:23:15.85 | Kristina Feller | Great, Commissioner Pierce. |
| 00:23:19.47 | Morgan Pierce | I did have one question for the applicant. Mr. Zui, thank you so much. trying to look on my little screen and correlate the existing plan with the tree removal plan and the proposed plans. Based on what I'm looking at, it looks like we might have a landscape hole at the northeast corner plan bottom left for a taller plant. And I was wondering if that is the case, would you be willing to introduce a tree there to help minimize the mass of the building and help weave it more gently into the landscape? |
| 00:23:54.66 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. You're talking to the wrong fellow. I love, but I don't have your expertise, nor do I have Jim's, but he's here. And I'm sure that we would agree to that if that would affect the outcome of the of the program. |
| 00:23:57.48 | Morgan Pierce | I love playing. |
| 00:24:07.35 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Thank you. That is the only question I had. |
| 00:24:09.76 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. That is the best. Okay, so perhaps with that, because I think you and I are thinking along the same lines, Commissioner Pierce, and I'll get to Vice Chair Graff here in just a moment. .. Even Mike, if you might be able to assist, put a landscape plan on the screen here so we can be specific. on this particular matter. |
| 00:24:41.64 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great, Mike, thank you. And, and Mr. Where did you just go? Am I saying this right, Mr. Bradhani. |
| 00:24:57.87 | Jim Bradnini (landscape architect) | Brad and Amy, Jim, first name. |
| 00:24:59.27 | Kristina Feller | Like Jim. Thank you. Forgive me. |
| 00:25:01.65 | Jim Bradnini (landscape architect) | Thank you. |
| 00:25:02.85 | Kristina Feller | Would you like to maybe walk us through your plan here and perhaps assist us with Commissioner Pierce's question. about the planting. |
| 00:25:15.89 | Jim Bradnini (landscape architect) | So I think it's fairly clear what we're proposing to do is essentially extend that tree hedge along Spencer to provide not only And move that screening along the street frontage there, but also provide some stability to the bottom of the slope. but I think that's a good thing. Was the question to sort of add another a tree further down the line. I think we would certainly be that's not amenable to that. Currently we're proposing five 24-inch box trees along that area there. I expect they're going to be a fairly significant size when they go in. want to leave room for them to kind of root into the soil to kind of provide that um, anchoring that we're looking for as well, but we could certainly accommodate an additional. down the line. As mentioned as well, we're also providing a layering of the shrubs at the building, more of more like foundation. Everything sort of on this site is very vertical. So the planting sort of takes on that same characteristic as well. And that's where we're introducing the podocarpus and four of those along one frontage of the addition and then five across the existing and the planters that are currently existing at the building. Um, That, in essence, is a the, describes our landscape that we're proposing. I've read through the conditions and I think As I understand them, I think what is being proposed certainly meets that criteria. I'm happy to answer any more detailed questions on that, too. |
| 00:27:19.56 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner Pierce did that address your your question. |
| 00:27:26.05 | Morgan Pierce | It did outline my understanding of what is proposed. Thank you very much, Mr. Bradnini. And my question really was adding an additional tree, whether it's single trunk or multi-trunk, Thank you. Um, either within the property or within the right of way near the corner of the property line. If you look immediately page down and left of the proposed addition of the red lines, it seems like there's sort of a vacant spot on the flatter portion of the property where a tree might land that could help, again, address the scale of this new addition and mitigate some of the vegetation that's being lost. |
| 00:28:03.23 | Jim Bradnini (landscape architect) | I think that's a very good idea. That big bay tree really occupies a big chunk of real estate there, so... So that corner could benefit, I think, from |
| 00:28:11.77 | Morgan Pierce | So that's. |
| 00:28:15.23 | Jim Bradnini (landscape architect) | an additional tree there. Great. I think that would be good. Yeah. |
| 00:28:17.76 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:28:17.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:28:17.93 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:28:21.07 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bradnini and Commissioner Pearson. Other questions on that? |
| 00:28:27.66 | Morgan Pierce | I have no other questions. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:28:29.96 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Vice Chair. That's, |
| 00:28:33.11 | Richard Graef | No questions. Looks great. |
| 00:28:37.20 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. I too am incredibly pleased with what you proposed for this hearing and thank you very, very much for being so receptive to our input and feedback. at our last hearing and appreciate the attention to detail that I think is really excellent design and certainly from a public safety point. um, I think we can all recognize how steep this This driveway is an applicant being innovative with a solution here that I think would be very successful. |
| 00:29:09.70 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | driveway. |
| 00:29:19.74 | Kristina Feller | So I don't believe unless any commissioners have any further questions at this time or any comments. No, okay. Mr. Zwick and Mr. Bradnini, you still have the 12 minutes. We're going to go ahead to public comment at this time. and hear what the public has to say. And then we can come back to you before we bring it back up here to the dais. Okay. |
| 00:29:44.88 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:29:45.78 | Kristina Feller | Hold with us there. At this time, I'd like to open up this portion of our hearing this evening to public comment. And Director Whelan, if you can remind everybody how to do so. |
| 00:30:01.51 | Director Whalen | Thank you, Chair Feller. Now's the time for public participation and comment on this item. Video or audio public participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application now, and you'll be called upon. and it's your time to speak. So raise your hand from the phone, please press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. And please be patient while we unmute you. and allow you to share your video, please state your name for the record. |
| 00:30:27.90 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Director Whalen. At this time, I am just scrolling here on my own. The screen looking for any raised hands regarding this item on the agenda. |
| 00:30:43.94 | Kristina Feller | Okay, seeing done. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment on this item. And I would like to, I'm actually gonna bring it back up here onto the dais for any further discussion. And then of course, The applicant still has a little bit of time if we need to engage or they would like to make any closing comments. So, Commissioner Pierce, would you like to kick us off? |
| 00:31:09.11 | Morgan Pierce | this is for any additional comments not for final comments |
| 00:31:13.09 | Kristina Feller | This is for any comments that we have or any deliberation we need to make. And then we can ask the applicant to address anything we might have. or make any closing comments once we've discussed it. |
| 00:31:27.52 | Morgan Pierce | Okay, I think I understand. Well, I will offer that I do appreciate the applicant's willingness to to reduce the scope of modification to the existing landscape. That helps me considerably. I appreciate their sensitivity to traffic and pedestrian safety along spencer avenue and i appreciate uh their commitment to retaining existing plant material as i mentioned you know i'm interested in the addition of more plan material to help marry the new structure the landscape and I believe Mr. Brad Neeney, the landscape Arctic. agreed that a tree in the location we identified would be a a welcome addition and I would be looking for acknowledgement from the applicant that that would be something they'd pursue. I'd be willing to put that in a condition of approval and allowing the applicant to work with staff to determine species, size and location. |
| 00:32:19.34 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:32:24.94 | Nastassya Saad | I I thought it was a very, um, I think it's a thorough presentation and I think from everything we've asked, it seems to have all been addressed in my eyes. you and Commissioner Pierce noticed on the tree but now hearing that discussion I would I would support a condition of approval to add that in but otherwise I don't have any further comments on this project. |
| 00:32:49.38 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:32:52.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I concur with what Commissioner Saad just said. I'll support the additional requirement and I'm fine with the rest. |
| 00:33:02.47 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you, Vice Chair Graff. |
| 00:33:07.03 | Richard Graef | And, um, Yes, I would concur with all of the comments. I think this was a well thought out well presented project and, I think we can make the findings. The tree, I agree about adding that tree over on that side. really help complete that Um, Uh, the front. But I only wonder what sort of size tree are we looking for there when it's mature? So maybe Commissioner Pierce has some thoughts about that or the landscape architect. |
| 00:33:55.17 | Morgan Pierce | And thank you, Vice Chair Graff. I, in my recommended condition, suggested that the landscape architect is responsible for selecting that in concert with the city, knowing all the parameters associated with its confines. |
| 00:34:13.74 | Richard Graef | But the goal being Uh... what a sort of medium sized dense foliage tree or Uh, |
| 00:34:24.89 | Morgan Pierce | That's a great question. And we can get into that specification. You know, I offered that I wanted it to help marry the building to the landscape. And that somewhat implies a certain scale. You know, it's not a giant tree. It's not a diminutive tree. It's somewhere in between. If we feel that we need to get that specific, you know, we can adjust the landscape. the condition to do so. But again, Mr. Bradney seemed like a very a very skilled landscape architect, I would imagine you would probably recommend an appropriate species for said location. |
| 00:35:01.31 | Richard Graef | I'm happy with that. |
| 00:35:04.72 | Kristina Feller | Excellent vice chair any other thoughts or comments. |
| 00:35:10.45 | Kristina Feller | Vice Chair Graf. |
| 00:35:12.01 | Richard Graef | Oh, no, no, no, I'm, thank you. |
| 00:35:15.06 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:35:15.08 | Richard Graef | Okay. |
| 00:35:16.38 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I'm quite satisfied being able to make the findings and again, thank the applicant for making these modifications to this design application. I think maybe at this time I'd like to ask Mr. Zwick and Mr. Bradney to come back. |
| 00:35:31.60 | Unknown | bread and |
| 00:35:33.55 | Kristina Feller | up here. because I think we are all leaning towards a condition of approval And I just want to get confirmation from the applicants that not only is that acceptable, but that they understand what we're recommending. Um, There you are, Mr. Zwick and Mr. Bradnini. So you've heard our... conversation deliberation up here. and appreciate you being open to the suggestion. Um, So as it could, you know, should we approve this project right now, we would identify This additional tree is a condition of approval first want to confirm that that's acceptable to you and to your client. |
| 00:36:17.43 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | It is. |
| 00:36:18.80 | Kristina Feller | Very well, very well. And we would ask that you work with staff the appropriate species there. to achieve really the desired effect that commissioner Pierce so wonderfully described. I want to make sure that you understand what we're looking for and that is something that you can take on or if we can provide any clarification. |
| 00:36:42.99 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | He is wonderfully poetic. I think we understand what we need to do. |
| 00:36:46.89 | Kristina Feller | He is very wonderfully poetic. Good. Okay. Well, thank you both. Any other comments or thoughts from any commissioners to the applicant at this time? No. Okay. Thank you. So, I will entertain a motion to approve. |
| 00:37:06.15 | Morgan Pierce | I will move to approve. |
| 00:37:06.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I'll be real. |
| 00:37:09.42 | Morgan Pierce | D R E A N P T R P 2018-00193. for 181 Spencer Avenue with the condition of approval as elucidated in our conversation. Thank you. |
| 00:37:23.44 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. |
| 00:37:23.46 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 00:37:23.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Excellent, thank you, Commissioner Pierce and Commissioner Luxenberg. Director Whalen, is that condition of approval clear standard |
| 00:37:32.74 | Director Whalen | You know, |
| 00:37:34.16 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Let's go ahead and take the roll then. |
| 00:37:34.46 | Director Whalen | Thank you. Commissioner Saad. Yeah. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:37:41.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:37:42.70 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Pierce. |
| 00:37:43.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:37:44.81 | Director Whalen | Did I share a graph? |
| 00:37:46.56 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:37:47.24 | Director Whalen | And chair fell her. |
| 00:37:48.34 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:37:49.30 | Director Whalen | That motion carries five zero. Any action of the planning commission may be appealed within 10 days of the action to the city council must complete a required appeal form and pay the appeal fee within 10 days of this action for the appeal to be timely filed If you have any questions about how to file an appeal, please contact the project planner or the community development department. And I will introduce the next item here. Moving along to our next item, which is item 4B, a design review permit. At 99 wolfback Ridge Road also known as lot five of wolfback estates which was continued at the February 24th Commission meeting to a date certain tonight's meeting. And we have contract planner Brad Edmondson who will be giving the staff presentation this evening. |
| 00:38:33.59 | Unknown | Hi. |
| 00:38:33.85 | Ellen Borgeson | Bye. |
| 00:38:33.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:39.25 | Director Whalen | Welcome Brad. |
| 00:38:40.90 | Brad | Good evening, everyone. You know, it was a shock project we haven't heard before. This is again Wolfback Estates. Let me see if I can share my screen here. |
| 00:39:02.42 | Unknown | Sure screen. |
| 00:39:07.26 | Unknown | I heard. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:39:12.37 | Unknown | you |
| 00:39:15.65 | Brad | OK. All right. Design review 2018-00276 at 99 Wolfback Ridge Road, also known as Lot 5 of Wolfback Estates. As was stated, this was continued from the February 24th planning commission meeting And the site is located in Wolfback Estates at the end or almost at the end of Wolfback Ridge Road. from West of the 101 freeway. that. The existing conditions of this lot as we are mostly familiar with. It is an irregularly shaped parcel that wraps around one canto gall and extends down the eastern slope across Wolfback Terrace Road. The only viable building site is the graded pad at the southwest portion of the site between one Canto Gall and one Rose Bowl. the Wolfpack estate settlement agreement when the subdivision was approved and then negotiated. did establish increased setbacks on Lot 5. And separate from that, there was a declaration of restrictions that imposed height restrictions over portions of Lot 5 to preserve views from 51 Wolfback Ridge. That was negotiated by the buyer of 51 Wolfback Ridge, the current owner of the MacArthur's. And the seller, the Wolfback estate subdivider of 51 Wolfback Ridge Road The city is not a party to this document I'm not sure. As it has relevance in this process, we have gone ahead and assess the proposed application against this in addition to the other reviews conducted. As you can see, the existing conditions We've got the building site at 99 Wolfback Ridge, kind of to the southeast of lot four. So we're 51 Wolfpack, ridges, one Canto Gull, one Rose Bowl. previous hearings. The initial hearing that this project was discussed at was on November 6, 2019. At the time, there were issues raised primarily including visibility, visual impacts to residences as well as GGNRA. concerns about setbacks, protection of the trees, Um, The next meeting was October 21st in 2020. The applicant proposed a reduced size and height residence Visual impacts were reduced or limited to several of the neighboring homes. They reduced excavation and off-haul and increased protection for the Monterey, Cypress and Monterey pine trees. Issues raised at that time included, particularly view impacts 251 Wolfpack Ridge, of the slope down the eastern slope of Wolfpack Ridge. privacy concerns for one canto gall visibility from the GGNRA The adequacy of the arborist reports pertaining to the protection of the Monterey cypress trees. and the size of the residents proposed versus the 2000 to 4000 square foot conceptual size that was discussed in the environmental impact report for the Wolfpack State subdivision. That was then continued to the February 24th, 2021 hearing. That proposal included increased setbacks for one canto gall The pool was replaced with a spa and a water feature that was designed and positioned uh, increase privacy for one canto goal by minimizing, uh, access to the, the hedgerow and the wall at the property line. It, uh, further minimize view impacts to 51 Wolfback Ridge. The kitchen pop out was cantilevered to try to protect the Monterey Cypress root system. Additional oak trees were added along the Western elevation to screen the residents from GGNRA. off-haul excavation was reduced and the local operation was sourced to receive and reuse excavation spoils. Concerns expressed at that time included impacts to one canto goal including shadowing potential noise and privacy and then safety regarding the proposed garage access from the shared driveway between 99 Wolfpack Ridge and 1 Canto Gaul the lack of consistency with the possible home sizes of 2,000 to 4,000 square feet in the Wolfback Estates EIR. Again, visual impacts from the GGNRA trails, particularly from the reflective window glazing Uh, general concern for the proximity to and the preservation of the existing Monterey, Cypress and pine trees on site. And then concerns about setbacks, including the adequacy of those proposed and the interpretation of the applicable codes to this particular item. The request tonight is a design review permit to construct a new 50 120 square foot two story residence. and a 1,465 square foot subterranean garage that includes maneuvering room, storage for recyclable, containers and then space for three cars. and then to construct a shallow water feature and spa. The changes from February 24th proposal include several minor building floor plan changes to ease access to the garage and protect the Monterey Cypress route system This has resulted in a small increase in the garage area of 40 square feet. and a reduction of 55 square feet to the residents. A guardrail and signaling light were added along the eastern side of the driveway shared with one canto goal. The idea would be the guardrail is a simple protection measure. and the signaling light would activate when the garage was open. to notify anyone in and around the driveway that there's potential for traffic. Loavers have been added to the windows along the western elevation. The stairwell has been specified to have no ceiling lights or chandeliers and all lighting in that area is specified to be low mounted, shielded and downward facing to minimize glass reflectivity and nighttime illumination towards GGNRA And the windows were also specified to be low reflectivity bird safe glass. The roof perimeter soffits and canopy are specified to be a dark bronze, reducing the brightness of the upper roof compared to the, court and seal previously proposed, and they would further blend the upper part of the residence into the natural landscape color palette. The kitchen and pantry cantilever has been reduced by an additional four feet to further separate it from the Monterey Cypress tree. And the Western Elevation Landscaping revised to include taller shrubs to provide additional screening and soften the Western elevation of the residents towards GGNRA. Here you can see the site plan. Generally, this project looks fairly similar to what has been discussed before the changes as noted are minor. So the general layout, the general shape, and size of the footprint of the residents is the same. So the site plan, does not differ drastically from what has been presented here before. nor do the floor plans. This is the lower floor plan. You can see on the left, the garage, Um, And the... garage door entryway up at the top of the screen. that's not going to be Then you can see the lower rooms. and we're going to have and the upper floor plan. got the the rooms all before you can see, clouded near the bottom of the image, you can see where the, It's clouded out that the pantry area and the kitchen area have been reduced the cantilever that's not going to be a So we got that. uh, images provided by the applicant to show renderings from bird's eye view to show them in context of the surrounding residences on Wolfpack Ridge. We have images from the south. That's one canto goal or I mean not one goal at the bottom of the screen. and one Rose Bowl off to the right All Here's the view from the west. Again, one rose bowl to the right and the light-colored roof behind the residence is one canto doll. Here's from the north. where in the foreground you can see one canto golem and you can see the garage entrance. THE FAMILY. into kind of carved out of the slope there, the hillside. And then from the east, you can see that both one Canto Gala and one Rose Bowl. are prominently there in front of the residents and visible. The regulatory framework, there are several elements that are part of the framework applicable to this project. These include the Sausalito General Plan, and it's also the zoning ordinance. the school FACA state subdivision that includes the settlement agreement and the environmental impact report. and the privately negotiated recorded development restrictions on lot five that the city is not a party to. For the general plan, the land use has been determined to be correct, very low density residential. Staff has determined that the project meets several of the general plan objectives and policies. I'm not sure. including scale architectural diversity, neighborhood compatibility, preservation of private views. So staff is confident that the project is in compliance with the general plan. For the zoning, the subject property is subject to the development standards for the R120 single-family residential district. and the Wolfpack Estate Settlement Agreement, Architectural Standards and Development Restrictions then the height restrictions imposed by the declaration of restrictions uh, regarding the R120 standards. Floor area ratio, building coverage, impervious surface coverage are all well within the R120 standards. Do not trigger heightened design review. There is only one dwelling unit proposed. There is no guest house or ADU proposed. and the parking standards are complied with. Building height is restricted by the declaration of restrictions to a maximum height of 14 feet on the Eastern half of the building site and 26 feet on the Western half of the building site. Both of these are far below the maximum of 32 feet that is normally allowed under the R120 standards. The R 120 standards require setbacks of zero feet to the front. 10 feet to the sides and 20 feet to the rear. The Wolfpack estate settlement agreement adds 10 feet to each setback. So the net total is 10 feet for the front setback, 20 feet for the side setbacks, and 30 feet to the rear setback. One thing that was noted in the review this go around is that pools and spas are prohibited from encroaching into side setbacks per uh, South Dakota municipal code section 10.44.020 G1. the state. There is some further discussion on this, but this was something that had not been noted previously and we're going to discuss that. So project analysis for setbacks. These have been a point of contention. general backstory is In November 2017, the Community Development Director, former director, issued a formal determination of the front property line for lot five as being the line generally parallel closest to Wolfback Ridge Road |
| 00:50:36.64 | Unknown | So, |
| 00:50:40.80 | Brad | And so that was a determination that was appealed to the planning commission. and then that was appealed to the city council and the council ultimately adopted the resolution affirming the community development department's determination of the front property line. per the definitions in the zoning ordinance section 10.88.040 A rear property line means ordinarily that line of a parcel that is opposite and most distant from the front property line. In this case, that is the one furthest down the slope to the east. And then per the same definition, side property lines are recorded lot boundaries that are neither front nor rear property lines. So we establish that context. In terms of this particular property, so you can see here, parcel line number one at the bottom of the screen was determined to be the front property line. from that. Parcel line number three at the top of the screen was determined to be the rear property line. And, per the zoning ordinance and all other property lines. THE FAMILY. two, four, five, six, seven, and eight are all determined to be side property lines. So that is the context of how the setbacks and the property line definitions were determined for this particular property. Now, Section 10.40.070 D one. requires increased setbacks for buildings where the building lengths parallel to a side lot line are longer than 40 feet. at a rate of one foot for additional setback. for every five feet of building length beyond 40 feet. based on the building design, the setbacks, increase for the east side to 34 feet. North side at 28 feet, south side at 29 feet, nine inches. As designed, the proposed residence complies with the front and rear setbacks but only provides 20 feet for the east side setback. That's the one adjacent to Cantagall. 24 foot three for the north side. and 27 feet nine inches for the south side. that being the one against Rose Bowl. Section 10.40.090D. provides for allowances for walls to project into the setback under certain criteria. These are called permitted projections under the zoning ordinance. These criteria include One that the average yard width slash depth is at least equal to the required depth. No more than 50% of the wall encroaches into the setback. The yard is not less than three feet wide at any point. and that the proposed projections into the setback are approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the design review permit. The applicant has prepared exhibits demonstrating compliance with the criteria contained in 10.40.090D These are included in the staff report. Stafford concurs that the technical criteria in parts one through three have been met. and thus are subject to review by the planning commission under the design review process. Additionally, because the applicant has relied on past community development department staff guidance. that the increased setbacks only apply to buildings The commission can find that the proposed location of the spa is not encroaching into the setback and thus is permitted. And if that is the case, then condition two would need to be modified to remove reference to the spa. in the event that the commission is going to uh adopt a resolution of approval Here we can see one of the exhibits for the setbacks. And, uh, This is the applicants image. And I tried to clarify a little bit based on, uh, discussions that the director and the city attorney and myself had over studying the setbacks here. that. and what, We've got here is They show the green hatched area, they show along the building where the areas of projection into the setback are. and then We identified the areas where the applicant has establish that these are areas that are going to offset that area of into the setbacks. and by maintaining the total square footage of the yard area, Thus, the calculation can be made that the average depth is maintained. Here is for the east side. This is the one adjacent to one canto ga. You can see, again, the cross hatching. where the building section is within the setback area And then you can see the areas are offset. to ensure that there is sufficient meet the average depth requirements. And then the south side, the one adjacent to One Rose Bowl, There's a very small projection into the setback and, uh, The applicant has identified more than sufficient area to offset that as shown in the arrows. for the Wolfback Estates Environmental Impact Report. As part of the subdivision, the EIR was created, circulated and then adopted and certified by the city. The EIR is not a technical document, but rather speaks of potential significant environmental impacts and describes mitigation measures, which could minimize or eliminate such impacts. BAR provides conditions of approval and mitigation measures to guide future development at Wolfpack Estates including measures and controls on architecture landscaping and so on These measures and controls are considered and incorporated into the settlement agreement and regulated at a more stringent standard through the design review process. And while the EIR does reference the conceptual future residents of a certain sizing configuration, |
| 00:56:13.26 | Unknown | to residents. |
| 00:56:16.11 | Brad | Those specific criteria were not included as conditions of approval or mitigation measures within the Wolfpack Estate subdivision approval or the EIR certification. and thus are not considered applicable development standards in this case. So interview findings. per zoning ordinance section 10.54.050 D There are 13 findings that the planning commission must make to be able to approve a design review. I reviewed the recording from the February 24th hearing And, uh, During that hearing, the commissioners had collectively expressed concerns regarding finding seven, which is to provide adequate light and air between structures finding eight which is exterior lighting and mechanical equipment. Finding 10 proposed entrances, exits, parking circulation being providing adequate safety. finding 11 tree preservation and finding 13 that the project does not crowd structures on neighboring properties. The commissioners did indicate that the other findings could be made. The applicant has redesigned portions of the project and submitted various exhibits, renderings and technical studies to address |
| 00:57:16.98 | Unknown | that's not going to be a |
| 00:57:25.74 | Brad | Some of these concerns and the discussion is as follows. For the first concern, the shadows and sunlight, The commissioners expressed concern about whether the proposed residents would cast shadows across one canto gall and excessively block sunlight from reaching that residence. The applicant has provided a comprehensive shadow study which is attached to the staff report The methodology the consultant used to create the shadow study and how it was extrapolated throughout the year is documented in the attachment. Based on the assessment of the shadow study staff is confident in recommending that finding seven can be made. regarding rooftop equipment vegetation That one finding eight. The commissioners expressed concern about the visibility of rooftop equipment and its proximity to the adjacent Monterey Cypress tree. Sheet A 2.2 of the applicant's plan clearly demonstrates that the single roof bent is located in the center of the green roof. separated from the canopy of the tree. This combined with the tree protection conditions of approval included in the draft resolution address this concern and allow staff to recommend that finding eight can be For finding 10, the safety and vehicular movement, the commissioner's expressed concern about the safety of vehicle movement in and out of the proposed garage. along the shared driveway with one canto golf. suggestions were made for this including installing a guardrail on the eastern downslope side of the driveway I'm not sure. to relocating the garage to either the northern or western elevations of the residence. The applicant has expressed concerns regarding the relocation of the garage, including potential visual impacts to GGNRA. and compromise goals for the property owner. The applicant has added guardrails to the driveway, widen the garage entrance to better facilitate movement in and out of the garage. and included a signal light on the guardrail that would illuminate when the garage is open. thus notifying vehicles or pedestrians in the driveway that a car is approaching. With these changes staff recommends they're finding 10 can be made. For finding 11, tree protection and preservation. Concerns were expressed regarding the protection and preservation of the existing trees on the property as well as the new trees proposed to be planted. As noted previously, conditions of approval have been included regarding tree protection standards And an additional condition has been included requiring landscaping be installed per the approved plans and maintain in a healthy living condition and dead or dying plants and trees be replaced like for like. Changes to the approved landscape palette would be subject to approval of the community development director or their designee. and has redesigned portions of the proposed residents to further protect the existing trees and root systems. The kitchen and pantry cantilevered section has been pulled further back from Monterey Cypress And some of the lower level building walls have been reconfigured to allow for spanning over the Monterey Cypress root systems. based on the arborist recommendations with these efforts staff recommends that finding 11 can be And then finding 13 that the project does not crowd neighboring structures. Numerous of concerns have been expressed about the setbacks proposed for this project. Beyond the base standards for setbacks within the R120 zoning district and the Wolfpack State Settlement Agreement, The size and length of the proposed residence triggers the need for increased setbacks per Section 10.40.070D1. And as part of the application, the applicant has elected to request to have the building projections into some of the required setbacks. consistent with regulations in the zoning ordinance under section 10.40.09 OD. Staff has prepared to end up the analysis of the setbacks and the applicable zoning ordinance sections. Earlier in the presentation, staff has concluded that the applicant has followed the initial staff direction in applying both standards. the project satisfies the criteria in section 10.40.090D. As such staff recommends that finding 13 can be made. settlement agreement findings as with the design review findings concerns were expressed by the commissioners regarding several of the wolfback estates architectural standards listed below The project was determined to conform to the remaining standards, though is not listed below. Uh, the first one was architectural standard E exterior design must be harmonious with the natural character of Wolfback Ridge. Architectural standard I, building materials in color should be subdued. Architectural standard J reflective windows of materials are prohibited. and architectural standard K use of natural appearing roof materials is required. The concerns are expressed regarding standards E, I, and J, all focused on primarily the reflective window glazing along the western elevation. Specifically, there were concerns about the durability and performance of the windows and then concerns about potential bird strikes. current submittal specifies two types of window materials to address these concerns. The first one is bird-friendly glass, guardian glass. that has a reflectivity level of only 12% to reduce clarity of tree and sky reflection. The second one is bird protection aviary glass by Arnold Glass. has a 19% reflectivity level and a UV pattern that is visible to birds, but not humans to discourage them from flying into the windows. Staff suggested this plan revision addresses the identified concerns and results in conformance with standards EINJ. The concerns expressed regarding standard K pertain to the green roof and any proposed roof equipment. The current submittal proposes changing out the court and steel for the roof perimeter, flashing, canopy, et cetera. with a dark bronze powder coated material that would reduce brightness along the upper portion of the residence and further blend into the natural color palette of Wolfback Ridge. Additionally, a condition of approval has been included in the draft resolution requiring that the roof materials living and otherwise. be maintained in a healthy and or fully functional condition as appropriate to the specific material or improvement. Staff suggests that this plan revision plus the proposed condition of approval addresses the identified concerns and results in conformance with this architectural standard K. Public comment as with the previous hearing, numerous public comments have been submitted for this project, both in favor of and opposed to. All comments received by 4 30 p.m. today have been uploaded to the agenda link on the planning commission web page. and forwarded onto the planning commissioners. for the most part. comments received during a previous hearing were not attached or uploaded. The applicant had submitted letters with the revised application that had been previously provided and those were uploaded just as part of the attachments as my personal standard practice So I apologize for the duplication on that and |
| 01:03:42.24 | Unknown | you |
| 01:03:44.73 | Brad | Um, I'm not sure. Two issues in particular that occurred today The Marin chapter of the Sierra Club had submitted a letter of opposition to the project and this afternoon issued a retraction of said letter due to inaccuracies that were discovered in the arguments opposing the project. and the general superintendent of GGNRA has submitted a letter of support this afternoon. She acknowledged that the concerns expressed why the public were legitimate concerns, but she expressed satisfaction that the project as proposed was no threat to the park. With that staff recommends that the planning commission approve the draft resolution for a design review permit to construct a new 5,120 square foot two story residence, construct a new 1,465 square foot subterranean garage, and should the planning commission so choose spa. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may deny the application direct staff to prepare a resolution with specific findings for denial. or continue the hearing for additional information and or project revisions. and staff is available if you have any questions. |
| 01:04:50.92 | Kristina Feller | Excellent, thank you Brad for the very thorough presentation and all the efforts behind the scenes that you've put together. uh with the applicant and all interested parties to prepare that. So thank you very, very much. At this time, I want to ask commissioners if they have any questions for clarification from staff. Commissioner Pierce, do you have any questions for staff? |
| 01:05:21.22 | Morgan Pierce | I do, thank you, Chair Feller. Obviously, we received the recap from the Sierra Club on their objection to this project based on misinformation. Would staff please report on the specific inaccuracies for the record? |
| 01:05:33.95 | Brad | For the record, I honestly have not been informed of what they determined to be inaccuracies. I'm not sure. They did not communicate that to me. received the letter and forwarded it on. I suspect I've been informed that others have noted inaccuracies. particularly the superintendent from GGNRA about the location in some photos that were identified as lot 5. and some of the uh, uh, allegations or, or, uh, statements that, uh, GGR NRA was, uh, act actively opposed or implications that act that they were opposed to this because they had opposed, uh, the prior development on lot 10. but I don't know if that's specifically triggered Sierra Club to issue their retraction. |
| 01:06:27.26 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. My other question. For planning commission purposes, do the city's claims regarding the EIR supersede any alleged claims made by other parties in this project? Thank you. |
| 01:06:41.68 | Brad | Uh, |
| 01:06:42.56 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 01:06:42.59 | Brad | what's happening. |
| 01:06:42.97 | Morgan Pierce | it. |
| 01:06:43.27 | Brad | Thank you. |
| 01:06:43.44 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. Uh, it's, we're, we've been getting a lot of mail considering, uh, that, that suggests that the planning commission needs to really, uh. assess the impact of the EIR on this project, yet the city's information is suggesting that that is essentially superfluous. So I want to know what our direction needs to be regarding that document. |
| 01:07:05.24 | Brad | I'm... Well, I mean, as has been discussed previously, and I can ask the city attorney to jump in, that we're going to have The we are following the EIR. The EIR was adopted for the subdivision and established mitigation measures and conditions of approval to apply to development in this subdivision. and we have followed that. the particular reference to the but, future home size, potential future home size of 2000 to 4000 square feet is not called out as a requirement or as a standard or a mitigation measure anywhere there's only a as far as I'm aware there's only a single reference to it in the environmental impact report and based on discussions with the city attorney, we've determined that that is not a standard or a a development regulation that needs to be explicitly followed. It's certainly something that that Um, I'm not sure. looked at and considered, but is not a requirement. And hey, I see the city attorney now, so maybe she's going to move further. |
| 01:08:15.41 | Mary Wagner | SHOW. |
| 01:08:15.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:15.61 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:08:15.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:17.97 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, and if I may add to that, Commissioner Pierce, I concur. with Mr. Evanson's kind of summary of the CEQA position. Um, So if there were specific questions, I'm happy to answer them. I know we've discussed this issue of house size numerous times and have consistently referred back to the EIR and the project description. as basically a descriptor and not as a requirement. |
| 01:08:47.42 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you, City Attorney, and thank you, Brad. There just seems to be continuous obfuscation regarding the opponents of this project. regarding this particular information. I just want to make sure that it's clear as we have our deliberation moving forward. Chair Feller, those are all the questions I have present. Thank you. |
| 01:09:03.76 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Pierce. Commissioner Saad. Do you have any questions for staff at this time? |
| 01:09:09.26 | Nastassya Saad | No, I think Commissioner Pierce took question right out of my mouth on the EIR. So thank you for that. No other questions. |
| 01:09:16.04 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:09:20.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, Brad, can you go back to the setback slide that you had in your presentation? |
| 01:09:25.61 | Unknown | Uh, yeah. |
| 01:09:30.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:30.11 | Unknown | Let's see. |
| 01:09:38.11 | Brad | One of these. |
| 01:09:40.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's the one where you keep going. It's one where you define it. It was probably the first of those. This one? Oh, No, no, it's words. Okay. So, uh, You indicate per SMC 1088-040, is that the definition section? |
| 01:10:03.20 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:10:04.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | are recorded lot binders that are neither front nor rear property lines. But I'm looking at, I think you have some language missing, which I want to get on the record. And I'm reading from the definition section, and it says that a side yard, a setback side yard needs an area formed by a line parallel to the side property lines of a lot. And then it puts in parentheses property lines that are neither front nor rear lines. But then it says that extends between a front and rear setback area. And so the area that I mentioned at the last hearing between one and this property is not an area that extends between front and rear setback areas. And I think by not having that language on this slide, it's a little bit misleading. |
| 01:10:58.96 | Brad | Okay, that's a fair statement. The interpretation that I have been using that we've discussed, previously in that my understanding is what the prior community development director had provided to the applicant was the determination since this is such an unusually shaped property uh, a strict interpretation or application rather of the zoning standards. is really not the viable and So a determination was made that in this case, the property line, as you stated, the portion of that statement where it's a line that runs between the front and the rear property lines, that has been determined to be a continuous line of that runs between the front and the rear. In this case, that would be the one that goes from the front |
| 01:11:57.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:11:59.59 | Brad | wraps around one canto goal and then continues on back down towards the rear property line that generally while it does not go in parallel line to the, um, that is up to the left. on the north side in between lot four and lot five. It does ultimately as one contiguous uh set of property lines does go from the front yard line to the rear yard line And that is the determination that staff has followed. |
| 01:12:30.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand that's the interpretation that you followed. But again, the second bullet here is just, I want to get on the record is that section doesn't actually say it's missing some language in it. I'll just, that's the only point I wanted to make in that regard. OK. |
| 01:12:49.71 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. I think we I mean, the South Slido Municipal Code is is available to anyone online. Your point is absolutely made. Commissioner Luxenberg, thank you for making it. Um, Are there any other specific questions for staff at this time? |
| 01:13:08.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Yes, to One is that at the last meeting, I raised issue regarding finding nine. So I think you've missed some of uh, concerns that I had had with regard to findings, cause that was one that was omitted from one of your slides. You said there were only concerns about five of those, but I had concerns about finding number nine. The other question is, |
| 01:13:32.12 | Kristina Feller | The other. Commissioner Luxenberg forgive my interruption I think what what staff was doing was these were the ones that the majority of the commission couldn't make the findings on. So where the majority couldn't make the findings, Those were the issues that we've highlighted where the majority could make certain findings that wasn't necessarily flagged. |
| 01:14:00.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, but the slide isn't described that way. So if he corrects the slide and says that he thinks that whichever commissioners were on whatever, I just want to put that on the record. My last question relates to this SPA, which is new, which I'm not familiar with. Can you reiterate the issue with regard to the SPA? |
| 01:14:24.26 | Brad | Yes. There is a section in the zoning ordinance section, I'm not. It's 10 1044.020 G1. It's a Oh, one of the general development sections of the code and it states, it talks specifically about pools and spas. And 1044. pull it up real quick. accessory uses and structures. Section G1. Oh. Swimming pools, including lap pools, hot tubs, spas, and related equipment are subject to the following requirements. Subsection one swing pools and related uses are not allowed in required side yards. or within any utility or access easement. There are additional standards that go on about rear yards and other areas, shielding and mechanical equipment, but this particular, point was relevant. on. |
| 01:15:28.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. |
| 01:15:28.81 | Brad | Thank you. |
| 01:15:28.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. What are they proposing in this regard, since this appears, although you and I do disagree on this, and I think it's in the rear yard, not the side yard, that pool. But in the event that it's in a side yard, are they eliminating it or what is being proposed? |
| 01:15:46.66 | Brad | Well, they have requested that it be kept in there because Amen. staff had informed them that that like the prior staff when they first were working on preparing to submit the application They were told that that was an acceptable area for it. In discussing the item with the director I'm not sure if I'm not THE END OF THE END OF THE We've kind of concluded that because the actual zoning setbacks are for the district are 10 feet for the side. And in the Wolfback Estates settlement agreement, there's the additional 10 feet. So the base setback is 20 feet. and that the extended or the expanded setback for that area I'm not sure. The applicant was informed by the previous director that that increased setback only applies to buildings not to accessories such as an in-ground pool or spa. So, |
| 01:16:51.56 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. Excuse me, Brad. I want to be clear here for everybody. listening on this Zoom and also at home or later on to the to the tape of this hearing there is no pool as commissioner Luxenberg mentioned in this. current application, there is a and a water feature, but there is no pool. |
| 01:17:10.06 | Brad | Right. |
| 01:17:13.74 | Kristina Feller | for the first time. |
| 01:17:13.89 | Brad | All right. |
| 01:17:13.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. But the standard in the zone. |
| 01:17:15.48 | Brad | of the EI Theater and the Zoals. |
| 01:17:18.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't have that section because the zoning doesn't know that far. Is a water feature allowed in that section? |
| 01:17:21.36 | Brad | The water feature is okay. The water feature is allowed. The water feature does not constitute the definition of a pool. It is not deep enough to meet that criteria. |
| 01:17:24.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, no, no. |
| 01:17:32.10 | Brad | This is only like 18 inches deep. |
| 01:17:32.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | zone |
| 01:17:34.31 | Brad | The spa, though, |
| 01:17:34.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 01:17:35.86 | Brad | does within that particular section of the zoning ordinance, the SPA is subject to those requirements. |
| 01:17:43.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And this spot is currently how many feet from the line? |
| 01:17:46.58 | Brad | The spa is approximately... a little over 20 feet, I'd have to actually get out a scale and print out a set of the plans to measure the preciseness. The spa is generally I THINK WE HAVE BEEN IN THE the building line of the building along the, the far edge of the master bedroom suite. So it's, it doesn't project past the building closer to one cancel goal than the building. So it is within that line and the the direction from the previous director was that the increased setback only applied to the building, not to accessory structures such as a pool or a spa. And the original application for this did have a pullback there. So because the I WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT cool. or I mean the spa rather does not intrude into the required base setback of 20 feet If the commission so determines that that is the, that's a good question. interpretation they wish to make. then the spa in its location is acceptable and permitted. |
| 01:18:54.24 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:18:55.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I understand what you're saying. Thank you for those answers. |
| 01:19:00.73 | Kristina Feller | Any other questions, Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 01:19:03.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I'll save other questions till after we've had the applicant and all the public |
| 01:19:03.41 | Kristina Feller | for staff? |
| 01:19:09.53 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 01:19:09.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:19:11.09 | Kristina Feller | Vice Chair Graff, any questions for staff? |
| 01:19:14.07 | Richard Graef | I had kind of the same questions as Commissioner Luxenberg and so I think those have been addressed. Um, Yeah. rare setbacks. or side jet back. and the, the spa. and the spa overhang. I'm not sure. That's also a little bit unclear to me whether because it's an overhang, does it constitute building coverage. And is it building or is it something else? |
| 01:19:52.55 | Kristina Feller | Is that a question for staff or. |
| 01:19:54.51 | Richard Graef | We're off. Yeah, I guess it's a question for staff. Just building on the other questions that were just |
| 01:20:02.84 | Kristina Feller | So I suggest that, because I think Brad has explained the fact that the spa how to interpret the issue of the spa We can always condition that. But I think maybe at this point we would ask the applicant to also walk us through it since they have the drawings. and explain it a little bit better at that time. |
| 01:20:23.12 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | on. |
| 01:20:27.87 | Kristina Feller | Um, Do you have any other questions, Vice Chair Graf? for staff and just |
| 01:20:32.31 | Richard Graef | Um, No, that's it for now. Thank you. |
| 01:20:36.03 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Brad, I just, I have a couple, I'm gonna sort of ask somewhat in rapid fire here. They don't need huge. explanations, but I recall in the last hearing in February that you had also pulled the building footprints above grade in the areas of all of the Um, other homes up at Wolfback Ridge, not all of them, but most of them in the area where And do you recall if there were any homes in the 2000 to 4,000 square foot range. |
| 01:21:15.51 | Brad | There were a couple. I don't have all that in front of me at this particular moment, but there were a couple. There are Several that far exceed that. |
| 01:21:29.07 | Kristina Feller | So the ones right in the area of lot five are what if I recall are well over the 4,000 square feet |
| 01:21:38.15 | Brad | Correct. |
| 01:21:38.93 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then we did get through mail correspondence, a number of these postcards, but it was unclear to me, what where these came from, what the purpose of it was or what the information was that was provided to to mail in a postcard. Do you have any information on that at all? Otherwise it's very hard to understand what, I do have a little bit of |
| 01:22:08.10 | Brad | I do have a little bit of information. The group is called the Friends of the Marin Headlands. And they're a public interest group that obviously is interested in preserving from development, anything and everything that touches onto the Marin headlands. Um, the The flyer that was actually sent out that included the postcard Um, was provided to us and I did send that on to the commissioners and upload that as a late submittal attachment Um, I do know that Elizabeth Brekus is the representative for the group. and she'll be making a presentation on their behalf later this evening. I suspect you'll be able to get a lot of answers to your questions from her later on tonight. |
| 01:23:00.11 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. And then to your knowledge is lot four still for sale. |
| 01:23:05.50 | Brad | As far as I'm aware, yes, it is. |
| 01:23:07.82 | Kristina Feller | The last question I had and this might be something that the applicant can maybe expound on but this this light that was described as sort of a maybe on some motion sensor or something near the garage. Is this what kind of a light are we talking about? We're not talking about some kind of a strobe light, I'm hoping. something discreet. |
| 01:23:32.24 | Brad | I would defer to the Afghan, but I believe that it is a discreet kind of localized light that is would provide just kind of low level visibility in the immediate area of the curvature of the driveway so that people on either side of the curve would know that the garage was open and that there may be vehicle traffic coming. But when the applicant gives their presentation, they can get into the details of |
| 01:23:52.66 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 01:23:52.71 | Alan Patterson | Okay. |
| 01:23:52.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:23:56.95 | Brad | the specifics of what's provided. |
| 01:23:59.73 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Right. Okay, I think... I think those are all the questions I have for staff at this time. Any other items, just real quick for staff at this time, any commissioners just raise your hands so I can see. request that the applicant come up to our virtual dais here to make a presentation. I don't know if I see Riley Hurd. Will you be making the presentation this evening? |
| 01:24:30.98 | Riley Hurd | I'll be going first, yes. |
| 01:24:32.23 | Kristina Feller | Okay, good. And will Scott also be joining you so we can have the Zoom team get both of you prepared for any kind of presentation? You need screens. |
| 01:24:43.64 | Riley Hurd | Yes, Scott will be joining me and also Poon Seg would like to address your commission this evening. |
| 01:24:49.51 | Director Whalen | Our Zoom team is aware of that right now. |
| 01:24:53.83 | Kristina Feller | Great. So there's you have 15 minutes to present as the applicant team and Mr. Hurd I'll hand it over to you. And welcome. |
| 01:25:05.66 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. Good evening. My name is Riley Hurd and I continue to represent the applicant. I'd like to make a few comments before we hear from Scott. And as I noted, Kun Sag would like to speak to you tonight as well. Uh, I've handled hundreds of planning matters in Marin County and never have I seen an abuse of the system as egregious as the opposition to this single house. The planning process has been hijacked in an effort to delay and ultimately to just prevent the house from being built. That's what this is about. advocacy, vigorous discussion, those things are expected. But there's a line that's crossed when misinformation is spread and a community is needlessly riled up through hyperbole and exaggeration. This crying wolf undermines actual preservation efforts. So I'd like to be very clear. This is not A maroncello moment. It's not anything close to it. It's a single house at half the height, half the FAR, and half the lot coverage allowed. And I would say if you want to know who's actually saving Wolf Backridge, It's more my client than those who have been led to check a box on a postcard. We're currently in discussion regarding the transfer of lots 7, 8, and 9 to the park. This would be monumental. But nothing can occur until the outcome of this house is determined. You got a letter from the Park Service today lauding this home and the efforts that went into the design. This is the organization that speaks for the park. not something ginned up by a neighbor. The letter independently notes the misinformation being spread. You got an email today from the Sierra Club retracting their letter of opposition. Again. due to misinformation. You see, it turns out the EIR doesn't have a house size limit. And the other houses built nearby are all over 4,000 square feet. Shadow studies with ankle high hedges, demands to cut the house in half, these things eventually eliminate the credibility of the opposition. I think your time deserves better. Final comment. Call it what you want. front. Side. Whatever. This house is 20 feet away from the property line shared with one Canto gal. That's unheard of in Sausalito. There's 35 feet between the proposed house and the house at one canto down. So if you go to the site, there is no factual support for requiring more setback, no matter what you call it. It's just another red herring so that nothing gets built. The conditions of approval I just heard discussed, have you ever seen those applied to a house in Sausalito? This is... extreme. So, Please bring this to a close, approve this tonight. If you wouldn't mind pausing the clock, I'll turn it over to Scott. Thank you so much for your time. |
| 01:28:11.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Scott? |
| 01:28:21.92 | Scott Couture | Hi, can you see my screen? |
| 01:28:25.04 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:28:25.95 | Scott Couture | Okay, wonderful. Good evening, my name is Scott Couture on the project architects. I want to start by doing a quick review of the revisions we've made addressing some of the DR finding comments from the last hearing. The first is to increase the driveway safety for finding number 10. We've added a guardrail along the downhill wall, along here. We've also added an exit signaling device for the garage. When the garage door opens, a light will shine down on the pavement indiscreetly which should be able to be seen pretty clearly from the top of the driveway here at the curve and even down at the driveway gate at one canto gao. The secondary revisions that we've made are on the Western side. We've made several revisions here. First, to justify news number 11, to protect the existing trees, We pulled the pantry pop-out area in, pulled it in by about four feet. This will expose more ground area around the Monterey site, We've also reconfigured the foundation to be able to fully bridge over any roots that we can find out in there. This will increase the preservation and the protection of this tree. And we have Arbors James McNair is available to take any questions regarding this area. to mitigate some of the impacts of the light and the reflection from the glass, finding number eight, We've added louvers on the bedroom windows, both floors and both bays here. We've also eliminated any ceiling lights or chandeliers from the stairwell, which is in this bay here. We've also added louvers along the dining room Western windows, we have them at the top and actually down at the bottom also, just behind this hedge. We've also deepened up the color tone of the roof of all the building up in there. So it helped it to recede into the landscape a little bit more. the reflect for the reflection of the glass we have spec now bird friendly and bird protective glass the bird friendly glass is glass that has a low reflectivity level of 15 or less For a protective glass, is a little higher reflectivity, it's 18 to 20%. And this actually has a UV film on it, which birds can see. This will help prevent any bird impact potentials. |
| 01:30:47.31 | Scott Couture | To address finding number six, we've revised the landscaping plan along the Western Bank all along in here. We've added to all the plants along the base of the house These plants are designed to provide some additional screening from below. |
| 01:30:57.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:00.90 | Scott Couture | The plants are also designed to be, to provide view quarters out the windows between the plants. Eva Huglen from Shades Green is here available. She's a landscape architect to take any questions on this. Next, I want to touch upon the permitted projection request for the master suite, which is what is shown here. Now the required setback is 34 feet. This is pretty extreme for Sausalito side yard standard. Also important to know, The master suite only overlaps the shared property line with one Cantor Gal by 35 feet, this area in here. Most proposed residence is adjacent to its own property. Now, how did we end up with a 34-foot setback? 10 feet came from the R120 zoning district, 10 feet came from the Wolfpack State settlement agreement, and this was added to assure light and open space. plus an additional 14 feet is required by section 070, the increased setback due to the building length. Now, how do we come up with 14 feet? So the 14th Street is determined by the longest portion of the building length. In this case, it's 110 feet on the western side of the property. The portion adjacent to one concert gal, the shared property line, is only 52 feet 6 inches. It's less than half the length. of the western side. The portion that's actually adjacent to the one Contagall shared property line is only 35 feet in length. The results are we have A 34 foot setback for one-story building that is adjacent to the shared property line by only 35 feet. This is a harsh setback for this property. The irony is that the 35 feet, of adjacent building length is less than the 40 feet, which triggers traditional setback increase from section 070. Without it, the required setback would be 20 feet. This precisely is what our proposed side yard setback is here. It's 20 feet. Now, What really matters is the median, the design review findings. Now permitted projection section 909D item four requires the Planning Commission to make the necessary findings for the permitted the necessary design viewfinder for the permitted projection request. Does our request have significant impacts to the neighbors? Does it create privacy issues? Does it shadow? Does it hinder light and open space? To address the privacy issues, we've created these privacy sectional study drawings. The first section, this is at the garage in the guest parking area, Well, this just overlooks a lot of high property. The second section at the prayer room, again, it overlooks the Lot 5 property, not one canto go. The third section is at the master bedroom. This portion overlooks the one Cantogal garage area. Again, the hedge here prevents any person to person visibility. The next section at the master bath There's a low window here. This befriends any privacy issues. The fifth section is outdoor at the spa, even if you stand on the edge of the spa here. and look down, you can only see the one council gallery. There is no person to person privacy issues. And this is the same as we move out to the water feature in the patio area. The water feature, the hedge, the 20-foot setback, all prevent person-to-person visibility between these two properties. Simply, there is no impact to the privacy of one canto gal. |
| 01:34:39.52 | Unknown | because this is the |
| 01:34:59.17 | Scott Couture | Now let's look at the shadowing, finding number seven. These shadow studies were prepared by LCA architects. They demonstrate no increase in shadowing. What we show here is the five o'clock ones throughout the year. You'll actually see less shadow on the proposed than you do on the existing. Simply put, there are no impacts to the shadowing, to the sunlight of one canto gao. |
| 01:35:28.20 | Scott Couture | The permitted projection request meets all the design review findings, including findings seven, nine, and 13. The request has no significant impacts. What we requested is to turn this vacant lot into a family home for one of Saucelito's finest families. There is nothing but a positive impact to be added to this neighborhood. Thank you. And you can can you please hold the clock? We want to get one sec on the zoom here. |
| 01:35:57.04 | Kristina Feller | Yes, of course. Thank you, Scott. |
| 01:36:08.24 | Kristina Feller | If you could unmute, there we go. |
| 01:36:10.13 | Unknown | Hello? |
| 01:36:11.45 | Kristina Feller | Hi. Thank you. |
| 01:36:13.00 | Gonzaga | Can you hear me? Yes, welcome. |
| 01:36:14.52 | Unknown | Welcome. |
| 01:36:15.74 | Gonzaga | Hey. Hello, my name is Gonzaga and I'm the owner of the lot five. I would like. to thank the Planning Commission taking the time to consider on your home. We have lived in South Slita. for many... But, It's been our goal. someday to live on Woodpuck rich. I was very excited. to be able to buy lot five, And I hired an architect with specific instructions to design a home. That follows that. the loss of Sassle Thong, and date restriction. That came with it. Lot. And my goal is to be a respectful neighbor Both. two doses. live around me. and to the national across those two. And I have a major. Many changes. to the design of the house. You 10. The neighbor's awesome. for something. more And something new. There have been appeased lawsuits and endless delays. I do not understand why this is happening to me. Since I have Hold on with that. rules And I when asked my architect And the opponent. to work on the planet. to transfer the lots number seven. Hey. night. |
| 01:37:55.52 | Unknown | Peace. |
| 01:37:56.21 | Gonzaga | to the public service. And this is something I'm really excited about. But For now. At this point, I am asking for your help. please bring this to a close. and a group the new home. for me and for my I mean, And thank you. |
| 01:38:22.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Let's hold the clock there. You have two minutes and 24 seconds. use that now as the applicant or you can use that as any final closing statements or rebuttal after we take public comment Certainly any questions that we ask you don't count against that time. Mr. Hurd, or would you like to use that now? Scott, would you like to use that now or later? |
| 01:38:52.96 | Scott Couture | No, we'll reserve that. |
| 01:38:55.64 | Kristina Feller | Very well. Thank you. |
| 01:38:56.44 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 01:38:57.52 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Um, And I think at this time, Let's go ahead and take public comment. get a show of hands. I'm seeing seven hands raised at this time. Is there anybody else who would like to make, public comment this evening. Let's see, I'm seeing. Seeing nine hands. Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and open up public comment. I'm going to limit each speaker for three minutes. Um, at this time. Um, because I know several of you are speaking There are multiple advocates for different properties. So I'm going to go ahead and open this up, and I'm going to call your name based on how I see it on my screen. So everyone will have a chance, so bear with me. as we get to your name. If you could, I'm just going to reiterate Director Whalen's instructions, if you could please state your name for the record. as we unmute you that would be most helpful. At this time I would like to ask Let's see, Laura Bowen, if we can unmute you or Laura's iPhone. Welcome this evening. You'll have three minutes to make for public comment. |
| 01:40:37.42 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:40:37.43 | Laura Bowen | Okay, am I, can you hear me? Yes, welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you very much for your time. |
| 01:40:40.61 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. More is yours. |
| 01:40:45.15 | Laura Bowen | Um, in an effort to address the safety issue of locating the garage where it's designed to be. completely lost sight of the accessibility of I'm not sure. the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, as well as the use of all the local beautiful roads along the ridge. um, And I would like to share with you The beauty of living there is the ability to walk there. And what we have not addressed is the safety issue of walking into that beautiful park and walking along that beautiful bridge. And I will share with the new members who don't know my story, of my grandsons and I visiting one canto gal And it was not that terrible turn into the proposed garage, but rather that dangerous to her. curve off Wolfpack Ridge onto Canto Gale, where my two grandsons and I were nearly run over by an SUV. I'm not sure if you're We have done nothing to address that safety issue, the walkability issue. And it's irresponsible on the part of, all of us to not talk about the safety issue and the walkability issue. There is no egress. from one canto gal into the Golden Gate National Recreation Area or onto the local roads. unless you walk that dangerous blind curve off of Wolfpack Ridge. by placing the garage on Wolf-Backbridge Road you would eliminate that safety issue. But until you do that, I can't safely walk with my grandsons of that. blind curves . And then around the next blind curve that takes us down to Wolfpack Ridge Road without endangering our lives. And I don't mean to be melodramatic. It sounds melodramatic. The truth of the matter is we were almost killed. by one of the lawyers representing the Patterson family. taking our grandsons Mr. McMillan and my and my grandsons into the Golden Gate National recreation area for a hike. for the little boys. And, um, I'd like to proposed we relocate the garage to a safer more responsible area on the property thank you very much |
| 01:43:27.58 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, Ms. Bond. Elizabeth Brekus, welcome this evening. You have three minutes for public comment. |
| 01:43:46.23 | Kristina Feller | Do we have Ms. Bruchus here? I think somehow we have lost her. Zoom team, do you see her on here? Hi there, can you hear me? Yes, there you are. Thank you. Yes, welcome. Three minutes for public comment. Thank you. |
| 01:44:02.31 | Elizabeth Brekus | Chairman Feller, I was asked to ask you whether I could have three minutes on behalf of Green Tree Headlands and MacArthur, and then three minutes on behalf of a separate group of clients called the Friends in the Marin Headlands for responsible development. |
| 01:44:20.59 | Kristina Feller | We're taking three minutes per speaker this evening since this is the fourth hearing on this particular application. So three minutes is yours. |
| 01:44:31.09 | Elizabeth Brekus | Okay, if you'll give me a moment so I can share my screen. |
| 01:44:36.08 | Director Whalen | Maria, let's stop the clock and rewind it here. |
| 01:44:39.89 | Elizabeth Brekus | and the screen sharing is disabled, it says. |
| 01:44:43.74 | Director Whalen | We're working on that, Elizabeth. Give us a second here. Thank you. |
| 01:44:49.73 | Laura Bowen | You've been me, co-host. You can share your video now. |
| 01:44:56.16 | Elizabeth Brekus | Okay. Thank you, this is hard to do since I have two different groups with two different things they'd like to speak about, but I will try and get the 225 people who have opposed this project to date as addressed in my three minutes. Elizabeth Breckes, Breckes Law Partners. I represent Green Tree Headlands, owners of 51 Wolf Backridge, the MacArthur family that has a family residence there. And then 217 members have asked me to voice their opposition. to this project. Why do people care? because the house is too prominent and massive on a sensitive bridge line. because the house is not in keeping with the size of homes in this community, which is 2,318 on average in the Wolfback community. And because the community believes the EIR project should uh, meaningfully inform this project. And it is incredibly frustrating that the city has no institutional memory about this project and the fact that the two homes after that were built after this project was approved. In fact, were built at the 4,000 square foot limit One person who built specifically wrote Please hold this property owner to the same limitation that he was held to. Um, And so that's very frustrating to people who were promised one thing by the city and now are getting something very, very different. The applicants propose to eliminate the increased side yard projection that is promised when you have a massive massive long home of 110 square feet. And so, If you are going to set that precedent today, I just would. advise you that you need to remember. that precedent is set forever. So why does the planning code. provide for an increased setback And it's to give visual and greater privacy when you live along a massive home. And so it's really a shame if the city is just going to eliminate that. And the impact the neighbors both Macmillan and MacArthur is massive. We have skulled the entire record of planning commission meetings from 2013 to the present. Yes, there are side yard projections. Very rarely. They are a couple feet at best. And what the applicants are doing is eliminating the entire protection and saying, we get a project in this entire setback. So that's really a terrible precedent to set. |
| 01:48:00.82 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, thank you, Mrs. Sprechus. I'm sorry that your three minutes is up here. We're trying to be fair with everybody. So thank you very much. Let's see, going on to the next member of the public who would like to comment, I have, Bruce McMillan. Mr. McMillan welcome this evening you have three minutes for |
| 01:48:34.69 | Bruce McMillan | Thank you planning commission members for your volunteer time and work. I'm Bruce McMillan. I've written. four letters in opposition to this proposal. I hope. You remember them. The Patterson Family Letters in support have been brought forward prominently. Mine. and many others in opposition were buried. Please keep an open mind to hearing objections before you decide. On a personal basis, I can't believe a good neighbor would propose, and this planning commission would allow things like ignoring the legitimate legal. setback rules. to be able to do that. a tall concrete privacy wall for a building so close to our home. an underground garage the size of a condominium 50 feet. from our bedroom. A hot tub. a few feet from our front door and living room. And on this lot, And in this location, on a very much more important basis. There are lots of other issues. This ridge line is one of the most photographed edge lines in the world. a big glass showpiece home on lot five would show right here on the top. right here. circled in red or the heritage trees. |
| 01:50:28.48 | Bruce McMillan | Right here. Moreover, Lot 5 is home to all shapes and sizes of songbirds, to quail, to hummingbirds, hawks, owls, vultures, rabbits, coyotes and foxes. Eagles do flybys. Bobcats do walk-bys. I am an eyewitness to them. How do you think they'd vote about digging a big coal mine and building a huge home on lot five? And also, I know the names of well over 200 Sausalito residents who want you Planning Commission members to know that they oppose this proposal. A lot of people support the guidelines of the environmental impact report and will want to know why you don't. If ever there was a location to be guided by an environmental impact report, Lot five is it. Thank you. |
| 01:51:37.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Mr McMillan, thank you very much for being here tonight. The next person I see for public comment is Eric Ketchum. Welcome this evening. You have three minutes for public comment. Floor is yours. |
| 01:51:56.80 | Eric Ketchum | Do you see me? |
| 01:51:59.34 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:51:59.37 | Eric Ketchum | We see you. Yes. |
| 01:52:00.36 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:52:00.57 | Eric Ketchum | We see you. |
| 01:52:00.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:52:01.02 | Eric Ketchum | Thank you. Sorry, I have all these buttons here. Eric Ketchum, um yeah my name is Eric Ketchum um i've heard about this project over the last couple years I got this what's going on with wolf back ridge flyer maybe a week ago here on locust as many of us in saucy that did. Um... I just want to say I spent two or three hours looking at these plans today. I've never really looked at them before. And, um, It seems to me like the applicants put a lot of time and effort and heart into making it compliant with the zoning code and listening to your guys' suggestions at the three previous meetings. And, you know, the staff report goes over all the findings you guys can make and I don't see anything wrong with it. I mean, I think they generally thought hard and they have a difficult site. They have two neighbors there and they're trying to accommodate them in a reasonable way while at the same time actually getting to build a house And, um, I feel like if you... are generally compliant with the zoning and planning code and you try to listen to your neighbors. You should be allowed to build your house. And just for my couple hours of looking at it, it looked to me like they did really make a lot of good faith attempts to minimize the size of the house and to make it fit in as much as possible as it can with that neighborhood. And, um, I realized that the two neighbors are going to have a house there that wasn't there. But, uh... I don't really think that's if you've complied with the zoning planning code and listen to the planning committee, but that should be enough of a reason to make someone have to spend five, 10 years, lawsuits, complaints, the assessor and all this stuff that seems to have happened. Uh, to keep your neighbors from developing their property. That's all I have. |
| 01:53:56.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, Mr. Ketchum. Thank you for being here this evening. The next person I see for public comment is Linda Fairchild. Welcome this evening. You have three minutes for public comment. |
| 01:54:12.56 | Linda Fairchild | You need to enable me. |
| 01:54:15.08 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Zoom team, could you please allow Ms. Fairchild to share her screen? Thank you. Okay, Ms. Fairchild, you should be able to share your screen. You have three minutes. The floor is yours. |
| 01:54:31.60 | Unknown | Okay, one second. And I will. |
| 01:54:39.51 | Kristina Feller | We can see the screen. |
| 01:54:41.98 | Unknown | Okay, so I will... Start the slideshow. |
| 01:54:50.65 | Linda Fairchild | Linda Fairchild, good evening, Commissioners. You all know me, I am objecting to the size, the huge scale of this property. And this evening I wanna talk about what's really going on up on the ridge. It seems to me that there are a lot of details. There's been tremendous discussion about the setbacks. Now we're talking about the front yard versus the backyard. Where's the front door? It's not on Wolfback Ridge Road. Seems to be on Canto Gale. There's a lot of Photoshopping, there's a lot of technique, visual to make this property look great. I find it very problematic. I don't understand the players. You talk about a single family home, it looks to me like there are LLCs, developers, there's an architect, they're landowners. To me, it seems like it's kind of a joint venture. This is the Wolfpack estate's plan that was drawn from Couture's website. These are proposals for very large homes, lot seven, eight, nine have already been purchased. For $15,000, Why would you pay $8.35 million for Lot 5? and $15,000 for lot 789. The Sausalito tax assessor is looking into this. This will be massive disruption. You're talking about 100 truckloads of gravel, dirt being removed. Wolfpack Ridge Road is basically a driveway. It's very, very narrow private road. It borders on the GGNRA. The length of time under construction is going to be tremendous. The garage entrance is so dangerous for anybody who's been up there. I don't know how you can think about flashing lights to warn about somebody coming around a blind curve. expansion of the wolfback ridge road is going to require removal of the cypress trees. This is how you come down to lot five. As you can see, the road looks like a driveway. There's going to be massive obstruction of the views from 51 Wolfback. These are the story poles taken from the architect. You've seen all kinds of fancy drawings, but the reality is the primary view of the property above lot five and lot four, is going to be completely obstructed. The city of San Francisco, that's the primary view. What's really going on? I don't know. This whole thing to me seems like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You go over detail after detail after detail for years, but the fact of the matter is that it's completely wrong. Bruce McMillan is correct. I actually noticed he held up a calendar. I have one on my deck. Coincidentally, you see where the red circle is? This is going to be a huge home on this historic ridge. People come from all over the world to this property. I think this proposal really needs to be slowed down, and we really need to look much more deeply about what is really going on. Thank you. |
| 01:57:43.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Fairchild. Thank you very much for being here this evening. Before I call the next member of the public, I want to remind everybody that this hearing is specifically about lot five we are not discussing or entertaining applications on any of the other lots at this time on wolfpack ridge The next person I see For public comment is Michael Rex. Welcome. You have three minutes for public comment. And we just need to unmute you, Michael. |
| 01:58:18.64 | Michael Rex | I'd like to share a screen if you'd give me a minute to get it up. Please. |
| 01:58:22.92 | Kristina Feller | Absolutely. |
| 01:58:24.07 | Michael Rex | Yeah. |
| 01:58:24.12 | Kristina Feller | Can we do that? There you go, Michael. You should be able to do that. |
| 01:58:28.57 | Michael Rex | Hang on one second. Let me pull it up here. And, I'll Mark Foncannon, Start the slideshow. |
| 01:58:36.99 | Kristina Feller | Okay, we can see you now. |
| 01:58:38.63 | Michael Rex | Okay. Yes, I'm representing the MacArthur's that live at 51 Wolfpack Ridge and I, I want to... focus on the rear yard location and the side yard projection. The applicant has not worked with the neighbors. We've been objecting to this condition for three years and the applicant has not. budged from our setbacks any further, that's the same projection. from three years ago. And staff and the applicant has misapplied the ordinance. This project does not conform. to the Saucyos development standards. You see before you the definition of where the rear yard is. The important word is ordinarily it's the furthest away from the front yard. Why is ordinary in there? Because it's not always the case. Um, On the left would be a pretty typical lot. But on the right, it could also be a rear yard. And in fact, for this particular lot, it should be because the building pad is really only up at the top because the part to the east is separated by a private driveway. You can't build on the east. So the rear yard really should be opposite the front yard up at the building site, not a side yard. And you cannot project into a rare yard. Staff opined on this, but I You need to make a formal determination. I ask if you consider that. The other thing is the side yard projection, if you consider the side yard has not been accurately applied by staff. It reads here the average depth of the width of a yard is at least equal to the required depth There's no calculations ever presented to you to demonstrate average depth is being applied. The average depth of the yard refers to the side yard. Rear yards cannot be counted towards the average depth of the side yard. And that's what the applicant has done. The required depth is a singular word. It refers only to one depth. The side yards 34 feet deep, not 24 deep. And the rear yard has a different required depth. It's 30 feet. The 34 foot and 30 foot dabs cannot be combined. And they have been. In fact, the applicants using this area On the downside, east side of that private driveway, And he's using square footage methods, applying rear yard to the side yard. And if you actually follow the code carefully, it shows that this encroachment is not permitted. 14-foot encroachment. The maximum, as you see in purple, would be about four feet. We brought this to the staff's attention. three weeks ago on April 1st, and we've never gotten a reply from staff. We brought it to staff to resolve it once and for all, and they've never replied, so you need to consider it tonight. |
| 02:01:45.89 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:01:46.35 | Michael Rex | Thank you. The other thing and the last is- |
| 02:01:46.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. We are out of time. We are trying to be fair to everybody this evening. Thank you so much for being here. this evening. The next person I see for public comment is Mr. Mel Atkins. Welcome this evening. You have three minutes for public comment. |
| 02:02:13.28 | Kristina Feller | Go ahead, Mr. Atkins, we can hear you. |
| 02:02:15.97 | Unknown | Hello, I'm Mel Atkins. I don't see my video working, but I'll just suffice with audio. We're friends, family friends of Bruce McMillan. I have two six-year-old kids twin boys and uh you know warriors support bruce mcfellan's uh objection that the only uh the only access of a pedestrian access is on Canto Gal and having the neighbors driveways garage driveway on Canto Gal, which is a blind curve poses tremendous pedestrian risk. So I think, you know, what My suggestion would be for the neighbors to consider having his garage entrance on the other side, which is a much straight line road and not and not a blind cub. That's all I have. |
| 02:03:17.98 | Kristina Feller | So. Thank you so much, Mr. Atkins. Thank you for being here this evening. The next person I see for public comment is Jeffrey Keefe, welcome this evening. Three minutes for public comment. |
| 02:03:34.65 | Jeffrey Keefe | Thank you. Good evening, Chair Feller, members of the Saucyuta Planning Commission. My name is Jeffrey Keith and I spoke at the prior meeting about this project I've been doing a little research. I have some additional questions and concerns. First of all, the applicant throughout this process through Mr. Couture has presented himself as a simple family looking to build a single family residence. I am a man who's bought and sold buildings in the past i know what it is to buy a piece of property hire an architect That's not what this seems to be to me. Why does a single family applicant need to form an LLC with an outside business partner who is not a member of the family. It doesn't sound like a single family residence to me. And secondly, I am puzzled I've done some looking around at the huge sums of money involved that do not reflect current and fair market value for the lots purchased so much as the Sausalito tax assessor has launched an investigation. Specifically. Why would someone pay $8.35 million for lock five with a market value of $2.5 million. And how is that the same buyer has been able to purchase the three additional lots 7, 8, 9 for $15,000 and with respect. Chair Feller, the applicant has raised this issue themselves already this evening. And finally, With a 3.5, only 4 million has actually changed hands. quid pro quo for the remainder of the sale price. In short, this does not look to me like a single family residence application, but much more like a joint venture business arrangement. And if that is the case, it seems to me that we are, we need to ask ourselves, what is the project? Is this to establish a precedent for future development Is this actually a classic camel's nose under the tent situation. The proposal to build a massively oversized structure on the edge of the GGNRA in direct, directly above the Golden Gate Bridge and to what is the push to roll over the EIR? |
| 02:05:44.07 | Unknown | you |
| 02:05:44.94 | Jeffrey Keefe | It just doesn't sound right to me. The whole thing just doesn't smell. It doesn't add up. And so I strongly oppose be approving this home design as president this evening. Thank you. |
| 02:05:56.57 | Kristina Feller | Thank you Mr. Keith. Thank you for being here this evening. I'm going to call the next two speakers in order And again, with respect to Mr. Keith and any other speaker, we are only here this evening to talk about the design review application for lot five not sale prices of any other lot, we're going to focus this this evening. So the next speaker I have is Mr. Christopher Patterson. Welcome this evening. You have three minutes for public comment. And if Mr. Duncan dash can be ready on the heels of Mr. Patterson, you will be next. Thank you. Welcome Mr Patterson you have three minutes. |
| 02:06:38.34 | Christopher Patterson | Hi, can you hear me? |
| 02:06:39.60 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 02:06:40.67 | Christopher Patterson | Great, my name is Chris Patterson. I am an immediate neighbor of the proposed house. I also lived on the Hill for a number of years. First, let me thank all of the commissioners for taking the time and patience on this very complicated and unnecessarily complicated issue. So I have lived up there and I know these neighbors and Punzsag would be a great neighbor. He has been open and friendly and direct and honest in all ways. as has Henry and Belia, some of the other neighbors have made this issue much more complicated. all of the issues I've been to most of the meetings and watched all of these issues and, the applicant has as far as I can tell bent over backwards to accommodate everybody and everything as much as possible. There are lots of aspersions and conspiracy theories brought up. None of that is the case. We are the family that sold the property to Punzsag, and there's no conspiracy going on here. He wants to build a home, and he's a great person, and his family should be allowed to. We would love to have him as a neighbor. So I also, Scott Couture has been so transparent and open and clear about the rules in Sausalito and gone bent over backwards to make sure everything is in line with the rules as oscillator that we hired him as our architect to build our house. On the hill. So I just want to thank you all for your time. There's a lot of noise around this issue. Ponsag and his family want to build a home up there and that's We hope you all approve that tonight. Thank you very much. |
| 02:08:16.36 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Thank you for being here this evening. Duncan Dash, you are next. And after that, I see Lynn Augstein. |
| 02:08:33.48 | Duncan Dashney | Thank you. Can you hear me? |
| 02:08:35.40 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:08:36.19 | Duncan Dashney | Yes, my name is Duncan Dashney. I'm a designer by trade and I have reviewed the site plans and the Thank you. the elevation plans for this project and my My basic concern is not, I think it's a beautiful design. That's not really my concern. My concern that it sits right on the ridge like was shown before with some of the photographs. And one of the most pristine and most photographed views in our country. And I think that it's just inappropriate. I think what happens is that it's that slow encroachment of building larger and larger projects on land that is up next to the GGNRA, and pristine areas where hikers and runners and people use, thousands of people use that every day or week. And I just think the whole project is actually just inappropriate for the times that we live in for the encroachment of the property and also I'm concerned with the large glass windows, even though they're supposed to be bird safe. I have seen this happen over and over in my life with windows that are put in buildings that later have many problems with the birds. So... My my take is more on the entire project, not the front or back set offs, but the entire project encroaching on the views. from the day. And I appreciate you giving me some time to speak. Thank you. |
| 02:10:25.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, Mr. Dashti, for being here this evening. Let's see, next we have Just there we are, Ms. Lynn Augstein. And then after that, I see Ms. Ellen Borgerston. Miss Augustine. |
| 02:10:42.97 | Lynn Augstein | floor is yours. This will be short and simple, basically, I think the house is beautifully designed the size and the scale The scale is out of place. My concern is the actual construction of removing the amount of rock that's going to be and that there is sound mitigation. When that happens, And I have concern about the roads that it will be using for this abnormal construction in this very finely uh, careful. sensitive area. And the other concern that I have regarding the sound is the time of year that it's going to be and how long it will take place. and That's about it. And also One more, I guess I'm done. |
| 02:11:45.73 | Kristina Feller | You have two minutes left, ma'am, if you'd like to finish. |
| 02:11:49.19 | Lynn Augstein | Okay. I understood that there's a potential of offering and some of the loss to the ggnra and i really appreciate that i think i hold that up as hope Anyway, that's all I have to say. Thank you. |
| 02:12:09.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Ms. Augustine. Thank you for being here this evening. Karen Hollweg, The next speaker is Miss Ellen worgersen and then next I see Mr land riff kind. So welcome, Ms. Borgeson. You have three minutes for public comment. |
| 02:12:33.88 | Kristina Feller | Can we unmute Ms. Borgeson? |
| 02:12:39.90 | Kristina Feller | There we go. that. |
| 02:12:40.85 | Ellen Borgeson | thought, okay, are we unmuted? |
| 02:12:42.58 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:12:42.77 | Ellen Borgeson | Thank you. |
| 02:12:42.89 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 02:12:42.97 | Ellen Borgeson | There you go. |
| 02:12:43.75 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:12:43.78 | Ellen Borgeson | Yes, thank you. |
| 02:12:44.17 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, love. |
| 02:12:44.81 | Ellen Borgeson | you Thank you. Thank you. Um, When I first moved up here, we used to talk repeatedly about closing the gate toward private We used to debate it annually that we were finally off the table because it's not possible to close the gate. and over the years, Many people have come up here and said, gee, I've lived in Southern Marin all my life. I never even knew there were houses up here. And that's one of the reasons why we're safe up here. And we do not need to have a locked gate. We lock it on the fourth of July and so forth. But we're a very small community. We have one road that goes in and out. And we've never had to worry about safety from the many thousands of people who goes through the GGNRA. It's such a privilege to live up here with that as our neighbor. Um, But the only houses up on the ridge, I believe, that are visible from the DGNRA are two very small, modest houses. Indeed, most of the houses up here are modest. |
| 02:13:57.73 | Unknown | you |
| 02:13:57.97 | Unknown | you |
| 02:14:01.29 | Ellen Borgeson | 963 square feet. and was built on the footprint of a house that had been up here since the 40s. Um... I'm very concerned that a giant Gorgeous, beautiful property facing the DGNRA. is placing a target on all of our backs. The construction, I don't know how long it's gonna be, but you go walking on Wolfback Ridge and you see the cars lined up to go through the seven minute tunnel or five minute or whatever it is. And they're looking right up at that ridge. And they're there for five or seven minutes. And it does not make me comfortable to have people looking up there and thinking, I wonder who those incredibly fortunate wealthy people are who live up there wouldn't it be fun to go check it out? So I haven't heard that concern raised in any of the comments. I think it's a concern for users of the GGNRA not to have to look up at a house that kind of Lord's presence over the valley. I think that's incompatible with the neighborhood. I think the whole intent of the EIR from the past. was that we disappeared. Whee! or Mom is. and hopefully invisible from the GGNRA. And my understanding is this house is not that. Thank you. |
| 02:15:32.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much for your comments. Thank you for being here this evening. Mr. Rifkind, good evening, welcome. You have three minutes for public comment. And after you, I see Mickey Allison, afterwards. Thank you. |
| 02:15:50.47 | Len Riffkind | Though I'm trying to undo my video, it doesn't seem like it's going to let me. |
| 02:15:55.21 | Kristina Feller | All right, Zoom team, can you assist Mr. Rifkind please? |
| 02:16:00.58 | Len Riffkind | there. Okay. Uh, good evening, uh, chair fellow members of the commission. My name is Len Riffkind, Riffkind law group. We continue to represent Bruce McMillan. the owner of One Canto Gallum. Mr. McMillan opposes design review approval. does not oppose a properly sized residence that complies with the zoning constraints and satisfies mandatory findings. One, the proposed design is too large. You've heard this over and over again. It's like, what are the facts? It's the largest house in the subdivision. It's the largest house in the entire Wolfback Ridge neighborhood. And it's located on the most prominent ridge in the city and perhaps the entire Bay Area. Regarding house size, I've heard discussion about one Canto Gal, one Rose Bowl, and 51 Wolf Ridge Wolfback Ridge as being over 4,000 feet. Those homes don't count. They're all existed prior to the lawsuit that approved the subdivision. Size comparisons with those properties is not applicable to the planning decision before you. Rather, the commission should focus on properties developed within the subdivision and all those prior projects, two or three of them, they complied with the 4,000 square foot limit as indicated in the EIR. setback. We concur with Commissioner Luxembourg. The common boundary line with one canto gal is a rear yard not a side yard and therefore requires a 30 foot setback, not 20 feet as provided. This is logical as the city has determined that the lot line facing Wolfback Ridge is the front line. Alternatively, if it is a side yard setback, it has to have 34 feet. And you saw some discussion by Mr. Couture about, well, he can get it down to 35. If you read 070 D1, it applies to the length of the structure. Building walls are series of building walls that exceed 40 feet measured parallel to the adjoining side yard lot. the 34 feet stands. further. The spa can't be located within a required setback. That is, staff brought that to your attention, 1044.020. G1, garage location, heard a lot about this. We provided a report from a transportation consultant that I attached to my letter. I've never heard the commissioners discuss it, but that Mr. Harrison, and I attached it to my letter, says that you have a very dangerous condition. You a straight 100 foot long level section of driveway that encourages higher speed just before entering a sharp 20 foot radius blind curve located on a steep downhill it's the perfect situation for collisions. I appreciate this idea of some light coming out when the garage is open, but that doesn't work during the day, which is half the day. You can have commissions collisions during the day just as well as at night. Design fails to comply with the most basic design review principle, quote, the relationship of the building to its surroundings is of greater importance than the quality of the design of the individual structure. 1050 403 OD. this project will unreasonably shadow one council gal. Now I saw we have a new shadow study here and they used Luminin, I'm not saying that right, L-U-M-I-O-N software. |
| 02:19:12.28 | Kristina Feller | So... Thank you, unfortunately your three minutes is up. Thank you for being here this evening. I see next is Mickey Allison and then Alan Patterson. Welcome this evening. You have three minutes. |
| 02:19:28.16 | Mickey Allison | You have three. Thank you. Good afternoon, or evening, I should say. I tried to do this earlier. I've been assigned the job from Sierra Club Marine Group to offer retraction to the Sierra Club letter dated April 20th, 2021. 99 Wolfpack Ridge, Lot 5. Dear Saucelito Planning Commission and Community Development Department, we have been informed that the above mentioned letter may have been That's our previous letter. be included. incorrect information and therefore we would like to retract the letter We did not have time to vet all the information since we just heard about this a few days ago. I apologize in advance for any misinformation or confusion. We will respond as soon as we get all the information sorted. respectfully, Janice ran Reynolds Chair, Sierra Club Merring Group. I will add just my own personal thing. I hope you listen to the client, the folks that are talking. I hike the SCA Trail. and and the We will try and get this straight. We were unaware, and we had looked for a letter from the Sierra – the Golden Gate and I think that's a great GGNRA. in order to try and get a better handle on how they felt about it, because to me, that's an important thing. And those are some of the things that we will be looking into. Thank you. |
| 02:20:56.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:56.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you for being here. |
| 02:20:57.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:20:58.41 | Mickey Allison | Thank you. |
| 02:20:58.46 | Unknown | to the |
| 02:20:58.81 | Mickey Allison | Thank you. opponents. |
| 02:21:02.17 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for being here this evening. And just for the record, we do have a letter from GGNRA on record. as staff did present earlier this evening. I'm not. Alan Patterson, you are, it looks like our last public speaker this evening. Welcome, you have three minutes for public comment. |
| 02:21:20.46 | Alan Patterson | Thank you. Thank you again, Planning Commissioners, for taking your time to deal with these issues. As a beneficiary of the lot that one of the lots that directly touches this proposed project, obviously I am completely in favor of the project. |
| 02:21:24.61 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 02:21:33.22 | Alan Patterson | Over the years that I was able to visit my dad at 51 Wolfback Ridge, I had nothing but enjoyable interactions with everybody that I met up on that ridge. I have no idea why and how it's become so vitriolic at this point. It obviously can't be lost on the people who are deciding these issues if the driving forces for the opposition to this project are actually enjoying this spectacular location every day in houses larger than the one that's being proposed. I believe that Bootsang and his family living on the ridge will only be a benefit to the neighborhood. I would simply say and make the final comment that I would ask that the design be approved at this time so Putzeng and his family can move forward and be able to enjoy this spectacular location as many can or are doing at this point every day. Thank you. |
| 02:22:27.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Thank you for being here this evening. Do I have any other questions comments from the public at this time if you could please raise your hand Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment at this time. And I would like to bring a discussion back up to the virtual dais And I think it's important to hear some of those comments before we start any type of deliberation. So at this time, do any commissioners have any questions of the applicants? I will start Commissioner Pierce with you. |
| 02:23:10.33 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you, Chair Feller. Obviously, there are concerns regarding the spa. Would the applicant be willing to move the spa to accommodate the setbacks. that is one question and i'll i'm assuming he'll want to address all of these at once from all of us |
| 02:23:25.00 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 02:23:26.38 | Morgan Pierce | While the main living level ceiling height suggests a pretty tall form on the ridge line, I wonder if they'd be willing to lower the ceiling height of that area by a foot or two just to make it merge more seamlessly with the ridge top. Regarding the stair tower, I understand that louvers have been added to the bedrooms on that wing, but if louvers have been added to the stair tower as well to mitigate the impacts of reflection and light from that tall expanse of glass. And then finally, in one of the renderings, the fins on that wing where the bedrooms and stair tower are, appear to be very light and colorless white. And I'm wondering what is the actual specification for the finish on those? Because we would prefer something that blends more naturally into the hillside. |
| 02:24:16.01 | Kristina Feller | I think that's a good question. |
| 02:24:18.66 | Morgan Pierce | The fins, there's some solid, either concrete or some other structural fins. The fins come up. |
| 02:24:21.55 | Kristina Feller | everyone. I will. |
| 02:24:23.84 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. about all time. |
| 02:24:25.02 | Kristina Feller | Great. Let's see. Could I ask maybe Scott to come up here since these appear to be architectural in nature? That was a trick. |
| 02:24:37.49 | Morgan Pierce | I was not sure if you wanted to get all of the questions from the staff or the commissioner so Scott could reply to them all at once. |
| 02:24:44.92 | Kristina Feller | Well, okay, so I've got four from you, the spa relocation, ceiling height, the stair tower lures, and the finish... on the fins. |
| 02:24:52.17 | Scott Couture | Correct. Might be hard to remember all of them, honestly. Yeah. |
| 02:24:57.68 | Kristina Feller | We'll be happy to ramble them off. |
| 02:24:58.89 | Morgan Pierce | I agree. |
| 02:24:59.11 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:24:59.23 | Scott Couture | It's been a long day already. |
| 02:25:01.64 | Kristina Feller | Okay, just a moment here, Scott. Just a moment. Anybody else have any additional questions or were those at least architectural questions, finishes and spa locations and such. |
| 02:25:13.52 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:25:17.18 | Kristina Feller | Glazing. Yes, Vice Chair Graff. |
| 02:25:19.66 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Mmm. Um, Well, I have a lot of questions, And one of them, Um, Commissioner Pierce touched on that was the caller. I noticed in one of the renderings Uh... with a lot of light color Sean. in that elevation or at that level. in that part of the building. which really seemed to jump out at me. So I, I, I concur that I think we need to look at that the color of the material there It could be it's just the way the rendering is is produced, but so that was a concern. But along the same lines there, I was looking at the elevation I guess you would, I forgot what drawing it is. Um... On A3.1. Um, where it shows the better part of the two levels. But it's a little hard to determine how that meet. Thank you. |
| 02:26:36.12 | Unknown | We... |
| 02:26:36.46 | Richard Graef | Thank you. the edge of the property and the slope down to Wolfback Ridge Road. There's no section or I couldn't find a section that went right through there that showed Um, Uh-huh. structure sits on the hillside or on the edge. and we're going down. So, but... |
| 02:27:01.17 | Kristina Feller | So, but you're specifically focused on the Western elevation? facing the park and Yeah. Okay. So that area. Okay. |
| 02:27:16.34 | Richard Graef | All right. I was curious as to how Um, how that works to see if there might be some other, mitigation measures. Um, Let's see. As far as questions go, I don't have more questions. I was just unclear about that whole section Thank you. |
| 02:27:48.79 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 02:27:49.58 | Richard Graef | I have other concerns which I think, well, discuss in our in our review. Sure. |
| 02:27:55.71 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry. |
| 02:27:55.77 | Richard Graef | you |
| 02:27:55.83 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. And just real quick before I get to both Commissioner Luxenberg and Commissioner Saad. Since this is the fourth time we've had this hearing on the design review, And based on the results of the last hearing we had in February, If I'm counting correctly and staff will correct me, I know, there are really nine findings that we couldn't make. Um, that four in the settlement agreement and then five in the design review And so as we go through this and ask the applicant to help address any questions, I want to make sure that we're focusing and ensuring that there are no further questions also on those specific findings. that we can make. And I know issues with louvers and spa relocation, things like that. certainly are part of that. But just to help focus everybody here and and help the audience and participants follow us as well. So Commissioner Luxenberg with that, do you have any at this time. |
| 02:29:06.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't think I have it at this time. As we go through our issues, when we bring it back to the dais, after that, we often ask further questions of the applicant. At this point, I don't have any additional questions. |
| 02:29:19.52 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:29:23.07 | Nastassya Saad | I only had one question. Chair Feller but it's it's not necessarily related to the findings I was more curious from the staff presentation now that I was looking through that. There was... a statement around ensuring that the living roof is maintained um, And I just was wondering if, at some point that the applicant can touch on what's the plan there? Cause I'm not sure I saw, anything around how the ongoing, like to ensure that it is maintained to the level that it is created at. |
| 02:30:00.23 | Kristina Feller | Sure, and I believe that that green roof is also part of the requirement, the agreement with 51 Wolfmax |
| 02:30:08.21 | Nastassya Saad | That's my understanding as well, I think, yes. |
| 02:30:10.91 | Kristina Feller | Condition of approval that would convey into a condition of approval. |
| 02:30:15.68 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. But that was the only thing I had at this moment. |
| 02:30:19.35 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, great. Um, Let's go ahead and ask Scott, if you don't mind coming back up here onto this virtual dais we have. going on up here. And I will help you what we need help Um, discussing and Zoom team, if you could also make sure that Scott has his, can share screen if it comes to that. Let's get that in order. just in case. So the commission has questions about relocating the spa because As we've asked before, in most hearings, we ask if there are any variances that are required. This would require a variance. And we want to know if you would be willing to locate it in an area that would not require a variance There is a question on the ceiling height And if there is any flexibility with lowering that a foot or so, There's a question about are there louvers at the stair tower along the west elevation And also on that West elevation, the finish, on the fins, the vertical fins there. And then Vice Chair Graff, some of those finishes on, you're just looking for the cross section on the west facade, right? Okay. So that's sort of sums up architectural questions, Scott. |
| 02:31:54.88 | Scott Couture | Okay, I'm gonna do a shared screen. |
| 02:31:58.20 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:31:58.27 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 02:31:58.28 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 02:31:58.30 | Scott Couture | Where we can Just in here. |
| 02:32:04.56 | Scott Couture | Okay, should be able to see that now, is that right? |
| 02:32:06.71 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 02:32:08.27 | Scott Couture | I'm not sure exactly on how the, you know, what we're looking for on how the building really sits on the ground here, The floor level of these rooms down here is about two and a half feet below the grade at this point. And there's a flat section out in here, which we're gonna plant some plants, some taller ones and some shorter ones in there. And then this is the actual existent bank that you see today. It's basically just kind of rock and dirt kind of falling down there. And what we're going to do is we're going to put in these quartz and steel planters to help retain some of the earth in there and be able to plant. This is where we have those two oak trees being planted in there. So that's sort of how the building meets the ground at that point. It's still well above the street level here. It's probably about 12 or 15 feet down to the actual Wolfback Road street there. The fins on these two bays are going to be finished in a quartz and steel. The finish on the fins on the dining room are going to be the same kind of bronze finish we have around the roof edge, kind of this dark bronze finish to it, to blend in with the window trim and the roof edge around in there. They did become a little bright on the renderings, sometimes the renderings aren't exactly I don't exactly get on with the materials. The other issue we had is when we converted these into PDFs into smaller PDFs to put on the screen to be able to screen share like this, you do lose some rendering quality and some of the finishes of colors do change. And even the concrete on some of them seem a little lighter than what would be. The materials of the building are actually going to be according to what's in the material board, and not necessarily exactly what's in the renderings. The renderings are approximate as best as we can get them. Um, As far as the louvers on the stairwell, we did opt not to put them on there. They don't seem to fall in line with the rest of them because there's no floor level in there. You do walk them down the staircase. The other is because we can control the lighting situation behind there so much differently than we can in the bedrooms and then in the dining room. I don't think there's gonna be quite the light illuminating out of these. The light will be very low. It's down by the stair tread and that's it. And that's really the only thing we have in that area. The other is the angle that you actually see this mainly from is from the SAA Trail, which is kind of further on this angle. And it's a little more like, you know, half a mile down the hill from where, from behind, you know, the shot of this one here. these trees, these plantains and all that actually provide a pretty good screen of that bay in particular. So that's why we kind of opted not to put it in there. I think the other question was on the spa. Let me see if I can find an image. |
| 02:35:13.36 | Scott Couture | So I'll go back to the spa and the roof overhang and all these other items in there. And this is something that we sat down with Um... Kevin Hall, M.D.: Calvin Chan senior planner back this is in 2018 and 2019 most of us in 2018 and i've been using the code for 15 years Calvin had been in excuse me 25 years and Calvin had been in town for probably I don't know 10 years or more. Thank you. And, You know, given the C-shaped property lots, there's just no way that the code can directly apply to this property. I also understood that this project would be very contentious. I know the neighborhood that we're in. I left it in staff's hands to, to, Tell me. how the code would apply to this project. I didn't agree with him 100%. We actually had to reshape the building to conform to what staff, the planner, and the director had told us, what would work and what wouldn't work, what did conform and what didn't conform. In that conversation, And always in the plans, we had the spa basically in this area, oops, hold on. in this area and we had what was a pool beginning in this area here. And it really hasn't moved much, it actually moved further away from this from the property line a couple of feet as we shifted this whole house over two and a half feet The Our request for the SPA to be here and even the overhang is not part of the code section. 1044-020-G1, which does prohibit spa and a, and a, and a setback. What we're requesting is the approval of that being included in the permitted projections. as part of that. Um, as part of that request, and that's a discretionary request. It requires the planning commissioners to meet the findings that what we were proposing both the building and the roof, the roof overhang and the spa to meet the design of your findings. We think they do. If staff, you know, or Planning Commission does not, then, you know, we will take it out. We really can't move it over. It doesn't really work. Um, unless it's you know i mean 34 feet away from the property line is in the middle of the the patio there so it really wouldn't work there so if it is a matter of approval or not approval uh we would certainly take it out um we submitted it and it's always been considered as a request as part of the permitted projection um portion of our application. |
| 02:38:08.71 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, we understand that and appreciate you going through the history. |
| 02:38:12.88 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 02:38:14.63 | Kristina Feller | potentially being flexible with the discretionary, the discretion that this commission does have. |
| 02:38:21.35 | Scott Couture | Okay. |
| 02:38:21.97 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 02:38:21.99 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 02:38:22.02 | Morgan Pierce | If I may add some additional commentary that might help the applicant. Thank you, Scott. Again, we appreciate this. As you understand, this is a navigation through a myriad of regulatory and discretionary filters. We're trying to find a balance here. It seems to me, looking at the plan, that |
| 02:38:22.07 | Scott Couture | trickle or |
| 02:38:45.26 | Morgan Pierce | it is no big stretch to move that spa because it just starts to encroach on the perceived space of the master bath, which it seems to be perfectly compatible with. Back to the issues along the Western facade, you know, we are trying to make this project as... |
| 02:38:56.51 | Unknown | Um, |
| 02:39:05.81 | Morgan Pierce | We're trying to mitigate the impacts to it on the GGNRA and visitors there. Not only the human visitors, but the animal visitors as well. And as we look at further refinements of this project, which we appreciate, obviously other things start to stand out. Obviously we requested at the last meeting some louvers in front of the bedroom. Windows, as you've kindly added, which we think helped considerably. Yet those then make the stair hall stand out considerably. Regardless of the light controls that are proposed, you know, the applicants who are building this house are not going to be future occupants of it. And we need to have some reassurance that the long-term implications of whatever we're deciding here are preserved. And so we're thinking of more architectural solutions as opposed to just light solutions. So those are one of the things that I bring to mind as I make these considerations. So I just I ask you to take those under advisement as we as we review this. |
| 02:40:09.99 | Kristina Feller | Mm-hmm. Thank you. |
| 02:40:14.33 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you, Commissioner Pierce. And I think that in a moment here, we'd also like to, I know there's another item here about ceiling height. We'd like you just to quickly address and then I think it would be worthwhile to ask your you and your landscape architect to discuss other plantings along the west and also address commissioner sods |
| 02:40:33.44 | Unknown | West. |
| 02:40:36.31 | Kristina Feller | um question about the green roof which i think is a is an important one for us as you know that was one of the issues we had the last hearing. |
| 02:40:46.66 | Scott Couture | Yeah, I can adjust the ceiling height issue in here. So this portion of the home has nine foot ceilings in there. We have a green roof on there, so we have both the roof structure and the whole green roof system and drainage system in there. So we're looking at anywhere from a two to three foot, basically thick roof. The two things that I'm trying to do is to keep this roof edge as thin as possible. |
| 02:41:07.47 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 02:41:12.92 | Scott Couture | And which means it gets thicker on the inside But also I want to be able to keep these two roofs separately. So we have two different planes on there. Weeds is as much smaller, build a little more breakdown on there. Um, under their, I think, you know, one revision or two revisions ago, we actually dropped this roof a foot earlier and this is getting very, very tight. If I go down another foot, we might as well combine them. and um we won't have this sort of overhang and sort of floating roof feel in there it'll just feel like a different building so i have kind of very little room left to drop that down we did it we did it a foot once the ceiling heights in here are probably going to be maybe 10 feet maybe 11 feet literally i'm gonna have to negotiate with my engineer and my green roof consultant as to how thin we can make everything above there. But we're literally looking at, I think it's 18 feet above grade, 18 and a half feet above grade. We've got floor structure, we've got a crawl space underneath there. And it doesn't leave a whole lot of room left. |
| 02:42:18.59 | Kristina Feller | And Scott, based on the restrictions, the height restrictions on this site, Where are you in terms of the maximum height restriction versus where you are on both of both roofs? |
| 02:42:32.36 | Scott Couture | So this point here, we're 18 and a half feet above grade. We're allowed to go up to 26 per the deed restriction. We're allowed to go up to 32 per R1 zoning. So we are way below. anything that's allowable per code for the zone-in. Well, I'm sorry. |
| 02:42:50.20 | Morgan Pierce | And the clarity I'll add to that. And again, I appreciate that. And I totally, you know, uh, appreciate the architectural nuances that you're describing. The challenge here is, you know, if this were a home, you know, in some other part of Marin that weren't immediately adjacent to the National Recreation Area, I think we'd be having a very different conversation. Because of the situation as such, we have to take into account much more, I guess, concerns about the, the sensitivity to the landscape. And so that is why I'm asking this question again, if we were in San Rafael, you know, over the canal or somewhere else, I wouldn't be asking this question, but this is, This is considering what we have to deal with immediately adjacent to your site. |
| 02:43:38.06 | Scott Couture | And it's understood. And I do want to know, and you did bring up the GDRA, is that the letter that GDRA just submitted actually did, I think referred to the height |
| 02:43:47.69 | Unknown | that. |
| 02:43:50.17 | Scott Couture | in there and they were very appreciative that we are as low as we are we didn't go up to where we could have gone in there and so um we we've we've tried to balance you know i need to balance you know the structural and physical elements of actually putting the building together with you know the you know the needs of the client and and trying to break the architecture down but also with with the Park Service and we work with them on that pretty extensively on there. I think we started up, you know, a foot and a half higher than this and they were actually appreciative then when we showed them the original story polls. Yeah. |
| 02:44:27.94 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Um, Can we ask your landscape architect to walk us through the plantings on the west side specifically? |
| 02:44:35.60 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Yes. |
| 02:44:38.39 | Kristina Feller | And then the green roof. I don't know if that's you or your landscape architecture. |
| 02:44:43.75 | Scott Couture | It's Eva. Is she available? |
| 02:44:46.96 | Kristina Feller | There's Eva, if you can unmute yourself, Eva. There we go. Hello. |
| 02:44:51.38 | Eva Huglen | Thank you. |
| 02:44:51.85 | Kristina Feller | All gone. |
| 02:44:52.29 | Eva Huglen | Thank you. |
| 02:44:53.35 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:44:53.37 | Eva Huglen | Thank you. |
| 02:44:53.88 | Kristina Feller | Hmm. |
| 02:44:55.24 | Eva Huglen | Okay, yeah, we can talk about the green roof first. So the green roof is... uh, a sedum roof. So it, it, uh, has several. types of sedum planted in it and it's basically a survival of the fittest ones that happen. There will be a subsurface irrigation system, a drift irrigation. And maintenance will include like weeding, to get rid of windblown weeds that can come in and checking the irrigation and if anything dies you can kind of you know, change out that section and put on a new mat. And that's a regular maintenance that happened on Green Moose. |
| 02:45:48.30 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you for that. Can you go through your planting plan on the west facade specifically? Thank you. |
| 02:45:55.84 | Eva Huglen | Yes. So after last meeting, And with the feedback about more, screening, we did some changes. So so first we are we're working on these conditions with we have a coastal area with a lot of wind we have deer we have fire. requirements we have Also a low water situation. you So that's picking plants for those conditions. Um, And we kind of have the plan, the screening and kind of at two stage. First, we have the the oak trees these Corten planters that is kind of the furthest away from the house on the hillside. |
| 02:46:54.45 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:46:54.48 | Eva Huglen | We know. |
| 02:46:54.57 | Kristina Feller | So, |
| 02:46:54.75 | Eva Huglen | Thank you. |
| 02:46:54.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I will ask you to ask you to please do not have a question. I will ask you to ask you to everyone can follow along with your plan. |
| 02:47:04.15 | Eva Huglen | Oh, yeah. Scott, do you have it there? |
| 02:47:07.65 | Scott Couture | I'll pull the one up I had earlier. |
| 02:47:09.53 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:47:09.74 | Eva Huglen | Thank you. |
| 02:47:09.91 | Kristina Feller | Forgive the interruption. Keep going. No problem. |
| 02:47:11.46 | Eva Huglen | Thank you. |
| 02:47:12.40 | Scott Couture | We love you. |
| 02:47:17.25 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:47:17.26 | Eva Huglen | Yeah. Yes, yeah, we'll wait till he gets it up |
| 02:47:23.52 | Scott Couture | All right, little technical difficulties here. Okay, I think it's up. |
| 02:47:26.78 | Eva Huglen | Yeah, so you see those half circles, half moons, those are these Korten planters. So we have the two Oak trees in those. Uh, that's kind of down the hill a little bit. And on the flat area before it starts going down, we have a a second layer of of screening with bigger shrubs we have this greville yeah. which is an Australian coastal plant that, um, they can get up to like eight to 12 feet wide and tall. um, So that takes a lot of that. Plus we have a formium, which is a more strappy plant that is in that four or five feet, height. And then we are adding also As you see, we pushed those bigger plants out from the windows a little bit, so we have... So when you're inside, you have some lower plants inside and you have a little you can kind of see a little bit through the bigger shrubs. So, so we using. Lomandra, which is a grassy evergreen plant. Um, and we are also using another gravelia that is a ground cover that can hang down the hillside a little bit. Um, And let me see what else do we have, we have nephophias, which is also more like a grassy plant with these, these flowers coming up about in a one to two foot range. Um, And in the Hesperallo, which is another one that is kind of a grassy looking more like a second type and then we are using a. kind of lower succulents to kind of in that area with the oaks to kind of make those metal planter a little more interesting. |
| 02:49:38.29 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:49:41.33 | Eva Huglen | and then kind of you know, make sure that we keep you know, keep it kind of open under the existing trees and don't plant anything that will disturb anything there. Amen. |
| 02:50:00.02 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:50:00.07 | Eva Huglen | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:50:00.50 | Kristina Feller | Right. So are you taking anything out that's currently there on that hill? Thank you. |
| 02:50:05.96 | Eva Huglen | No, I mean, no. No, we are not taking anything out that we don't have to. We're keeping. keeping everything we can. I mean, Because I think having these plants that have have been self planted itself so this is great because their roots goes kind of far down in that. that rock. |
| 02:50:31.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:50:31.50 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:50:31.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:50:31.53 | Kristina Feller | Great. Okay. Miss Shurs, do you have any questions on the landscape for Eva? Thank you. |
| 02:50:41.13 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Um... Yeah. It's true. |
| 02:50:43.97 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. |
| 02:50:44.03 | Richard Graef | Thank you. regarding the the existing large trees. Maybe you're not an arborist per se, Are you comfortable now with the changes uh, . that. that it's not going to Um, detrimental to the roots of those trees. |
| 02:51:10.10 | Eva Huglen | Yeah, I'm not an operist, you're right about that. Um, Yeah, I think having that bridging over there is good and also Also, that the kitchen is not bumping out so much. But I think, you know, during that whole process with the digging and everything there, there will have to be an arborist to kind of make sure that's done the right way. |
| 02:51:37.61 | Unknown | Thank you. Thanks. |
| 02:51:41.54 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. any other questions for the applicant at this time |
| 02:51:52.51 | Richard Graef | No. Back to my question about the section through the |
| 02:51:57.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:51:58.43 | Richard Graef | lower like bedroom and I guess that's a little office or studio how where does a window start relative to the floor level there. which is, I think around 120 or something. |
| 02:52:19.31 | Scott Couture | So the windows for bedroom three and bedroom four are, the windowsill is about two and a half feet above the floor. The grade is basically about two feet above the floor. So the window, the bottom of the window just sits six inches above or eight inches. It's going to be now above the grade. So the floor is actually below the window level in there. The staircase landing is a little bit higher. It's higher than the existing grade. It's probably going to be about a foot and a half higher than the existing grade. We're going to bury that also. So again, the stair landing, is just above the grade outside. And then it goes back down again. The exercise area has the same floor level as the two bedrooms and the windowsill will be at the same level too, at about two and a half feet above the, above the floor and about six to eight inches above the grade. |
| 02:53:16.13 | Richard Graef | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:53:16.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:17.63 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:53:17.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:53:17.80 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Okay, that helps me. Thank you. |
| 02:53:20.43 | Scott Couture | Okay, welcome. |
| 02:53:21.90 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you. So in the interest of time, unless we don't have any more specific questions of the applicant, I would like to pull it back up here to the dais I will note that the applicant does have some, if I wrote this down correctly and staff will, confirm this. The applicant does have 2 minutes and 24 seconds left for any type of rebuttal. You're welcome to use that now. or you can use that a little bit later. It's up to you. |
| 02:53:59.80 | Kristina Feller | Mr. Hurd was Riley there |
| 02:54:03.41 | Scott Couture | Yeah, I think Riley's still here. I don't know if he wants to use it now or later. |
| 02:54:07.11 | Kristina Feller | There he is. |
| 02:54:08.14 | Scott Couture | It's tough when we're not sitting side by side anymore. |
| 02:54:11.34 | Riley Hurd | Thank you. Um, I'm happy to use it at your discretion, Chair Feller. |
| 02:54:16.02 | Kristina Feller | You're welcome to use it now if you would like to. We'll go into deliberations after this. |
| 02:54:18.51 | Riley Hurd | Okay. Yeah, that's probably most appropriate. |
| 02:54:23.56 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, Chair Feller, if I may, I would recommend that you have the applicant use their rebuttal time now, as you both just agreed. And then you close the public comment officially and bring it back up to dice. Thank you. |
| 02:54:33.25 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Mary, City Attorney. So Riley, the floor is yours. I think it was two minutes, 24 seconds. So Zoom team, let's make sure we've got that time right for Riley and his team. |
| 02:54:48.15 | Riley Hurd | Yeah, that's great. Thanks for having me back up. And I took some notes from some of the public comments, so I'll just kind of go through them in order. Sounds like some people are saying don't put a house here. So just as a reminder, this is zoned for a home. The city says that's what goes here. And this kind of concept of looking from the grand palace down There's only 3,400 square feet above grade. really important to remember that the visible mass, which is what the FAR policy is behind, Visible is 3,400. Um, And I compare and contrast that with 51 Wolfback Ridge Road. Len told us to ignore the homes next door, but it's kind of hard to do when they have currently an application for a 5,400 square foot house with a 700 square foot garage in front of the city right now. really feels like do as I say, not as I do. And that's above ground massing when this is 3,400 above ground. Um, we worked extensively with the neighbors. The list of concessions is actually pretty epic. So I definitely take exception. to Mr. Rex's comments in that regard. He was there. Every time we did it, they wanted more. And we finally found out what they really wanted With no house. or a shoebox kind of tantamount to no house, which is what the whole side setback thing is about. we relied on three years of the community development department's interpretations Um, This push is only about one thing, it's to replay the view argument. And they want to slice the house off. This is not about one canto gal. We're 20 feet from the property line. Um, Finally, the garage. There are many situations of a shared driveway. This is two houses on a shared driveway. The area. in front of the proposed garage is all owned By lot number five. and I think what is missing from the conversation is that our client is the one that's proposing to widen Canto-Gal at both of the curves that were discussed, This is for fire access. This is for safety. And so this project actually makes Canto Gal a lot safer. two garages on one roadway that's that is nothing i mean how many trips are we talking about in a day this is not an intersection so We hope you can bring this to a close and approve this project tonight. We know we've got a long road ahead of us, but thank you for your time. |
| 02:57:26.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Thank you, Riley, and the rest of the team, the applicant, thank you for being here. Let's go ahead and close comment and pull this back up. to the dais for our deliberations at this time. Again, just sort of to frame the conversation and again, respecting everyone's time as a result of our last hearing in February, there we went through every single finding. the majority of which we did find, but there are nine that we couldn't make as a majority in the commission here. on the design review, and I'm sure, you know, Brad will come back up here in a moment. It was, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13. And then in the settlement agreement, it was EIJ and K. Um, And so I want to, as much as possible, focus our deliberations on areas that we could not make findings on. And then I think we need to add to that, unless anyone objects here about the issue regarding the spa. and if we grant a variance or not for its current location on the drawings. So with that would Does, would one of you like to start the conversation? And Brad, can we give you a heads up that we might need you up here with some of your slides. |
| 02:59:00.33 | Morgan Pierce | Chair Feller I'll be happy to weigh in, but I will I will offer that I have not. crafted my comments in the form of direct responses to the concerns of the commission from last time specifically regarding the findings, but we do respond to those in spirit as well as to concerns brought about by opponents the application as well as the general public. So however you would like me to proceed, I'm happy to attempt. |
| 02:59:27.29 | Kristina Feller | Sure, well, I appreciate that, Commissioner Pierce, always. And let's go ahead and kick off the conversation with what your comments are. And in the meantime, I'll have Brad get his slides |
| 02:59:39.14 | Morgan Pierce | Perfect. Well, I will do this briefly. and clearly as possible. This project as designed responds in spirit to the EIR as has been corroborated by the Community Development Department. I recognize my fellow commissioners may have concerns regarding setbacks, and I'm happy to weigh the merits of these concerns with them through this deliberation. The deceptive nature of the mailer from the Friends of Marin Headlands plus continuing misleading commentary regarding this project calls into question the validity of any of these objections and I'm interested to see how those feed into our conversation this evening. The applicants have continuously responded to requests of the neighbors to modify the design to accommodate their concerns. The development does respond to the setbacks as defined by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The suggestion of the garage as a hazard implies that there is not already extant a similar hazard based on the garage location of one canton gal. The garage proposed is directly opposite the existing garage at one canto gal, thus negating any additional concerns for safety. The applicants could easily claim the same concern against the owners of one canto gal. As in claim of pedestrian risk, many of us saw Slita residents not fortunate enough to live on Wolfback Ridge encounter vehicles on our trajectories to access the headlands every day. The applicant has adequately presented reasonable solutions to privacy claims made by one canto gal, The applicant has adequately presented reasonable solutions to shade shadow claims made by one canto gal The footprint of the project as currently proposed is similar and compatible with those of its immediate neighbors and those beyond. As to the legal ownership configuration of this project, that is beyond the purview of this planning commission and we rely on the expertise of the city and its consultants for this clarity. I find it interesting that the neighbors at 51 Wolfback Ridge Road, who have allegedly been fueling the objection to this project, are the same ones who purchased their property with the understanding that Lot 5 could and would be built upon. Contrary to the sentiments of the response to the friends of Marin headlands inaccurate flyer, this parcel is a prepared building site within the confines of an already developed neighborhood of Wolfback Ridge and has been identified as an improved building location. Ms. Brekus cites 255 opposing individuals. Are they fully informed of the inaccuracies that were presented to them in the flyer? The claim that other recent homeowners have built to a 4,000 square foot building limit and requests others adhere to the same restrictions did not have the foresight to build underground as this applicant is doing. as it pertains to development of parcels on the west side of Wolfback Bridge Road, and while they are not in consideration of this proposal i will mention that the commission denied an application billed on a lot in that location in the recent past in response to concerns mentioned by objectors to this project. The Planning Commission has shared the public's concerns of the impacts of this project on the visitors to the GGNRA, and we have worked throughout this process with the applicants to mitigate these impacts while respecting the development rights of the applicants. And finally, the applicant has made revisions to this project directly addressing the concerns of this commission's prior deliberations. That said, I would like to help this applicant move forward. And I do have some recommendations for modifications that may be addressed potentially via conditions of approval. Thank you. |
| 03:03:05.96 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Thank you very much, Commissioner Pierce. Thank you. |
| 03:03:09.81 | Nastassya Saad | sure. |
| 03:03:10.06 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:03:10.08 | Nastassya Saad | and the other side. |
| 03:03:10.25 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:03:10.40 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. That's a very articulate, hard thing to follow. Commissioner Pierce, that was very well said. And I think I agree in sentiment with, with what you've with what you've raised. I think overall, I'd be curious to hear our discussions on the setback I think it would help me come to to the conclusion on the spa, ultimately, And I was wondering I think that the staff report and a lot of the mitigation measures THE END OF did capture quite well what we were trying to achieve from our last meeting. So thank you to staff and to the applicant for for working to make those changes. I don't know if we want just because I am not so very well versed in the glass bird last. Um... remit, although I shared the concern just as a person who saw all the glass facing the West elevation, if we do if we're interested in a group to make some type of condition of approval between one of the two choices that were listed or if anybody has. some input there I would love. OUR OPINION, MAYBE WE we might wanna make that claim now in a condition Although they've given us two choices. Um, otherwise, um, I, you know, I definitely hear the public's concern. I think it's, it's worth. noting that there is a lot of concern but as Commissioner Pierce mentioned there is a right to build it's non negotiable there's a right to build there so I think we should work as best we can in this meeting to find our path forward. I think a lot of the findings 7 8. I think 10, 11 and 13. I don't know if we have any other outstanding in my opinion were were mitigated in that staff report and the changes that were. made from last time. |
| 03:05:07.27 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, thank you very much Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 03:05:12.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Ah, I appreciate the changes that were made on the GN G-G-NRA side of the property With regard to the glass, I had hoped based on the direction that the last meeting that the applicant's architect could have worked with the staff and address the setbacks and increase the setbacks I think that, and I still think that if the building was placed at either the 34 foot setback or the 30 foot step back, which I think it's a rear yard, as I said earlier, which would be a benefit to the applicant to go to the 30 feet. And if the garage is relocated, and I'll talk about that in a second, THAT WE CAN HAVE A SOLUTION THAT BOTH COULD HELP THIS FAMILY BUILD THIS HOUSE ON THIS LOT AS WELL AS ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF ABUTTERS AND ALL THAT SO THAT WE AT LEAST COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GO FORWARD THAT WE'RE NOT STILL AFTER WHATEVER WE DO TONIGHT. people going back and forth. I, I, Let me go through the specific finding concerns I have. First of all, the garage. I think the location of the underground garage raises significant safety concerns. I've been on this site several times now. I can't see this garage working I don't see why we have outdoor parking which could be an enclosed garage. And as we'll see later this evening, there are lifts where you can, you could put a three car, two to three car garage and with lifts, you could put four to six cars on one side. So instead of having cars parked on two parts of this lot, you'd have cars parked only on one side. I think they could be on Canto Gal NOT COMING OUT OF THIS cave on the backside of the property. So I think that's a significant safety issue. And that's finding number 10. I do think the fire turnaround is an important aspect. We haven't talked about that this evening. This property now fronts on Wolfback Ridge Road, right in front of where the fire turnaround is supposed to go. If the fire turnaround isn't built as part of this because the turnaround is right on the front edge of the property, it will never be built. I don't understand why it's not part of this project, I now understand from Brad that the the adjacent property at one Rose Bowl is given a key to the fire department and they can unlock their gate. and come in and go in there, but that doesn't seem to be the best solution for fire turn around. So again, for finding 10, I think a fire turn around should be there. With regard to the setbacks, Standing on that part of one Kanto Galle adjacent to ON THE LOT FIVE PART RIGHT AT THE GATE THERE, YOU CAN SEE THE STORY POLES THROUGH THE HEDGES. SO WITHOUT PROVIDING A SETBACK, I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO MAKE FINDINGS NUMBER NINE AND POSSIBLY FINDINGS NUMBER THREE. So I think that's a significant issue. And I think that the setback should be at least 30 feet. And I don't think we should vary. And if we determine it's not a rear-out setback, then I would agree to bury the side yard to 30 feet, but no more than 30 feet. With regard to the trees, I'm hopeful that the stuff they've done will protect that Monterey cypress. I do think the oak trees that are being proposed are a major mistake. I think that they're going to grow and under the agreements that they have, people are going to, the abutters can then cut down the trees and will come back before us to get them to cut down the trees. I don't think we should be putting in large trees. I think we should have a few more shrubs but not large trees that are going to grow over the tops of the house. on I do think we can find findings for with regard to the views. So I would suggest that the but I might be a lone wolf in all of this, but I would suggest that the designer and the applicants were back with the owner there and encourage them to meet that setback. Because I think if they don't come up with a compromise, we keep going around in circles. So as far as I'm concerned, we still haven't met the findings for number 10, 11, 9, and possibly 3. |
| 03:10:05.00 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you very much, Commissioner Luxenberg, Vice Chair Graff. |
| 03:10:09.57 | Richard Graef | Um... Thank you. Ah. I still have have concerns about just the general overall scale and and I'm not sure. the bulk of the project. Uh, and I think, uh, And that regardless of all of the design refinements, which I actually would like to compliment Architect, I think there's some or some, very good design. Uh, responses that have happened here. But I think I would I tend to go along with Oh. Commissioner Luxenberg's feeling about the the setback It doesn't make sense to call it a side yard when in fact it's really kind of a lot. Um, And that, that if that if that setback were 30 feet or something close to that, I would be a lot more comfortable with the overall impact of the structure Um, So I think, that's my I think the main concern is just I'm not sure. Just kind of like the Thank you. the size of it. Um, And I also still Um, I'm not really in favor of the garage solution. And that whole and the governor and access. It's been a lot of day one and night I don't know. Um, Ah. Otherwise, I... You know, I like I like the architecture, I like the design, I like the materials. So we're going to have to go Bye. I like the look of the place. I think it has a lot going for it. |
| 03:12:19.71 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:12:20.59 | Richard Graef | I'm not sure. I, So those are just my feelings. I would like to see the mass reduced. I'm a- Bye. I'm not convinced about the garage yet. Maybe I could be. . Those are my main concerns at this point. |
| 03:12:40.84 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Graff. I have a couple of different comments on this and I want to first focus on findings. I want to focus on issues regarding our purview with the municipal code. and go back to where we left off in February. Um, And I've spent a lot of time reviewing this and reviewing with staff sort of how these calculations are made also on setbacks and so on. First of all, As it relates to the five findings that we could not make. at our last hearing, which was seven, eight, 10, 11, and 13 for the design review I'm not sure. I can make those findings. regarding the settlement agreement E, I, J, and K. Yes, Commissioner Saad, I agree. We just need to have a quick conversation regarding the glazing. and ensure there's no unintended consequence with Title 24 as it relates to that. I don't know about that. We'll need to ask probably staff for some clarification I can also make those findings. did address some major concerns that we had. I'm not sure. specific to glazing, specific to the garage and the circulation there. I mean, frankly, my opinion is that the garage is in the most obvious location And they are doing a massive favor to Wolfback Ridge by burying this garage, to consider putting it into a landscape easement on the west side where You do have a firetruck turnaround designated by by Wolfback Ridge Estates, not this owner. This is not on the property of the owner, the street that is where that fire turnaround would be. to consider putting this into this project is ludicrous. And I really mean that ludicrous because it is not part of the responsibility of this applicant. nor is it a requirement for this applicant Nor is it part of any finding that we are meant to make. So it is irrelevant to this project. It doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be addressed by the city. but it does not need to be addressed by this applicant. So I wanna, I would urge us to take that off the table for any further discussion, because it's, |
| 03:15:09.95 | Mary Wagner | But if you're not, |
| 03:15:18.81 | Kristina Feller | well outside the purview of what we are looking at here. Um, And then as it, As going back to the garage, I appreciate where the applicant enlarged that area to make it a little bit safer, but let's not forget. This is a driveway. This is not a freeway. And if you're driving 30 miles an hour around some 90 degree angle turn, what do you think is going to happen? It's a driveway. and to commissioner Pierce's point, I mean, it's staggered a little bit, but it's, it's, it's around the same area as one Canto gals garage entry. So that is, it makes more sense to stagger those kinds of activities and entrances, exits from those areas, from a traffic circulation standpoint. and a traffic engineer would. concur with that when it's on a driveway. This isn't a street or an intersection, it's a driveway. So I would prefer that over anything particularly when you're dealing with chert and rippable land this way. It's actually much easier to excavate and take out. I also want to note that in previous hearings and other discussions. The neighbors recognize on the record that this is a buildable lot. So, You know, arguing over the square footage in this regard, considering how the calculations are made, I just can't support. And I think a lot of the arguments that have been put forth and to echo a little bit of what Commissioner Pierce is saying about these flyers, This is exactly why the Sierra Club had to retract their letter. |
| 03:17:15.51 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:17:15.95 | Kristina Feller | and and they've intimated that here we I they haven't gone line item by line item about why but clearly if they were factually incorrect or in whether they were misled or not is not my place to say I do not know But I think that there's some mis- conceptions. There's wrong information. I've seen it in newspapers. I've seen it in flyers. And we need to stick to the facts here and not get distracted by noise. We have a job to do. We have a municipal code and ordinances to follow, and that's what we're here to do tonight. I support this project. I think there are a couple of tweaks I'd like to make. I have an issue with where the spa is and regarding the variants. I will go back and have a specific conversation about the setback and how those calculations are made and. I would also remind everybody that there were other hearings and an appeal on what would be considered the front door or address of this property even before we got into design review. So those are important considerations to make. that we're not gonna re-adjudicate this evening. So that's sort of where I fall on this issue. |
| 03:18:28.01 | Morgan Pierce | And thank you, Chair Feller. And may I add something to that? Something that I feel is equally strongly about? |
| 03:18:30.88 | Kristina Feller | the |
| 03:18:33.41 | Morgan Pierce | I've been practicing for over 25 years. I have never seen Two... rear yard lines in my practice, ever. This line that we're questioning whether it would be a rear lot line is a side yard lot line in every municipality I've ever worked. And I'm considering it as such. |
| 03:18:54.42 | Kristina Feller | I agree. completely Um, this is not a heightened design review. We are, I do not want to apply unrealistic or unfair or disproportionate requirements to this over any other applicant. So yes, there's a lot of focus on this, but let's stick to the facts here. Let's stick to our ordinances and use those as our guide. Um, so I, I could approve this project with a couple caveats here. I want to ensure Number one, that we have a discussion about the spa. Number two, I want to, and I see Brad is here. I wanna make sure that Um, as they are excavating for foundations along the western edge where the kitchen is, is that being done by hand? And is there some flexibility? Should they run into a route that they could modify the foundation there to ensure that that, tree, the trees there are not impacted negatively and that they can survive and thrive. That's important. to the setback and the overhang areas, particularly on the side yard, which is identified as seven. on in the staff report. That is the one area that at least I would like to focus on, but I'd like to hear from anybody else too. |
| 03:20:31.40 | Kristina Feller | Any other items to focus on? |
| 03:20:37.88 | Kristina Feller | No, okay, Brad, can you pull up your calculations. |
| 03:20:43.01 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:20:55.78 | Unknown | Okay, the setback calculations, these pages. |
| 03:21:01.07 | Kristina Feller | Yes, you had a calculation on the side yard 7 which is the one that Um, faces one canto gal so |
| 03:21:13.37 | Brad | Sure. Right there. |
| 03:21:14.18 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. There you go. So can you just walk us through this again? |
| 03:21:19.76 | Brad | Okay, sure. What The the side setback, given the building length increases to 34 feet. And, again, because of kind of the irregular shaped of the parcel and the way the applicant has um, creatively figured out how to offset the projection into the setback, the projection into the setback total 692 square feet of the building. floor area. I'm not sure. or of the yard area rather the footprint of the building encroaches 692 square feet in there. because of the kind of unique shape of the lot and where I'm, the applicant is allocating offset and we're going to have a What they're doing is relying on kind of an average yard depth at least replacing and replacing substantially more I'm not sure. yard allocation than what is projected into. On this drawing 692 square feet of projection. They've identified two areas One over here, 245 square feet of added depth area. And then over here on the what amounts to the downslope area that is, side yard until you get way down the hill where it becomes a rear yard. That is 3,000 square feet. of, yard space. They didn't have to go that far I'm not sure. I couldn't tell you why Scott included that much in his calculations, but that's what he's done. And so he's effectively found an additional 3,245 square feet I'm not sure. yard area, yard depth. to offset the 692 square feet of projection. So when you ultimately do all the little meets and bounds and figure out exactly how big this side yard area is You can total out the square footage and then confirm that the average depth at least remains at that minimum of 34 feet. It's an awkward way to do it, but it is. a way to work around an oddly shaped property. |
| 03:23:51.69 | Kristina Feller | This is baby porn. |
| 03:23:52.01 | Christy Usher | It's amazing. |
| 03:23:54.05 | Kristina Feller | not just a 20 foot break setback which has been read, |
| 03:23:54.51 | Christy Usher | Thank you. |
| 03:23:54.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:23:55.35 | Ellen Borgeson | Good. |
| 03:23:55.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:23:58.96 | Kristina Feller | but also the additional setbacks. that is based on the overall length of the building on the west Western Side, is that correct? |
| 03:24:09.04 | Brad | That is correct. If If the code section 104070 for the added setback depth if that did not apply or was not part of the code at this point, then this would comply with the 20 foot setback and this would not be an issue. It does meet the 20 foot setback, which is the, the base R120 setback of 10 feet. and then the additional 10 of the Wolfback Estates settlement agreement. but because of the 1040-070 D1 section of the municipal code That length of the building from Over here. If you see where my cursor is, to this other end. this length of the building I'm not sure. requires that the additional 14 feet of setback be added to that. So that's where we get to 34 feet. And that's where you see the crosshatch part of the building That's the part that encroaches or projects into the setback. |
| 03:25:14.63 | Kristina Feller | So I will have a discussion, we had asked you about this, that that seemed I'm not sure. unreasonably punitive considering that the non green hatched part of the building over on the western edge isn't isn't, On an, on that property line. It's actually on their own property line. because it's this weird C-shaped So... What did you, were there any considerations of that or any commissioners have any questions about that? Because that was one of the things we asked you to go back to do these calculations is it seems like um, it's, it's kind of punitive. |
| 03:26:06.74 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I think that's where the question comes up and the discretionary review by us. comes to light, Commissioner Feller, is that does the, does the, um, article as specifically outlined in the code, create any additional impact to neighbors that is above and beyond that would be experienced by others in other areas of the city. And I think that's what we were finding, is that based on the odd nature of this lot, the impact is mitigated considerably. |
| 03:26:43.90 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I can see that. What is anybody else's thoughts about that? Commissioner Saad, what are your thoughts about that? |
| 03:26:59.69 | Nastassya Saad | I am to be totally honest I'm trying to follow. this |
| 03:27:05.30 | Morgan Pierce | It is convoluted. |
| 03:27:06.36 | Nastassya Saad | I THINK IT'S A LOT OF |
| 03:27:06.76 | Morgan Pierce | Yes. |
| 03:27:07.19 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. It is so if you'll give me a moment to let that soak in. |
| 03:27:14.38 | Kristina Feller | Of course, of course. |
| 03:27:15.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:27:17.21 | Kristina Feller | So, To that point. Brad, there was a 10 foot setback, an additional 10 foot setback to make the 20. And then there's this additional calculation Is it one foot additional set back for every five feet? Am I recalling that correctly? |
| 03:27:36.18 | Unknown | Yes, that is correct. |
| 03:27:37.97 | Kristina Feller | And that's how you're getting this green Hatched area. Um, that falls within the 34 foot increased setback, correct? |
| 03:27:49.93 | Brad | Thank you. |
| 03:27:50.05 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 03:27:51.97 | Kristina Feller | Does that help, Commissioner said? |
| 03:27:53.84 | Unknown | It does. does. |
| 03:27:59.35 | Richard Graef | What's somewhat confusing is the offset I'm not sure. uh, areas that other areas that are not as the development per se. Um, I've got to. understand. carbon credits or something. you know? It's not real. Um, Maybe it is. |
| 03:28:27.51 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I think to put it simply, The intent, I think, is not to have really an unbroken excessive length of the facade along an adjacent property line. And if this is one continuous property line, |
| 03:28:39.00 | Gonzaga | batteries. |
| 03:28:42.60 | Morgan Pierce | this would be offsetting that. However, we're in a weird condition where we've got an L-shaped property where that condition doesn't necessarily occur. we have some latitude to apply our discretion to what we think is reasonable. |
| 03:28:57.53 | Kristina Feller | Can I ask another question to, to. that point commissioner Pierce, which I think is a good way to, to sort of summarize the intent Um, these where that property line falls versus where the building starts there's a pretty significant elevation change. |
| 03:29:21.09 | Michael Rex | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:29:22.19 | Kristina Feller | I'm guessing and Brad, I probably shouldn't, you would probably know this better, but are we talking 15 feet, 12 feet, 15 feet? |
| 03:29:30.05 | Brad | It's something along those lines. I want to say it's at least 12 feet. I'd have to go back and look at the plans, but it's substantial enough. It's a full building story. |
| 03:29:41.59 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. So to me, if the intention for the setback is as commissioner Pierce summarized, certainly better than I could summarize, And you have such a a significant variation of of you know, grade height. It seems to me at least that this is punitive. because the actual side yard setback Um, just it doesn't make sense for as applied here for this particular reason. And I know that's within our discretion, but I also want to make sure that that's justifiable. Thank you. |
| 03:30:29.67 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | you |
| 03:30:29.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. And part of the justification in my own mind, which is perhaps only resides in my own mind, is that where the property line, the thick black line, it makes the L at that intersection of the L That's really the length you should be looking at. Not because the, the, if you follow that line all the way across. It's the applicant's own property. It's not a property line. |
| 03:30:58.66 | Morgan Pierce | I'm going to go. |
| 03:30:58.68 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. |
| 03:31:00.36 | Kristina Feller | And that's why I think it's punitive. |
| 03:31:02.54 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. |
| 03:31:04.50 | Kristina Feller | That's sort of my reasoning. I don't know what I mean. |
| 03:31:07.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. |
| 03:31:07.70 | Morgan Pierce | Same take. |
| 03:31:08.94 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:31:09.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the height differential actually makes it worse because this house will tower over the abutter. So by setting it back, you solve that problem. So I don't know that I agree that that's the only reason why this is there. That's the nature of building Sausalito. |
| 03:31:27.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:31:27.11 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 03:31:27.13 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:31:27.15 | Morgan Pierce | That's the nature of building. |
| 03:31:29.49 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, and the story polls would tell you a totally different story, Commissioner Lechevert. you know, |
| 03:31:35.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | different story from what? |
| 03:31:37.90 | Kristina Feller | Well, the height of what the building would be. You don't. You can see the story. |
| 03:31:42.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You can see the story pulls through the hedge. I mean, it's clear. |
| 03:31:47.56 | Kristina Feller | You can see the very, very top of it. I visited it many, many times. And it's... I mean, honestly, if I were at one Canto Gala, I'd have more of a problem with one Rose Bowl, which is like right in your face. You see all of it. that whole Eastern and part of the northern side This you really barely see. |
| 03:32:12.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, where that garage is and where the stuff is above, you know, that garage sits much lower. And you look at that facade, Brad, I think, or Scott had that elevation. This is fairly significant. Do you have an elevation that shows the elevation? Yeah. So, yeah, go back one. |
| 03:32:36.87 | Unknown | So yeah, go back. Thank you. |
| 03:32:38.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So when you're looking at this, you've got that garage entrance, sort of like the entrance to the Batcave, and then you've got the building above it. I mean, I don't know what the rationale, why all these calculations were put into the code. I just know they exist. I also, again, once the city council put the frontage on the front, this other, all part of the, somebody said that we're sort of, it's like carbon credits or something. This rest of the slot is not really part of this lot, and they could probably put an ADU on it someday. This part of the lot fronts on Wolfback Bridge. And this is the back of the thing. Whether you call it a rear yard or you call it a side yard, it's still the back. And on the back of a house, you generally have a greater setback. I mean, you know. I don't know, just see, just does not look right to me, doesn't seem right to me. but. |
| 03:33:48.52 | Kristina Feller | Well, if you stand down at one can't so gal, Mr. McMillan has been kind enough to allow us down there. At least myself and I think other commissioners several times. You really, you have to strain pretty hard to the top of any story pole. I mean, this, this elevation doesn't really, I mean, that's the reality of being up there. This isn't some rendered, you know, I'm not talking about some rendering. I'm talking about the reality. of being there. I think it's punitive. And I actually don't think that the elevation makes it worse at all. I think it actually helps it. And that's from my multiple visits out there and reviewing this. But that's okay. I mean, we don't have to agree on everything. That's the nature of what we're doing here. |
| 03:34:27.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:35.39 | Kristina Feller | and how some of this is Interpreted. um, So that's sort of where I fall on this. |
| 03:34:43.86 | Morgan Pierce | I will add again, I will add to that. And this conversation is super helpful for me. And as we look at these different diagrams, you know, it's funny while one canto gal's front door is on this side. Essentially this is the back of the house that faces the back of the house at the proposed project. I mean, you couldn't ask for a better relationship of back of house facing back of house. They both then focused their fronts on their beautiful respective views. You know, it's it again from a planning standpoint, from a programming standpoint, it all makes perfect sense. to me. |
| 03:35:21.93 | Kristina Feller | Agreed. any other comments from from commissioners or questions about calculations or |
| 03:35:24.29 | Morgan Pierce | And he's... |
| 03:35:32.49 | Kristina Feller | the nine findings that we couldn't make last time. |
| 03:35:36.96 | Morgan Pierce | Can we pull those up on the board so we can talk about those specifically since I think that's where we're going to land? |
| 03:35:41.59 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Good idea. |
| 03:35:45.32 | Brad | Okay here's the main page for the findings seven eight 10 11 and 13. And here's where I go through the discussion. Tell me where you want to go. Well, I'm sorry. |
| 03:35:58.09 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. My old chair tendencies, please, Chair Feller, jump right in here. |
| 03:36:04.13 | Kristina Feller | Can you go back one and let's just quickly summarize. 7, 8, 10, 11, 13. These are the findings that this commission, the majority of this commission |
| 03:36:15.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:36:15.39 | Unknown | system. |
| 03:36:16.26 | Kristina Feller | could not make at the last time. So these are the ones that we identified to the applicant that we could not make and needed to be addressed in any revisions which I believe he's done, but let's now that we see those five, let's go through them real quick. And so let's go to the next slide. |
| 03:36:39.52 | Kristina Feller | So let's talk specifics. Yeah. Okay, shadows and sunlight. |
| 03:36:47.33 | Morgan Pierce | I think last time we didn't have a shadow study and this time we do seem to prove with some certainty that our our assumptions were correct that there was little to no implication on one canto gal of this project. |
| 03:37:04.43 | Richard Graef | I agree. seems to be the case. |
| 03:37:08.51 | Nastassya Saad | I agree as well from the shadow study that was included this time. |
| 03:37:12.20 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:37:12.31 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:37:12.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:37:12.48 | Richard Graef | Thank you. There was a previous show. I think But I think the more recent one was in more detail and more accurate. |
| 03:37:25.62 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:37:26.11 | Richard Graef | Oh, yeah. |
| 03:37:26.31 | Kristina Feller | I'm going to go. The one of the neighbors had done their own independent one that we saw as well. Thank you. |
| 03:37:32.86 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Yeah. |
| 03:37:33.00 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. We have what we need. Okay, rooftop equipment vegetation. I think Commissioner Saad, you asked this question and we thought of the... thorough response any issues here for anybody |
| 03:37:48.59 | Morgan Pierce | It seemed like they moved that projection of the kitchen back considerably. that was previously overhanging the roots of Monterey Cyprus. that makes me feel a lot better about it. It's potential for survival. |
| 03:38:04.75 | Kristina Feller | And Brad, I think you have in condition of approval that an arborist has to be on site during the pandemic. |
| 03:38:10.02 | Brad | Yeah I believe that's in the conditions of approval that there has to be an arborist on site that there's tree protection. |
| 03:38:10.04 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 03:38:17.09 | Brad | recommendations in the Arborist Report that would have to be followed. |
| 03:38:24.09 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I'm comfortable with that. |
| 03:38:29.21 | Kristina Feller | Anybody else? Okay, let's keep going. Next slide Brad. |
| 03:38:41.93 | Kristina Feller | Okay, this is the issue with the shared driveway and the garage entry and exit. Um, I feel since it's been... widened, particularly there and the guardrails added with a small light that faces the the asphalt or the driving surface, I'm comfortable with that. I think, you know, again, if you don't see that light and it's daylight, then that means that you couldn't see the car. which should be helpful. |
| 03:39:15.51 | Morgan Pierce | And I would add, Chair Feller, that I appreciate your comparison of a driveway compared to a freeway. I think let's be realistic here about what the nature of this passageway is and understand, yes, there will be some cretins that drive out of control and then rates of speed that are excessive for this. that's not our job to, to, |
| 03:39:35.59 | Unknown | That's it. |
| 03:39:37.82 | Morgan Pierce | manage. I think as designed, it makes sense, and it is a logical solution for this part of the neighborhood. |
| 03:39:49.97 | Richard Graef | Yeah, and I haven't seen a better solution. That doesn't mean I, support this one but as I said that's, um, Nobody has come forward with anything better. |
| 03:40:04.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can't make this finding. I believe that contrary to what the chair said earlier, I don't think the the garage should be on Wolfpack Ridge Road. I think the garage should be where the exterior parking is. I don't see why they have a need to have two places where cars go in and out. They could just have one. And so I don't think it should be on Wolfback Road. I do. So I think there is a better solution. And if the cars can go in and out from that exterior parking, there's no reason that exterior parking can't be made internal. It would significantly reduce the amount of hauling of dirt, and there are better solutions, so I can't make this one. |
| 03:40:55.92 | Kristina Feller | Well, I believe that not having the garage where that surface parking is was actually a concession that this applicant made. to the neighbor And that's why the garage is where it is. So I just, I wanted to make sure that that is, reminded |
| 03:41:14.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:41:15.80 | Kristina Feller | That's why. |
| 03:41:16.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think that argument is given so many changes have been made, that argument is sort of like we were kids and we played telephone. I think that if you went back and asked and had a meeting with those folks that you might determine that maybe that is the best place and maybe they said that. A YEAR AGO OR THREE YEARS AGO, BUT GIVEN HOW THIS DESIGN HAS EVOLVED AND GIVEN THE UNSAFE NATURE OF HOW THAT GARAGE IS GOING TO WORK, THAT THIS MIGHT BE A BETTER SOLUTION. AND SO I DON'T WANT TO RELY ON SOMETHING SOMEBODY SAID THREE YEARS AGO. |
| 03:41:58.02 | Kristina Feller | No, but there have been four, this is the fourth design review on this. So they've had three other opportunities to mention it and they have not. I'm going to... I'm gonna stick with the concession for this. But again, we don't have to agree on all these. Not every single finding is going to be a 5-0 vote. We know that. It's okay. Are there any other comments on this? Right, let's move Brad to the next slide. Again, in the interest of time, I wanna try to get through these. Um, by exception only if that's possible. We've talked about the tree protection preservation as part of the condition of approval and brad um tells us it's in there we can reiterate that of course any issues on this Hearing none, let's keep going, Brad. |
| 03:42:55.65 | Kristina Feller | neighboring structures crowding neighboring structures i assume this has to do with the setback |
| 03:43:01.18 | Brad | Correct. |
| 03:43:03.39 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Is there any further discussion needed on this item? |
| 03:43:08.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can't make this one either. All this. |
| 03:43:14.16 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, hearing none, let's keep going. other than, of course, Commissioner Luxenberg. I don't mean to exclude you there. Okay. |
| 03:43:26.51 | Brad | So now we're into the Wolfpack estate settlement agreement, the architectural standards. and in this group of the standards applicable. There were four of them that the commission could not majority make during the last hearing. Those are architectural standard E. design harmonious with the nature and character of Wolfpack Ridge. I the building materials and colors should be subdued. J reflective windows materials prohibited and K requires use of natural appearing roof materials. |
| 03:43:58.91 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:43:58.93 | Brad | And now we'll go into it. |
| 03:44:01.75 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thanks. Thank you, Todd. Okay. Karen Hollweg, Any. Any specific comments or issues? related to the glazing along the West and any issues regarding the, what I'll call the louvers. that were added on the exterior. |
| 03:44:24.88 | Richard Graef | I I'm not really. quite sure how Those louvers. work. whether they're movable or whether they're fixed. and Um, I see that they are separated so that they're probably leaving Uh, unobstructed window where people's eye levels are. and where they want to view and they don't want to be looking at Lovers but um, I don't know how much how effective the louvers are, I think they're gonna, you know, it's gonna change it. I also, you know, I agree with |
| 03:45:17.40 | Richard Graef | Ah, the idea that Maybe a stairwell. at all. Um, movers. But anyway. |
| 03:45:31.82 | Kristina Feller | So do you have an issue with the louvers or they're not where you want them to be? |
| 03:45:37.12 | Richard Graef | Well, it's just a new thing and there was not very much specific information about their angles and how big they are. And there's not a lot of detail. They're just sort of there. And so I just want to be comfortable that they're going to be effective. and cutting the They're going to clearly cut some of the window glare. Um, Anyway, I just, Let's move on. |
| 03:46:11.34 | Kristina Feller | Anybody else? have issues with any of this, I think, I believe that those louvers were added at sort of the, the, and I think that's a great suggestion I'm not sure. of this commission, so I want to make sure that we have what we're looking for. And I think It's probably important to consider that in conjunction with the, um, the glazing recommendations, the two recommendations here. Truthfully, I would I'll leave this to I'm fine with either one as long as they both meet or exceed title 24. I'm fine. with these. technical team of the architect to to review these. |
| 03:47:13.24 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you, Chair Feller, and thank you, Vice Chair Graff, for asking. And I will offer that I made the recommendation. And really, the intent is to... and then we have to minimize the I guess exposure of clear planes of giant sheets of glass by mitigating it through adding some layer of louvered elements above, you know, between that and the viewer. And I believe that the drawings as depicted by the architect do that. There's no suggestion of whether they're operable versus fixed. Both would satisfy the needs that we're trying to attain here. But my comment about adding it to the stair tower, because that was one still large, unbroken panel of glass stands. I think it would be best if we encourage them to add that and whether that's a condition of approval that we can specify enough to our satisfactory or whether or not we need to see it one more time. You know, I'm, I'm inclined. As much as I hate to say it, I'm inclined for us to review it one more time, just to make sure we're satisfied. However, if somebody on this commission has a recommendation of how we might vocalize our condition to suit our satisfaction, I'm all ears. |
| 03:48:27.26 | Unknown | Voila. |
| 03:48:35.42 | Morgan Pierce | And then as it pertains to bird friendly vast, I mean, there are plenty of studies out that show that these various new styles of bird friendly glass are successful. If they're not, I have my next door neighbors have, you know, one entire wall of their home is all glass. They had a problem with birds. They bought a plastic hawk. it solved the problems. They don't have any problem with birds anymore. So there are solutions. |
| 03:48:57.56 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So regarding the issue of Louvers at the stair. park that to the side, unless anyone has any further comments or objections to that, |
| 03:49:07.62 | Unknown | No one has any. |
| 03:49:10.03 | Kristina Feller | And that is something that we can. figure out a way to condition or something, but we'll ask the applicant that |
| 03:49:15.35 | Unknown | something. |
| 03:49:18.29 | Kristina Feller | before we finalize any motions for this evening. So I'll park that to the side, Commissioner, here. |
| 03:49:23.74 | Morgan Pierce | you guys. great. Thank you. |
| 03:49:26.52 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:49:28.29 | Nastassya Saad | Can I just have a clarifying question on this? Are these for the bird-friendly... glass and protection. Is it being suggested that both of these will be used or Yes. |
| 03:49:39.90 | Gonzaga | is, |
| 03:49:41.34 | Nastassya Saad | So it's not one or the other, it's both around the table. Okay, just wanted to make sure. |
| 03:49:45.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a question? |
| 03:49:45.86 | Morgan Pierce | Yeah. |
| 03:49:45.88 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:49:46.03 | Morgan Pierce | They start completely purposes. |
| 03:49:48.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Does this have fritz in it? Is this fritted glass or you can't see it all? |
| 03:49:51.70 | Morgan Pierce | It is a fit of a sort, and I'm not sure what the technical term is, but there is some sort of patterning. in the lamination of the glass. It provides some graphic that the birds see but is not something that obstructs your vision. Yeah. |
| 03:50:06.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, it's not like printed glass where you can really see it if you look careful. |
| 03:50:07.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:50:11.93 | Kristina Feller | No, it's not like a frit, which has sort of a frosting type of |
| 03:50:16.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:50:16.84 | Kristina Feller | Right. Character to it, this is sort of |
| 03:50:16.86 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:50:19.95 | Kristina Feller | It is something that only birds really can see, but it's sort of baked in as they... many Blazing. And I think it's... |
| 03:50:29.95 | Brad | I think it's... |
| 03:50:31.20 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:50:32.15 | Brad | Through the chair at my understanding from the applicant is that it's got a UV a pattern. that's in the glass that is at such a a light frequency that birds can see but humans cannot. I suppose maybe with polarized sunglasses, you might notice some sort of a, THE FAMILY IS a bit of a pattern like you might with, with like tinted car windows or some LCD phone screens or something, but, uh, My understanding is that it's at such a I guess that the birds can see it, but humans cannot. |
| 03:51:08.68 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 03:51:10.25 | Brad | Sounds great to me. |
| 03:51:11.23 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:51:11.74 | Kristina Feller | Okay any other questions or comments on this again just trying to move move this along if they're not any any more discussion or clarification items. Everyone okay? |
| 03:51:24.85 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 03:51:24.86 | Brad | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:51:25.08 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 03:51:25.62 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, let's keep going. |
| 03:51:28.66 | Brad | Okay, this is the last... of the architectural standards that the majority of the commission could not make standard K. and this pertains to the living roof and roof equipment the visible materials, the how is the living roof going to be maintained, those were the I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE when I went back and reviewed the recording of the previous hearing. |
| 03:52:00.83 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Brad. Any thoughts or comments from anybody? |
| 03:52:06.06 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I guess I'm curious, did we suggest that the applicant change the for dark bronze powder coated material, or was that their recommendation? |
| 03:52:17.58 | Brad | That was their recommendation. That was not something I remember any of us discussing. I personally did not discuss it with the applicant. They proposed it. |
| 03:52:19.41 | Morgan Pierce | Okay. |
| 03:52:27.32 | Brad | I think it makes sense personally. |
| 03:52:29.40 | Morgan Pierce | I mean, it'll be probably neutral. I'm just curious to know its origin. |
| 03:52:32.20 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | I think it'll be better. |
| 03:52:35.08 | Richard Graef | Well, I don't know that, I mean, the Corton Steel and it, you know. matures, it's very dark. Y'all. Yeah. |
| 03:52:45.65 | Morgan Pierce | It would almost be like a dark prince. |
| 03:52:46.83 | Richard Graef | It's different. than a bronze. The only problem with the core 10 is that there is oxidation and you know, it tends to drip and make rust marks and it's, You know. So maybe it's smarter to have the powder coating |
| 03:53:04.41 | Kristina Feller | Well, the quartz and steel is around the planners and stuff like that. |
| 03:53:07.68 | Richard Graef | deal. |
| 03:53:09.08 | Kristina Feller | which is great because it'll just blend into that rusty earthy shirt. |
| 03:53:13.30 | Richard Graef | We're going to... Oil darker. Thank you. |
| 03:53:15.50 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:53:15.55 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:53:15.97 | Kristina Feller | darker. Pretty dark. |
| 03:53:17.05 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:53:17.62 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:53:18.15 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:53:18.16 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:53:19.80 | Richard Graef | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:53:20.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I'm not sure. So anybody have any issues regarding any of these items in K. We'll mention by exception only. Otherwise I'll assume you're good with this. Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:53:39.46 | Laura Bowen | All right. Good. |
| 03:53:41.84 | Kristina Feller | So I believe that that That addresses all nine findings that the majority of this commission could not make the last time. The last thing I think we need to discuss is the spa location. I know we touched on it previously. Does anyone have any? Final thoughts or comments or suggestions related to the spa. |
| 03:54:08.18 | Kristina Feller | Okay, hearing none. Okay, Brad, let's go ahead and stop sharing the screen here, if you don't mind. |
| 03:54:20.60 | Kristina Feller | So. |
| 03:54:24.47 | Kristina Feller | It seems to me that We're leaning towards making these findings at least the majority of this commission is leaning towards being able to make these findings The caveat is Louvers at the stair. and potentially the spa. So if there are any other items please raise them now because I'd like to pull the applicant back up here to discuss the issue with the louvers. at the stair. and any issues you might have regarding the placement of the spot. Are there any other |
| 03:55:09.61 | Unknown | Any other? |
| 03:55:10.87 | Kristina Feller | Thoughts or comments? Okay. All right, so if I could please ask Scott and Riley, if you are still... listening to us. If you could, Zoom team, you could unmute them. And we can go over these issues real quick with them. All right. Scott and Riley, are you both there? |
| 03:55:43.93 | Scott Couture | Can you hear me? |
| 03:55:44.99 | Kristina Feller | You're in. |
| 03:55:45.75 | Scott Couture | Okay, I can't, they won't let me, hold on. Thank you. |
| 03:55:48.74 | Kristina Feller | Let's get to it. |
| 03:55:48.77 | Scott Couture | Let's get to it. I get the video back. |
| 03:55:51.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. All right, so I'm assuming that you've heard the discussion that this commission has had regarding the application before us this evening. |
| 03:55:56.86 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 03:55:59.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:56:00.70 | Kristina Feller | And we specifically tried to focus on the nine findings that we could not make at the last hearing. And the one issue Um, that I think We'd like to get some clarification. or Uh, encourage you to agree to look at as a condition of approval is adding louvers to the stairwell area on the west facade. |
| 03:56:33.95 | Scott Couture | All right, we are open to that. |
| 03:56:36.14 | Kristina Feller | Are you open to that and would you be willing to? include those into your design. |
| 03:56:42.23 | Scott Couture | Yeah, what I can make a suggestion is that we include the same percentage as on the other two bays in the bedroom. So it's a similar amount of louvers in each of those three bays. So that'll give you a percentage that we need to meet as a condition of approval. |
| 03:56:59.38 | Morgan Pierce | You'll be pretty. Can we pull up that? Thank you. |
| 03:57:01.72 | Brad | elevation just so we have a visual reference. Yeah, let me see if I can find that real quick. |
| 03:57:06.94 | Scott Couture | I have it right here. |
| 03:57:07.90 | Brad | Oh, let's go ahead and have Scott share it. Then he's got it ready. Okay. |
| 03:57:11.61 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:57:14.04 | Brad | a lot. |
| 03:57:16.35 | Kristina Feller | you should be able to share now. |
| 03:57:30.16 | Scott Couture | So we have louvers in front of the glass here. And then here, And so we'll include louvers in this bay equal to the screening of that bay. |
| 03:57:42.65 | Morgan Pierce | Now, would they be aligned or would they be offset? Because it looks like the fenestration, it looks like the mullions are offset. |
| 03:57:48.64 | Scott Couture | They won't be aligned. It doesn't work. |
| 03:57:51.27 | Morgan Pierce | Okay, no, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that was the case. I would be amenable to that. |
| 03:57:58.29 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Any other commissioners have any? Um, additional comments to that. Um, Hearing none, I think there's consensus on that. So Brad just, for clarification, that would be added in as a condition of approval. |
| 03:58:19.96 | Brad | Correct. if the commission goes ahead and votes to approve this, um, I will go ahead and tomorrow morning prepare a revised resolution of approval that includes that condition and forward that over to Director Whalen so that she can make arrangements to get it all signed. all that sort of fun stuff. |
| 03:58:43.33 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then the issue regarding the spa, the spa does fall into the setback, the 20 foot setback. So right now, |
| 03:58:53.47 | Scott Couture | Right now, the edge of spa is 18 feet, 9 inches from the property line. You want me to move it over to 20 feet here? |
| 03:59:03.70 | Kristina Feller | unless you want us to include a variance, we would encourage you to move it. |
| 03:59:09.00 | Scott Couture | I'd rather move it than acquire another hearing for a variance. |
| 03:59:14.08 | Kristina Feller | You can imagine. |
| 03:59:14.28 | Scott Couture | You can imagine. |
| 03:59:15.54 | Kristina Feller | Good move. Okay, so grad condition of approval. that spa needs to be relocated |
| 03:59:27.20 | Richard Graef | or reduced in size. |
| 03:59:27.24 | Kristina Feller | We'll be right back. However, it just can't infringe upon You can't go into the setback. |
| 03:59:33.30 | Brad | We can't even set that. |
| 03:59:35.08 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:59:36.03 | Brad | And we're talking infringing on the 20 foot setback, not the 34 foot. |
| 03:59:39.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. The 20th step back. That's correct. |
| 03:59:40.60 | Brad | Thank you. Okay. |
| 03:59:42.09 | Scott Couture | Okay. |
| 03:59:42.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:59:43.07 | Scott Couture | That's agreeable. |
| 03:59:46.09 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Those are the notes I have. Any other commissioners have any other items? as a condition of approval to discuss with the applicant before we move forward. All right, thank you, Scott and Riley for coming back up here. Thank you for that. |
| 04:00:15.99 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So I think we're ready to entertain a motion. for approval. |
| 04:00:24.88 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask a quick question, Chair Feller? Yes. What I see in. |
| 04:00:28.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:00:28.14 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:00:32.73 | Nastassya Saad | in the resolution if I'm looking at the correct thing. Um, Planning Commission hereby resolves. Point two is saying that DESIGN REVIEW, PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION, blah, blah, blah. And then it says eliminating the spawn, retaining the water feature. So, |
| 04:00:57.03 | Brad | Thank you. That's an old condition. Is this through the chair? That was the draft condition that I had put when We first were looking at this with the idea that it would not be allowed to encroach at all into any of the setbacks. And I mentioned that at the beginning of my presentation that if if the commission was of a mind to allow for the spa with within the base set or outside of the base setback, but within the extended one, that we would go ahead and revise that condition to remove that particular language. |
| 04:01:25.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:25.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:26.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:26.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:28.00 | Brad | my work to go ahead and craft the new condition to relocate the spa. I will make sure to correct condition number two as well to remove that reference. |
| 04:01:36.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:36.70 | Brad | Thank you. |
| 04:01:36.74 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:01:36.75 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:01:36.84 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:01:37.01 | Brad | Thank you. |
| 04:01:37.02 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:01:37.11 | Brad | I just wanted to call that out. |
| 04:01:37.63 | Kristina Feller | to call. |
| 04:01:38.00 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:01:38.03 | Kristina Feller | that. No excellent question Commissioner Saad thank you for being So thorough in reviewing the conditions of approval. Okay. Any other questions? Then we'll move to a motion for approval. Would someone like |
| 04:01:54.05 | Morgan Pierce | I will move that we approve design review permit to 2018-00276 Wolfpack Estate, slot five, 99 Wolfpack Ridge Road. as conditions. |
| 04:02:08.88 | Kristina Feller | Do I hear a second? |
| 04:02:13.41 | Kristina Feller | I will second it. |
| 04:02:14.70 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:02:16.49 | Kristina Feller | Director Whelan, could you please call the roll? |
| 04:02:27.72 | Kristina Feller | I think you're muted there. Thank you. |
| 04:02:30.97 | Director Whalen | I'm just making sure with Brad that he has the modifications to the draft resolution. If you could repeat that back, Brad. |
| 04:02:39.97 | Brad | Yes well modify the draft resolution to remove the spa deletion portion of condition two to add a condition requiring that the spa be relocated outside of the 20 foot setback and to add a condition including louvers on the the stairwell window bay at an equal percentage of the louvers on the adjacent window bays. |
| 04:03:06.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:03:06.48 | Director Whalen | Yeah. |
| 04:03:06.56 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 04:03:06.90 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 04:03:11.10 | Director Whalen | Okay, on the motion. Commissioner Saad. |
| 04:03:14.10 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:03:15.66 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 04:03:17.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 04:03:18.34 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Pierce. |
| 04:03:19.44 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 04:03:19.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:03:19.47 | Morgan Pierce | Yes. |
| 04:03:19.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:03:20.65 | Director Whalen | by sharecraft. |
| 04:03:21.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 04:03:22.46 | Gonzaga | Thank you. |
| 04:03:23.49 | Director Whalen | Chair Fowler. Yes. That carries three, two. and the permit is approved. Any action of the planning commission may be appealed within 10 days of the action to the city council. You must complete the required appeal the appeal form and pay the appeal fee within 10 days of this action for the appeal. to be timely filed. If you have questions about how to file an appeal, please contact the project planner for the Community Development Department. And I will move on to our next public hearing item tonight, which is item 4C. |
| 04:03:58.98 | Christy Usher | See you. |
| 04:04:01.10 | Director Whalen | which is a request for approval of a design review permit with heightened design review and a true removal permit at 3 marion avenue and we have our senior planner christy usher here this evening thank you for hanging in christy to to give the presentation |
| 04:04:04.39 | Unknown | design review. |
| 04:04:37.96 | Christy Usher | Thank you, Director Whalen. Good evening, Chair Feller and Planning Commission. The applications before you tonight are a design review permit, design review to construct additions Remodel and convert an existing single family residence to a duplex. and a tree removal permit to remove three protected oak trees that are five, six, and seven and a half inches. diameter at breast height located at 3 Marion Avenue. The subject property is a 6,600 square foot lot developed within approximately 2,100 square foot |
| 04:05:17.76 | Unknown | a lot. |
| 04:05:22.54 | Christy Usher | existing two-story single-family home and one-car garage. that was constructed in 1974. Access to the site is provided via an access easement from Marion Ave. right of way. The building site contains several Monterey pine trees and oak trees. The project site is adjacent to open space, Golden Gate National Recreation Area or GGNRA land. Surrounding land uses include single family and multi-family residences, as well as open recreation space. the existing residences in the project vicinity, are a mixture of sizes, density, and architectural styles. The existing zoning is two-family residential. And the general plan land use designation is medium high density residential. The requested design review permit will allow the construction of additions, remodeling, and converting an existing single family residence to a three story, approximately 4200 square foot duplex. The proposed height of the duplex is 32 feet. And the building height of the proposed duplex is increased by less than one foot above the existing height of the existing single family residence. As I mentioned, two dwelling units are proposed. The lower unit is approximately 1300 square feet and contained entirely on the first level. and the upper unit is approximately 2,800 square feet and occupies the second and third level. There are separate entrances to both units located on the first level. A four car vertical stacker system is proposed to be located in what appears to be a two car garage from the exterior elevations. The vertical parking stacker system will park two vehicles, two at grade, and two vehicles above. where parking spaces are required and proposed for the duplex. Tandem spaces located in the driveway per code for projects such as this one, because it meets the maximum density standards. However, due to 25% slope on portions of the driveway, a vertical Parking stacker system as shown here is proposed to be installed in the garage. Modern architectural style is proposed for the duplex large windows and balconies face primarily south and overlook the open space gg RNA lands. as well as east towards Sausalito and the Bay. The proposed materials and colors are earth tone and blend with the natural environment at the project site and in the project vicinity. |
| 04:08:34.44 | Christy Usher | The polls to illustrate massing, bulk, scale, and view impacts of the proposed project have been constructed. Based on the story polls, site visits, project plans, and public comments, view impacts are not anticipated. |
| 04:08:49.50 | Unknown | it. |
| 04:08:52.75 | Christy Usher | Upon reviewing the project plans, GGNRA states in their comment letter to the city that the quote the activity is situated away from the park and only a fraction of the new roof line is visible from within park boundaries. Additionally, the proposed landscape plans include plantings that have been reviewed and approved by GG NRA and southern Moran Fire District. And GGNRA has also reviewed and approved the lighting plan, |
| 04:09:25.24 | Christy Usher | The proposed project meets all development standards as proposed, including but not limited to floor area, parking, tax, and height. No variances or exceptions are requested or required. And the project meets the city's general plan goals and policies by providing an additional housing unit to the city's housing supply. and by providing variety and housing types to meet the diverse needs of Sausalito. A total of seven trees on the project site are proposed for removal to accommodate the proposed project. Four of which are Monterey pine trees that are classified as undesirable and are not subject to the tree removal permit. However, there are three protected oak trees shown here in sizes 5, 6.1, and 7.6 inches in diameter that are proposed for removal. |
| 04:10:29.93 | Christy Usher | Five 24-inch box oak trees are proposed as replacement trees and as noted in the project arborist report, The removal of the oak trees will not significantly affect the existing plants drainage or erosion of the site with the replacement of the additional five oak trees. In terms of public comments, the city received a total of four written public comments, which have been forwarded to the Commission. Three comments in support were included in the staff report. And I will summarize a fourth comment received tonight during the meeting, since you've likely not had a chance to review it, In summary, this email expresses concerns regarding density and height. and concerned that they have been out of town and not able to review the project materials. In conclusion, staff recommends based on the analysis in the staff report and attachments that the Planning Commission Approve the attached draft resolution of approval. for design review permit with heightened design review and tree removal permit. And that concludes the staff presentation. I'm of course happy to answer any questions that you have. And of course the architect and owner are looking forward to presenting tonight as well. Thank you. |
| 04:11:59.34 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Christy. Another excellent staff report and presentation and appreciate all the hard work. you've put into that with the applicant and their team. So thank you for that. Um, I just had a, I'm just going to, I want to start with a quick question. The last comment you made, you said that came in while we were in this hearing. the last. Public comment. |
| 04:12:26.22 | Christy Usher | Thank you. Yes, that is correct. Can I elaborate further for you? It was emailed during your meeting, so it's in your inbox. I'm sure you haven't even gotten to it. |
| 04:12:36.94 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, no, I definitely haven't gotten to it. Um, you give us too much credit. I think multitasking. Was that from a directly adjacent neighbor or someone on Marion Avenue? |
| 04:12:50.76 | Christy Usher | Yeah, that was from a neighbor at 15. Is it 17 or 15? Let me see one second. |
| 04:13:16.91 | Christy Usher | Thank you. Okay, sorry for the delay. 15 and 17, Mary Ann. So I could show you, let me just show you visually if I can. from one of the Snap report. Let's see. |
| 04:13:39.39 | Kristina Feller | And they, and while you're pulling that up, they said they were out of town. |
| 04:13:43.46 | Christy Usher | Correct. Returning today, yes. |
| 04:13:49.53 | Kristina Feller | Um, I... |
| 04:13:52.74 | Christy Usher | So if you can see this image or I could also share an aerial. So they are the uphill uphill of this property here. They are located off the page uphill to the left. And in Ariel, let me show you an Ariel too. |
| 04:14:12.75 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, we don't have to get into too much detail. if They are. directly impacted by the proposal here. meaning visually or otherwise. |
| 04:14:26.94 | Christy Usher | Do you want me to comment on that? |
| 04:14:29.81 | Kristina Feller | You can otherwise I'll open this up. I mean, for any other commissioner, I just, because that I thought I heard that came through as we were sitting in this hearing. I just wanted some clarification. Um, But this would be the time for the commission to ask staff any questions you have. of this application or any of the material contained herein. Um, Let's see, Commissioner Saad, would you like to start? |
| 04:14:56.80 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, I had one question. And it is. I think from attachment 8. There were the comments, hold on, I just had it open. This was a letter from the United States Department of Interior from National Park Service directed to you I'm not sure. Christy, I was just wondering, It says in this letter that Observations included a brick patio walkway and ornamental plannings, and it was requested that they be removed from the encroachment. is, Is there an encroachment is it something that the city has to verify. If there is an encroachment |
| 04:15:48.74 | Christy Usher | Yeah, they were on the existing site plan and the applicant removed them on the proposed site plan. |
| 04:15:55.00 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay, so they have been removed already. Thank you. |
| 04:15:57.55 | Christy Usher | Exactly. |
| 04:15:58.04 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you for confirming. |
| 04:15:58.15 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:16:01.55 | Kristina Feller | Good question. Any other questions, Commissioner Saad? No. |
| 04:16:07.11 | Nastassya Saad | No, thank you. |
| 04:16:08.09 | Kristina Feller | Sorry. Commissioner Luxenberg. Any questions? |
| 04:16:10.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have one question, Christy. Thank you again for your presentation. It's very good. This might be more for the applicant, but you might know the answer. The application indicates that outreach has been undertaken. And I can see from documentations from one and five Marion, which are both direct to buttons, as well as 11 Marion, which is one away. And we just heard about the one you said from 15 or 17, Marion. But it indicates that the initiated contact with the tenant and owner for nine Marion, do you know if they were able to reach them? Because that is the closest property. Have they reached them at all? |
| 04:16:54.15 | Christy Usher | if you don't mind, I will let them speak to that. Um, So I don't think they have not relayed any new information than what I presented. I suspect they haven't, but they can sort of elaborate on their effort to get in touch with them and what that looked like and where they succeeded and why they didn't succeed in that sort of thing. |
| 04:17:16.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you very much. |
| 04:17:19.96 | Kristina Feller | Any other questions, Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 04:17:22.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, that's it. |
| 04:17:24.82 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Excellent. OK, good. Commissioner Pierce. Thank you. |
| 04:17:29.89 | Morgan Pierce | Yes, thank you, Chair Feller. I had just two questions, Christy, and thank you for the thorough presentation. One, |
| 04:17:29.90 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 04:17:38.85 | Morgan Pierce | It's proposed just shy of 50% demolition of this project, which could consider the improvements to be an addition. Um, We've obviously run into this commission in the past of projects suggested that they'd be less than 50. And then once they're underway, become more than 50 and then subsequently would find themselves under a different set of restrictions. So I'm curious, you know, obviously side yard setbacks for this are impacted by whether or not this is an addition or new construction. Are there any other impacts that would be affected? Should this be considered at a later date as new construction as opposed to an addition? |
| 04:18:19.13 | Christy Usher | Not that I can think of. I think that you nailed it. It's really with respect to maintaining those existing setbacks, maintaining those existing building walls. |
| 04:18:28.02 | Morgan Pierce | Okay, thank you. The other question is, you know we've talked about tandem parking and obviously this proposed parking configuration is not exactly tandem um but maybe one that we see more of in the future in sausalito does staff see any challenges with this i mean obviously this one's presented because we've got some steep driveway configurations but i'm curious if staff has any challenges that they see adopting a a type of parking like this for future projects that we should be aware of |
| 04:18:54.33 | Christy Usher | Yeah, we, we supported and the director and I certainly discussed it and from a staff perspective, we see it really just functioning similarly to if you were parking tandem in the garage so Um, you know, there is sort of one car obstructing in a, you know, in a driveway situation. And then with the stackers, you do need to move the one bottom car to get the top car out. So we saw it kind of functioning with, with similar pros and cons, to be honest. |
| 04:19:25.13 | Morgan Pierce | Great. Thank you. Those are all the questions I have, Chair Feller. |
| 04:19:27.88 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you very much. Vice Chair Graff. |
| 04:19:31.18 | Richard Graef | Um, yeah, I was just... looking at the plan and at the property lines And obviously the access to the driveway and to the garage goes over onto neighboring properties, I'm assuming that there's some sort of an agreement or shared use um, easement or something going on there. |
| 04:19:58.24 | Christy Usher | Yeah, exactly. The one property one Mary and no pun intended has the, um, owns the access easement that the other Merriam properties utilize and the applicant, I'm sure we'll talk about that a little bit more in detail, but that is correct, Juan Marion. has that main access easement that the others access off. And it is quite tight and constrained. |
| 04:20:26.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:20:27.60 | Christy Usher | as discussed in the staff report in this situation, hopefully alleviates some of those circulation and parking maneuvers that are just a bit too difficult as currently designed. |
| 04:20:41.20 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Got it. |
| 04:20:43.93 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you very much. I just have one last question, Christy, before we ask the applicant to come up here to do their presentation. And that is I just wanted to confirm that the. that the lower unit, I think that's referred to as 3A, is just a separate unit. designated as an accessory dwelling unit of any kind. It's just a separate Is that correct? |
| 04:21:11.52 | Christy Usher | Yeah, that is correct. |
| 04:21:13.21 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Thank you. Great, so let's go ahead and ask the applicant to come up and make their presentation. And Chrissy, if you could help me identify who that will be here. Is that Shawn? |
| 04:21:28.48 | Unknown | I will, it is. |
| 04:21:29.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:21:30.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:30.15 | Kristina Feller | Oh, yes. Okay. Let's make sure, there we go. Good evening, Sean, welcome. Do you need to share your screen as well? |
| 04:21:43.28 | Sean | Absolutely. Thank you. |
| 04:21:44.63 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:21:45.58 | Sean | Commissioner, thank you for your time tonight and thank you for your staff and directors. We've been working with them and they've been extremely great to work with. Real quickly before I get started, I've been a resident of Salt Lake City for 23 years and I've got to work on a lot of exciting projects and this is definitely by far the most exciting for me. And I, given I'm part of the community and live in the community and my family lives in the community I've been most and first and foremost really wanting to work with the neighbors to make sure that everybody's happy. You know it's important that my clients happy but it's most important that the community and neighbors are happy because you know, working I worked on a house in 94 San Carlos two years ago, 41 San Carlos and I find that I've worked with the Saucyia Women's Club on properties. I've worked on neighbors. And I think that the neighborhood and the neighbors are as equal to my clients. I really want to know that we've kind of worked and our clients Dan and Julie Kaufman who own this house have been extremely amazing on talking to all their neighbors and and I think that's been a key to the to the progress we've made over the last 13 months. So let me share the design if I will and then. My client, Dan Kaufman, would like to speak for a moment or two if it's possible. |
| 04:23:11.76 | Kristina Feller | Sure. As you're pulling your screen up, I will just reiterate you'll have 15 minutes to make a presentation as the applicant but should we ask you any questions or or anything like that that does not count against your time |
| 04:23:25.19 | Sean | Okay. Thank you. |
| 04:23:25.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. The floor is yours to use however you'd like, and you can also leave time at the end for any final closing comments if you'd like. Welcome and thank you for being here tonight. |
| 04:23:38.25 | Sean | Great, thank you. Can you see my screen now? Thank you. |
| 04:23:40.95 | Kristina Feller | No, but yeah. |
| 04:23:40.97 | Sean | No. |
| 04:23:41.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:23:43.01 | Sean | Let me share it. |
| 04:23:43.84 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm not sure. Let me figure out why my screen's not shared, okay? |
| 04:23:56.09 | Kristina Feller | So Zoom team, can you just confirm that Sean has the ability to share his screen? We've given him permissions. |
| 04:24:05.96 | Laura Bowen | Chair Feller, he is a co-host. |
| 04:24:09.39 | Sean | Thank you. |
| 04:24:10.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Maria. Thank you very much. |
| 04:24:13.37 | Unknown | It's coming up here. |
| 04:24:21.26 | Unknown | Right? All right, here we go. is my delay. |
| 04:24:26.97 | Sean | Thank you. |
| 04:24:27.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:24:27.61 | Sean | Okay, I'd like to do is obviously everybody knows where Marion is but it's on the very southern tip of Sausalito bordering Golden Gate. National recreation area which we've also worked with and they've given us their their letter with requirements for lighting and landscaping that we've incorporated into the design, this is the existing structure. As Christie mentioned, the first floor was built in 1974. And the second floor was added in 2005. And just a. a funny anecdote I knew of the owners two owners ago. were from Denmark and they said this house was colder than Denmark. So part of the goal is to really insulate this house and make it more not only contemporary from an architecture standpoint, more from an energy efficiency standpoint as equal. Because it's kind of a, the old construction is not as insulated as one might wanted to be. and then the existing driveway, is very, very tight and it's impossible to maneuver a car into the existing one car garage So a lot of the design has come out of the programmatic elements of making a functional garage, a functional house that's warm and inviting, as well as kind of the programmatic elements that my clients are looking to do from a functionality standpoint. Another view here. Here's the existing house. And we've really respected the existing heights, the existing chimney is 32 feet high. And we were very diligent to build the home within the kind of existing confines of the existing height and existing width. The general parameters is we're keeping the entire first floor, which was built in 1974, and using it as our design emphasis for the future edition. We're taking off the second story, which sits on the eve of the existing 1974 roof. It's kind of strange. It sits on the eve of the old roof. We're taking that off and we're adding basically a floor and a half on top of the 1974 home and then adding a garage behind it. Here's some more views of the, um, surrounding hillsides. And then we mentioned in Christie's comments that Jim who lives up on 15 Marion, which Dan can talk about, has had some discussions with him about the project. This would be the view from his house. Right now, we feel that we've only added a teeny bit to the existing roof by squaring it off and the existing tree and one Marion behind Um, are really anything that blocks any views so we feel that we've been very diligent to you know to not increase the height to block anybody's views and no one else is impacted and all and everybody else we've talked to really has been wonderfully supportive of the project and the other thing i'd like to add is we have talked to the tenant in nine marion his name is uh kozja And he's supportive of the project as well. And he lives in this brown shingle house. want to go move forward again to the this house where the is the beautiful pg&e substation house his own a wonderful couple who own the access easement are really um, people we highly respect and want to make sure are happy during this project. One of the two requirements that they've given us is They don't really want to see cars parked in front of the house. So one of the thoughts about the the stackers, was we want to get the cars inside the garage and no cars on the driveway. Because... My clients only have two cars. Um, And they don't really intend to use the stackers very much, but if they have guests over, They don't want to leave cars out in the driveway. beautiful environment up here and cars kind of ruin the the ambiance of it all so Part of the thought about the stackers is to get them inside the garage out of view so we don't have to see them. Here is the house from a little further away. Again, 15 Marion is up on the hill up into the trees. One Marion is the beautiful PG&E substation home. And then a couple more along the ridge. Here's the existing again. And then, again, we respected the existing widths, respected the existing heights, and just created a simple modern building that is built to reflect the kind of wood that's on the existing building, but also some new materials like cedar and glass for maximum viewing and, as well as energy efficiency. a little bit more. I did in Photoshop remove a little tree here just so you can see the building, but there's a tree kind of right in front of the building. But since you couldn't see it, I just removed it for documentation purposes. And here's some of the materials that we're looking at clear cedar. reclaimed gray wood cladding siding that kind of matches the existing some visual and wind screening it gets a little windy up here so i wanted the clients to have a little wind blocking from the the gale force winds that come in in the summer so they could use their deck and um on the north side the driveway is a sloping driveway into a garage and then an entrance to the lower unit and the upper unit above the upper unit is is the the gray clad wood structure and the lower unit is is going to be clad and stucco for just a differentiation. There's our GG and our A letter. We've worked a lot with GGNRA on landscaping and lighting and what we used was the lighting to protect the night sky concept of it being useful, targeted. low light levels controlled. proper color, And we have only down lighting that's dimmable with warm dimmable lights in very low lumens very low wattage really minimal lighting in order to not impact anything any neighbors as well as a ggnra here's a kind of a early evening lighting scheme and then a night lighting scheme just to show the down lights in the eaves on the north side. And then here is from GGNRA. kind of an evening lighting scheme to show the kind of the minimal impact that we can make um again some existing landscape photos we have some beautiful landscaping that's uh coming up from ggnra and we've they've given us a list of approved plants that we're going to use for for plantings And. Let me go a little bit further. The trees that we're impacting are mostly on the north side. We're widening the driveway. If I can direct you to the photo on the lower left, the driveway is going to be a a little wider to accommodate a two car driveway and garage. and there's a Monterey pine in that area and another Monterey Pine |
| 04:32:37.34 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:32:39.82 | Sean | where the garage will be. And, the client's insurance company had concerns about the Monterey Pines as well as it really impedes access. So we, are taking out a couple Monterey pines and three small oak trees that we're going to replace with five new oak trees. So we are providing more than we're taking out. This is a tree plan. The area that's not hatched is the future garage that shows the impacts of the trees. But what I wanted to communicate is our goal is to replace more trees that we're taking out in the north area, which is circled here to the north. I'm going to go a little quicker because I want my client to have three minutes to speak, if I may. So I'm going to go a little quicker here. But again, One Marion is the owner of the Access Drive. Eleven Marion, Five Marion are both on that Access Drive. And our clients have talked and been working with both, as well as the wonderful couple of One Marion who really kind of has had shepherded us on what we should should not do with respect to access and driveway and then 15 Marion and 9 Marion we've talked to both of the the neighbors there so I'm gonna let Dan in a few minutes talk about that here is the access easement in pink and green Marion is a private access drive served by the public Marion. And You know we're gonna we agreed with the fire department that we're going to widen you know make sure that's clear no one's parking in the driveway no one's impeding access during construction. That we are going to keep a very tight watch on the making sure that's completely clear during construction. There's an existing shot of the house and the Monterey Pine that's coming out and then the kind of an interior view of the stackers. in some elevations. Maybe if I may, I'm going to ask my client, Dan Kaufman, to say a few words in the last three, four minutes. |
| 04:34:59.39 | Dan Kaufman | Hey, can you hear me? |
| 04:35:02.21 | Kristina Feller | Yes, we can hear you. |
| 04:35:03.81 | Dan Kaufman | All right. And who knows, maybe you can even see me if I learn how to work my technology. Start my video. Okay. Hello. I really just wanted just a couple of minutes because I don't know how much the commission knows sometimes about what goes on underneath And, um, Christie and Lily have been just fantastic. I mean, demanding as hell. |
| 04:35:30.80 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 04:35:32.89 | Dan Kaufman | To be honest. Everything in box needs to be checked. But I mean, I get emails from Christy at one in the morning And I don't know if anyone ever takes the time out to say, like, that's a big deal. This is our dream house. I was born and raised in the city. I've always wanted to live in Sausalito. This is like where we're going to retire and live forever. And so, One is just a big thanks to them. The second was, as I told Sean, Not only did I want a beautiful house, and I want it green, so we're doing everything we can to make it energy efficient and and the like. which is why we're putting in more trees than we take out, right? But the other is, I don't know how you can have a beautiful house if you don't have a beautiful neighborhood. And so I thought it was interesting that it's recommended that you do neighbor outreach. I don't know how you would build a place to live without doing it. And it's had incredible benefits. So the first people we met were Jim and Debbie Messimer, who are they're not just neighbors, but they become friends. And so I sort of love this whole process because now we have friends there. And then they introduced us to Tim and Diane, who live sort of, they're the next ones who would be impacted really right next to us at 5 Marion. And now we're friends. And in fact, they have a two-year-old daughter who we've been blessed to have a play date with. She has a very busy schedule, but she squeezes us in. which is great. And then we met Steven Lucinda, which is on the other side of Jim and Debbie Messimer's house. They were supportive. And what's nice is as you go through, everybody has little comments and things they want, but so far everything's been super reasonable. But I just want you to know this type of stuff. Jim and Debbie said, hey, if the road gets dinged up, you know, would you be willing to repair it? And of course, yes. So we're going to do that. They said, we don't want all these cars parked here, you know, it's serene and beautiful. So we're going to pay to have the workers shuttled up and back to the workspace so that You don't have stuff all over. Sean was very clever. He said, hey, we'll build a garage first and store the stuff there. So it's been super great. Most of the houses you see up the other way, nine and whatever, Kostya was great. He said, I'm a renter, I don't care. They're actually mostly renters, so they just don't have a huge strong opinion. I don't mean it one way or the other. And then the last one you mentioned was Jim Nelson. He's actually a lovely man. And we met, I talked to him a while ago. He sent a letter in and he called me and he said, look, I wanna make it clear, I'm supportive of the project. And I loved him for saying it. He goes, I'm getting older. and I don't like change and it makes me cranky and I was in Arizona and I didn't see this, but I'm fine. I'm not even gonna attend the meeting. I'm supportive of it. But he's a lawyer and he's like, but I want to make sure I'm not waiving any rights. And I said, sure. And he also wanted to make sure that the, it was the city who did, you know, or contractors that did the measurements, not us. And I said, Oh, good Lord. No, I'm not out there with a protractor, my friend. It's a licensed, bonded surveyor, and they did it all. And he said, great, we're going to get together in the next few days. He wants me to do a fly around of our 3D model. which is great. He would like, he's very worried about his road. So we agreed to put up some signs to make sure people go to our road, not his road. And oh, oh yeah. And he said, if you could plant a couple of nice bushes in between us and the road. And I said, absolutely. I'll put it in writing. If you like, he said, I don't worry about it. So it was lovely. And then that's really it. And then the only other thing is the Messamers going way above and beyond actually joined the call and said that if you had questions or you wanna know if they're supportive, cause honestly, they're the ones I was, probably the most concerned about because it's their road, it's their easement. You know, I want to be a good neighbor and they have been nothing but lovely. So. Listening to all your earlier conversations, I don't know, maybe I got really lucky, but I love my place. So, and I like my neighbors, that was it. |
| 04:39:27.45 | Kristina Feller | What? |
| 04:39:31.30 | Kristina Feller | Wonderful. Thank you so much to the Kauffmans and thank you, Sean, for the wonderful presentation. and appreciate that very much. Um, At this time, I think I'm just going to ask if any of the commissioners have questions of the applicant. and I can't see you all on the same screen, so, Commissioner, |
| 04:39:56.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I just have a couple quick ones of Sean. Thank you for the response about the abutters. That's helpful. I really appreciate this design. I think you've worked within the framework of what's there, you know, as far as the height and bulk, but created a modern design that'll appreciate the landscape there. Two questions. One, there was a note in the drawings. They're going to widen the driveway all the way back. to where Marion splits, is that correct? That's correct. |
| 04:40:29.00 | Sean | That's correct. And the road goes between nine feet and 12 feet in different location or nine and 11 feet. And we decided that with the fire department's input that we're going to make it a consistent width. So if anybody has to get to the property in an emergency uh you know it's going to be easier um for everybody so we're making it i believe in the constant width of 11 feet and it just means we're kind of evening things out and smoothing everything out and making sure that it it's it's best as possible for the fire department |
| 04:41:11.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, you do that the first thing, because not only for the fire department, but for them to bring construction materials up there. It would probably be helpful to have that driveway done at the beginning so that they could, you know, so that whatever trucks are bringing materials up have a way to do this. |
| 04:41:31.01 | Sean | Well, it's a good point. You know, I was going to work with the Messamers on one Marion who owned the drive. And really, I'm going to defer to whatever they want, whether they what we did agree is at the end of the project to have a very nice clean paved surface with no defects in it. So it might be a combination of both, to be honest with you, where we may we do some of the work up front, but also the beautiful finish work at the end. |
| 04:41:59.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, no, I would suggest you do the binder, get the width right, get the binder down and let the construction trucks go over it and then put the final coat on after the construction is done. Great advice. Thank you. The other question I had, I was a little confused. They have this two car, four car garage. |
| 04:42:11.71 | Sean | Thank you. |
| 04:42:19.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So they're going to park in the garage and they're There Tenant will have two spaces in the garage. But you said the guests wouldn't, cars wouldn't be visible to the abutter. I was confused about that. |
| 04:42:33.20 | Sean | Well, obviously, my clients plan to stay in this home forever, but the way they plan to use it is Dan and Julie will live in the upstairs unit. Their son, who's away at college, will use the lower unit when they're in town and doesn't have a car. So for the foreseeable future, there's only going to be two cars on this property. Now we designed it to code, meaning if 10, 20, 30 years from now, someone does have four cars, there's a place for them to park it. But the current goal is just to have two cars in the garage. And if a guest comes over, we can use the tandem racks to put them up. |
| 04:42:55.05 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:42:55.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:42:55.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:43:00.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:43:00.13 | Unknown | I guess. |
| 04:43:18.24 | Sean | I get it. |
| 04:43:18.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I get it now I get it so that's fine all right those are just the questions again excellent design, thank you very much. |
| 04:43:26.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Pierce. |
| 04:43:30.03 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. And thank you, Sean, and thank you to the Coffmans for the presentation. I think it's been answered, but I was curious about the client's interest in converting this home from single family to two family, obviously having a son come home, but beyond the the, the luxury of that, is there any other interest in converting it? Because obviously it, it gains you a lot of benefits in the FAR. |
| 04:43:54.25 | Sean | Well, a couple of factors. One is the FAR allowed them to expand a little bit, which wasn't originally a governing factor. I think they planned to use the upper floor mostly for their residents. And given the zoning is existing R2.5, everything kept on pushing us towards a duplex when we came up with a design configuration, but it actually matched perfectly with the way they plan to use the home because their son, um, |
| 04:44:12.12 | Unknown | WE DON'T. |
| 04:44:27.59 | Sean | I don't think it's okay. It has a little bit of special needs and would probably prefer to be on the ground floor And they want to use the upper floor for their use. So it's kind of a perfect combination where they use the upper floor and their son uses the lower floor. Now, Dan can speak to it, but I don't think their son will be here very often. But the other third benefit is, given I live in South Slito, I know that adding units to the inventory is a good thing. And I told my clients, at least we're adding a beautiful little, you know, inventory unit to the South Sluto inventory because it's now an official duplex rather than a single family home. |
| 04:44:55.82 | Michael Rex | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:45:09.54 | Morgan Pierce | Got it. Thank you. I do have a number of questions that really dig into things that you mentioned about really trying to make this home super sustainable. But I'd love to just give you the opportunity to maybe dig into that a little bit more deeply about some of the specific things. features that may not have been mentioned in the staff report or in your presentation. |
| 04:45:31.14 | Sean | Absolutely, I'd love to and I'll be brief about it. You know, my Thank you. Yeah. I moved to Sausalito, you know, in 23 years ago. And my friends go, you don't just move to Sausalito, you work your way up to Sausalito. And I, and I, you know, I've, I've lived in some pretty rough houses in Sausalito trying to live there. And I met Lily on a project 23 years ago, I was working on and I met Kenneth on a project that I was working on. And more livable and I lived in Hurricane Gulch that was really windy. on stilts. and the floor was icy cold. And I learned that making greenhouses is is important for, not only livability but also for the environment. And I worked on a project in 2005 called the World Environment House, which is called the Scrap House, which is all about using sustainable materials to make Um, you know, homes. So, I brought that into the practical aspect of living in Sausalito, You wanna make these homes energy tight from the wind that happens in the wind in the summers. Um, The siding is reclaimed lumber that will kind of reflect the architecture of the original house. So it kind of connects it back to the community. the roof is, you know, a state of the art, uh, thermal ply, triple ply roofing. That's very, um, good for the you know solar gains and things like that the windows are fleetwood that are really heavy duty and have the not only the uv coating but also the same thing that wolfback talked about is the the aviary coating we call it in our industry that makes sure is that there's no impact to the environment around us. So every design thought is not only to the California Green Building Code, but I use the LEED design standards for all my projects where It's connection to the site. It's about the building materials you choose on every single level. It's about LED lighting, LED appliances. So we could talk about every different material, but the idea is living in Sausalito, I really learned that making sure this house is warm for the occupants inside, |
| 04:47:56.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:47:57.06 | Sean | Thank you. you know, an energy efficient but also kind of reflects the neighborhood that it's in. And you know, it was a really struggle for us to take out some Monterey pines. We didn't want to remove any trees. the insurance carrier was sure happier and the allows us to kind of get the garage that we wanted. So we kind of struggled, but I think the replacement in Oaks is the right decision. And that was the only kind of environmental decision that we had to battle with. Everything else was seamless and easy. |
| 04:48:26.69 | Morgan Pierce | Excellent. Well, thank you. And now I'll dig into the specifics of that. of that question. The so you've got a TPO roof. Do you have a color that you've already specified? Because that wasn't on your finish panel. |
| 04:48:38.27 | Sean | Well, we're going to go for a light color for reflectivity. And it's almost the standard is white, but there's a tan color. We're going for the gray palette on this project, which almost looks like it's already patinaed. |
| 04:48:51.80 | Michael Rex | Right. move. |
| 04:48:55.09 | Sean | So I'm going for a light gray color on the roof. And then kind of a... pre-patinaed color on the exterior siding as well. So it looks like it's already weathered, but it hasn't been weathered. |
| 04:49:09.54 | Morgan Pierce | Got it. And just out of curiosity, did you at all consider a green roof for this project at any time? |
| 04:49:15.58 | Sean | Well, the only reason we didn't go for the green roof is it's inaccessible. It's not visible really. Maybe 15 Marion could see a little bit of the roof, but given our height constraints of 32 feet, I didn't really have the three, three and a half feet of, of thickness. And my clients would like to add solar panels in the future. So we kind of struggled. We want to make sure we have electric for solar panels in the future. if possible. |
| 04:49:45.67 | Morgan Pierce | Got it. That was my next question. So thank you for jumping to that. Relative to the glazing, I mean, you mentioned Fleetwood for most of your openings, which is a great product. Are you specifying anti-reflective glazing for that? |
| 04:49:59.00 | Sean | We are. We're going to use, it's almost the same reflective glazing that the wolfback are using. We're using the... |
| 04:50:03.89 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 04:50:03.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:50:04.04 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 04:50:04.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:50:04.20 | Morgan Pierce | and the other. |
| 04:50:05.04 | Sean | I don't know what they called it. We call it aviary glass. And it's both for the GGNRA as well as for any reflectivity of light and things like that. |
| 04:50:08.69 | Unknown | Right. |
| 04:50:18.96 | Sean | And, um, I don't have the UV coating number on me right now, but basically it's very similar to what Wolfpack was talking about. And it's a little bit more expensive than regular glass, but it's very important. |
| 04:50:32.95 | Morgan Pierce | Right, definitely, definitely. Well, seeing all these beautiful big expanses of glass and hearing that the former Danes who lived there realized that it was colder than Denmark, I am curious how you're planning to condition the structure. Specifically, where is all the outdoor equipment going? Because I didn't see any on the plan. |
| 04:50:48.12 | Sean | Well, I'll tell you, it's funny, I did a house set very similar renovation it was a 41 san carlos and we put fleetwood windows into it and it's a three-story you know two and a half story house that clients might still own and they stayed and he's got a um a grand piano a steinway d from he that he bought from the hollywood bowl in los angeles and he says it's the most perfectly tempered house. It never gets too hot. It never gets too cold. It never gets too humid. And we used, it's facing the same orientation as Marion. It's on the next ridge over. And what I found on that house was we put air conditioning and heating in it, but they almost never ever use the heating or air conditioning. So what we're doing here is we will have, the standard heating systems, which will be in the, the workspace of the garage inside Thank you. and the only piece of equipment that would traditionally go onside is the air conditionally handler if you have air conditioning. And we've also programmed that to be in the garage. the garage. was a little deeper to accommodate also a water storage tank that There's a water storage tank on the house now that was there from... prior owners and we've made it taller and narrower in both aids and water pressure as well as they used it for reclaim water for the irrigation. But we've made it taller and narrower that's given me some equipment room for the heating and air conditioning systems. |
| 04:52:31.42 | Morgan Pierce | Got space in there for the Tesla Powerwall when you put in the solar panels? |
| 04:52:34.74 | Sean | Yeah, this client doesn't have a Tesla, but I'm going to convince them to do it soon. |
| 04:52:40.34 | Morgan Pierce | Go electric. I don't like it. Let's see. Is an emergency generator planned or? |
| 04:52:48.15 | Sean | Thank you. |
| 04:52:48.17 | Morgan Pierce | I'm not. |
| 04:52:49.25 | Sean | Right now, we don't have one planned, not to belabor, but we put one on 41 San Carlos, which was a gas-powered Generac |
| 04:52:59.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:52:59.61 | Sean | Thank you. |
| 04:52:59.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:52:59.66 | Sean | Thank you. And during that big power outage, my clients used it for four days and said it was the best thing ever because they were had power. So we haven't programmed one for this site. But, um, I think some of my clients are going with batteries and some clients are going with gas generators, but the gas generators make noise and it's an issue for neighbors. So my current clients, Dan can chime in, but we don't have one programmed right now for the house. |
| 04:53:18.55 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. it's. |
| 04:53:21.04 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 04:53:21.06 | Unknown | to do. |
| 04:53:21.25 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 04:53:27.74 | Morgan Pierce | Got it. |
| 04:53:28.99 | Sean | Thank you. |
| 04:53:29.01 | Morgan Pierce | So move on to lighting a little bit. You know, obviously appreciate the concern for lighting and working out with the GGNRA. As I was looking at some of the proposed finishes, particularly on the lower level, that stucco or concrete color that you were proposing looked relatively light. And I was just concerned in some of the locations where there's downlighting, creating halos on that, that almost appears can appear from distance like a larger lighter light fixture. So I wanted you maybe to talk a little bit more about the specific downlight fixtures and whether they were more going to have pencil beams as opposed to flood beams to really control that light spill onto the wall surfaces and really focus it on the ground planes. |
| 04:54:08.60 | Sean | That's great. I worked on this item on 94 San Carlos about two years ago where the neighbors wanted to make sure there wasn't any light eminence. And it became the number one item. And what I learned was there's a product called Nora dimming fixtures that dim to warm. And after talking to all the neighbors on San Carlos, they're like, We don't want really cold bright lights, we want warm lights minimal lumens minimal wattage so what I tried to do was use the same Nora fixtures in a downlight capacity that are. A warm down light. You're right, they do reflect off the surface of the architecture a little bit. However, there's... They're adjustable, pivotable, where we can turn them away slightly to the driveway or slightly towards the house if it disturbs anybody. So one of the nice things about it's not fixed. It's a dynamic thing. ocular ball that you can kind of rotate if it's bothering someone and then also we can We can set the dimmer controls really low. And again, the dimmer they get, the warmer they get, which is really nice. |
| 04:55:32.03 | Morgan Pierce | Right. Well, I'll be honest, while I am concerned about your neighbors and it's easy for them to vocalize their concern, I'm also concerned since you're right adjacent to the GGNRA, the impacts to wildlife and making sure that you're not impacting their habitat and living processes, you know, like some developments would. So it sounds like you're taking a sensitive approach and We appreciate that. I had two more questions. One, obviously you've got a giant flat roof on this thing. Are you planning on harvesting any of the rainwater? I've seen your BMPs plan to minimize rainwater from going off site, but it seems like you'll have plenty to harvest if you chose to. Do you have any plans to do that? |
| 04:56:14.64 | Sean | Yeah, I really want to explore that. We don't have it on the plans, but we got this wonderful letter. Dan and Julie, when they bought the house, got this letter from the. not the Denmark people, there was an owner sometime in the past that wrote this letter that said collecting rainwater into the storage tanks. Now it was disconnected when they bought the house. So somewhere in time they disconnected it. But I think that the concept works really well. Again, I'm relating it to 41 San Carlos. |
| 04:56:49.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:56:49.38 | Sean | But we actually there was natural springs on the property that were overflowing into a pond. And we diverted some back and work with the neighbors and diverted back up into a holding tank and used it for irrigation. Nice. And my clients saved like, The prior owner was spending massive amounts on irrigation, and the new owner spent nothing on irrigation by reclaiming the... So I think it's something absolutely is really easy to do to basically reclaim that water into the tanks. The only thing we have to do is filter it. because some of that water is being used for for fire water pressure. We can't have any silt or anything in it. But the existing pumps and the existing tanks can handle all that stuff nowadays. So we can definitely do it. |
| 04:57:36.23 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 04:57:38.35 | Sean | Thank you. |
| 04:57:38.37 | Morgan Pierce | Excellent. Well, I have one final question. So you've obviously highlighted the few places where you're having new plantings, but obviously there's going to be disturbed area around the site due to construction activities. Are there plans for grasses, native grasses, or any other cover material for those zones? Because I didn't see it on the plan. |
| 04:57:55.50 | Sean | Yeah, so Mia with the GGNRA gave us a very specific planting list that we agreed and are required to use. And they also said that during the project they would evaluate there's some existing planting not on the Three Marion but right past the property line that they want to evaluate whether we take out and just make grasses. So Mia said they were going to be involved during construction to make sure that we use, not only we're going to buy from their nurseries, as well as use their planting list for any new plantings for the property. |
| 04:58:24.03 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:58:39.73 | Morgan Pierce | Excellent. Well, Sean, thank you very much. Chair Feller, those are all the questions I have. |
| 04:58:42.92 | Sean | Thank you so much. |
| 04:58:43.69 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 04:58:43.78 | Kristina Feller | I'm standing. Excellent questions. Thank you. I think you've covered a lot of mine too, so that was great. Commissioner Saad, do you have any questions for the applicant? |
| 04:58:52.17 | Nastassya Saad | Um, yeah, that was really thorough. So thank you for all those answers and those questions, um, from commissioner Pierce, I was just wondering. Um, I took off my glasses, so I'll put them back on the garage. door, I believe it's an attachment. four was there Something you were leaning towards in terms of the glass. I'm not sure if it was articulated. I can see there's a few options with the white black and mirrored gray. Um, Has that been decided yet? |
| 04:59:30.54 | Sean | So there's a new garage. It's interesting. I keep referring to these projects, but 94 and 41 San Carlos had glass panels with metal ribs, which is the kind of standard glass garage door that you get. But there's this new garage door that is all glass and the metal is on the inside. and you can get it frosted or tinted. or whatever smoke color So, we haven't picked the exact coding yet because it's really typically a new product. But the garage door pros were going to give us samples so we can kind of match to the rest of the house so there's not a jarring difference between the garage and the rest of it. But if there's any issues with, you know, you could pick smoked glass or frosted glass or clear glass. And I think we're completely open to, and we're going to talk to the neighbors about that when it you know, about that detail. |
| 05:00:36.72 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, sure, yeah. necessarily in the point of trying to dictate it that the color. I was just more curious along it's a it's a very interesting. design. I'm just wondering if it's reflective or if there's any concern there just from a glare. If I'm seeing it correctly, it looks shiny, but maybe that's just the picture. |
| 05:01:00.08 | Sean | Yeah, it's kind of the picture. You know, the last two garages, you know, it was kind of a soft light that if you turn the garage on the, the lights on the inside of the garage, it emits a soft kind of light on the inside of the garage. like you've seen frosted glass garage doors around. |
| 05:01:21.54 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:01:21.83 | Sean | And, you know, maybe Dan and might be and Julie can express their preferences, but the idea was to kind of keep it as clean as possible. |
| 05:01:33.54 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 05:01:34.62 | Nastassya Saad | That's all I have. Thank you Chair Feller. |
| 05:01:36.93 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Vice Chair Graft, any questions for the applicant? |
| 05:01:43.33 | Richard Graef | Not really, they have all been . Um, Oh. Thanks for the presentation. It's very thorough and No questions? |
| 05:01:59.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:01:59.36 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 05:01:59.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. I just had a couple and again I want to thank you and and the Kauffman's for working so closely with the neighbors to get to this point. And I know that you will. Continue to do so. Um, as you move forward. The question I had, and I have to thank Commissioner Luxenberg for bringing this up and also Commissioner Pierce for doing so as well. on the easement that belongs to one Marion, the basically the roadway, let's call it the long driveway. if you are making it consistent to an 11 foot width, Have you been able to survey whether or not there are any other trees that might be impacted by widening it in certain areas? |
| 05:02:47.23 | Sean | Yes, we have. We've really investigated it thoroughly. And honestly, it's about a foot of a little bit of rubble kind of from the side of the hill in this foot area. So really what we're doing is just kind of cleaning up the edge of the driveway all the way up. And there's no trees in that area. There's no, we've had the surveyor out. I've had an asphalt company look at it and they're really just basically gonna scrape kind of a foot and then, you know, and clean up and sharpen the edge of the hillside that just kind of has some spalding dirt, if you will. |
| 05:03:29.52 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Got it. And then on the, you've got a very long horizontal window right above. the garage. |
| 05:03:41.30 | Ellen Borgeson | Yeah, your hands lower. |
| 05:03:42.82 | Kristina Feller | What exactly is Is that one long, large, huge piece of glazing or? Or is it just looks that way in a rendering? |
| 05:03:54.51 | Sean | Yeah, the rendering is a little limited. It is a window to the kitchen and dining area, but it will be bifurcated with opening sections because they want airflow in that area of the house. Yeah. So it will be probably... |
| 05:04:08.18 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:04:10.78 | Sean | two openings. parts of a window and then a sheet of glass in the middle. |
| 05:04:16.74 | Kristina Feller | I mean, I think the rendering might be throwing me off. I mean, I saw in the elevations too, but am I to understand, is it going to be sort of, you know, shoulder height and above. It's just this very long strip. So I was trying to understand what that, how that expression looked like from, from inside? What, what are they looking out at, or is it intentionally lower and not at eye height? |
| 05:04:44.85 | Sean | So there's a I probably could show you an interior rendering to show you, but it's interesting you bring up Julie, a client, was discussing about the height of the bottom of the window and what's the appropriate height. What it looks at is it looks towards one Marion. So there's to make sure that there's not impacting the view towards one Marion or one Marion towards them. We've been kind of keeping the window height is kind of is not as deep as you could have in other locations. But the idea is to kind of mimic the garage door below, which is 18 feet wide, but bring it in. |
| 05:05:10.60 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 05:05:26.55 | Sean | to 16 feet wide. and then not make it enormously high so it's not hurting the privacy inside the dining room in the kitchen and vice versa towards one marion now one marion doesn't really have windows that look towards this side of the house |
| 05:05:28.27 | Unknown | And then, |
| 05:05:28.56 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 05:05:42.06 | Sean | Their house looks mostly south. there is one or two apertures in their house. It's a beautiful facade. The One Marion house is stunning. So it's... |
| 05:05:44.12 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:05:51.53 | Sean | Part of the last thing I'll say is I wanted to see one Marion because it's such a beautiful architectural story. Um, specimen for Sausalito. So I was thinking within their modern kitchen, they're going to look at this beautiful kind of brick historic structure and I love the kind of that tension and that beauty that happens there. |
| 05:06:12.50 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 05:06:13.36 | Morgan Pierce | Well, I would add, Chair Feller, if you look at the sheet A 0.40, there's an interior rendering of the kitchen showing all that fenestration. It really is quite an interesting composition how there's a line of windows below the upper cabinets and then one above. There's the one that sort of bifurcates that facing on the one I mean, I can understand this very deliberate. |
| 05:06:36.67 | Kristina Feller | I actually. love the architecture. I love the design. |
| 05:06:40.31 | Morgan Pierce | design. |
| 05:06:41.51 | Kristina Feller | here. special property, I think, in, you know, a wonderful, almost hidden little cul-de-sac and so I think it's very special, but I wanna make sure that I'm understanding what I'm looking at properly and that it is what you had intended as I look at it. I think that Commissioner Luxenberg and Commissioner Pierce asked every other question that I could have thought of. And so I appreciate them being so thorough. I think that unless there's any objection from the commission, I'm going to open this up to public comment. in respect of the time this evening, and make sure that we get the public input on this right now. as well before we move into deliberation. At this time, I'd like to ask the public if they're interested in making public comment to please raise their hand in the Zoom application. or as Director Whelan will correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's star nine if you are on a cell phone. So I will look for any raised hands at this time and I'm sure that staff will assist me in locating anybody who'd like to make public comment |
| 05:08:07.69 | Kristina Feller | I am not seeing any hands raised at this time. |
| 05:08:14.85 | Kristina Feller | So I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. All right, so public comment is closed. So let's go ahead and bring this back up to our virtual dais for discussion. And, um, and any action we need to take this evening. Would anyone like to start off the discussion? Fisher Luxembourg. |
| 05:08:37.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was going to move ready to move for approval is what I wanted to do. |
| 05:08:42.60 | Morgan Pierce | No, you can't get off that easy, Jeffrey. |
| 05:08:45.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | now. Wow. |
| 05:08:48.75 | Kristina Feller | Wow. Keep going. Let's hear it. |
| 05:08:51.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was going to move approval of DRTRP2020-00071, resolution approving a design review permit with heightened design review and tree removal permit located at 3 Marion Avenue. |
| 05:09:10.47 | Kristina Feller | Before I get a second, are there any other comments or conditions Jeffrey's motion. |
| 05:09:17.72 | Morgan Pierce | I do want to say thank you Jeffrey. I really want to compliment the clients and the homeowners know, so often we have so many challenges ahead of us as we reviewed these things, and this one is not you know, without challenges, you know, changing from single family to Multifamily? two families. and its proximity to the GGRA sharing driveways and modifying driveways and so on and so forth. But it seems like they've really taken a pretty careful and calculated approach to reach out to the neighbors. They crossed their keys dotted their eyes with regard to working with Lilly and folks at the city to really come up with what seems to be a reasonable solution. They're obviously not completely destroying an existing structure. They're actually using some of the original parts of it, which, you know, helps from a carbon. sequestering standpoint. and the new project is gonna have a great sensibility the environment with potential to be even greater to improve its sensitive environment. Thank you. From that perspective, I am happy to offer second to Commissioner Luxenbergs. motion. |
| 05:10:31.35 | Kristina Feller | I just like to add one caveat to that because I very much like it as well, but |
| 05:10:34.22 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 05:10:36.92 | Kristina Feller | I would ask that the applicant work with staff and continue their outreach to, particularly their direct neighbors to one Marion, and I believe it's five Marion, regarding the final decision on the garage specification to ensure that it is in line with, I think the original request of one Marianne, And so I would just request that that be a condition of approval. you |
| 05:11:05.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So we need an amendment from- Good amendment to the motion, that's an excellent amendment to the motion. |
| 05:11:05.91 | Gonzaga | So we need an amendment from |
| 05:11:10.83 | Kristina Feller | If you're okay with that, yes. So. |
| 05:11:12.62 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | We'll accept it in the second. |
| 05:11:14.31 | Kristina Feller | but it looks like- |
| 05:11:14.35 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | But it looks like Vice Chair Graff might have something bad. |
| 05:11:16.89 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Vice Chair Graf? |
| 05:11:19.49 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. |
| 05:11:19.51 | Richard Graef | No, I just before we approve this project, I just wanted to also add that I'm very fond of I think it was just a well-conceived well articulated. presented clearly and it's a really good job. And I just wanna compliment the architect and the applicant, the owners. So I just wanted to get my two cents in before we vote on there. |
| 05:11:48.26 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you very much, Vice Chair Graff. Let's ask Kristi to come up here real quick to make sure that She's clear on the condition of approval just regarding the garage door. |
| 05:12:02.62 | Morgan Pierce | I want to make sure that we didn't make sure we have Commissioner Saad before we move that through. |
| 05:12:07.92 | Nastassya Saad | I agree with everyone and everything, yes. |
| 05:12:10.32 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 05:12:10.34 | Dan Kaufman | Okay. |
| 05:12:12.33 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 05:12:12.63 | Dan Kaufman | I'm... I'm sorry to come in, but I just want to be completely transparent and honest. So we do want a generator. So, yes, I do want an emergency generator. I hope that doesn't undo things, but I just wanted, I didn't want you to go off on a false thing and We'll bury it somewhere. But yeah, I think power outages sadly are in our future. And thank you, Commissioner Morgan Pierce on your carbon statements. I work at Google and We work our butts off and we're actually carbon neutral as of 2020 and I wanted my house to do the same thing. But yeah, I definitely need a generator because PG&E, as you know, is not That's what we're talking about. |
| 05:12:52.52 | Kristina Feller | Well, thank you, Mr. Kaufman. Thank you very much for being so... proactive in that regard, I think. If there is a desire for a generator here, I think it's important that it is placed properly regarding noise and fumes. all of that. So I think we would need to condition that as well. |
| 05:13:17.43 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | I would also |
| 05:13:18.97 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 05:13:19.29 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | you |
| 05:13:19.49 | Morgan Pierce | through the chair um as staff i think you know typically somebody has generated to their property that it's a some sort of administrative process that hopefully addresses those things but You know, if we feel that it's necessary to offer a condition to add some sort of protection to the neighbors. Let's do it. |
| 05:13:39.40 | Kristina Feller | I'm thinking proximity to GGNRA as well. With fuel for a generator, they're not gonna want it real close to their- |
| 05:13:45.93 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | They may have some restrictions. I don't know. |
| 05:13:51.87 | Kristina Feller | So, Christy. |
| 05:13:55.01 | Christy Usher | Yeah, understood on the direction that staff is to work with the applicant in terms of the garage door, color and material. And then that staff is also to work with the applicant and GGNRA on any emergency generator proposed. |
| 05:14:15.56 | Kristina Feller | Correct. So Commissioner Luxenberg, are you okay with those two conditions in your motion? |
| 05:14:23.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, so they would revise the attachment that we have to, part of this approval will be those two conditions. I also just, I wanna make a comment also that, you know, This is a case where the applicant has done their homework. They got a design that works with the ordinance. Obviously this was tailored with a new duplex ordinance and they very clearly did their homework, talked to the abutters all ahead of time, which I think really helps the process. And I want to thank Christy as well, who obviously worked closely with them throughout But yeah, so those amendments to the motion are acceptable. and they're accepted to the second. |
| 05:15:05.68 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. So Director Whalen. And we ask that you please call the roll. |
| 05:15:19.08 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Assad. Yes. I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE |
| 05:15:22.59 | Bruce McMillan | us. |
| 05:15:23.49 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Pierce? |
| 05:15:24.80 | Bruce McMillan | Yes. |
| 05:15:25.51 | Director Whalen | They share graphs. |
| 05:15:27.08 | Bruce McMillan | You bet. |
| 05:15:27.52 | Director Whalen | Thank you. and Chair Felder. Yes. And that carries five zero for approval. Any action of the planning commission may be appealed within 10 days of the action to the city council. You must complete a required appeal form and pay the appeal fee within 10 days of this action for the appeal to be timely filed. If you have any questions about how to file an appeal, please contact the project planner. or the Community Development Department. Thank you. |
| 05:15:52.85 | Christy Usher | Right. |
| 05:15:53.64 | Director Whalen | Thank you. takes us to our communication item on the agenda. I didn't have any items noted for communication. Thank you. |
| 05:16:05.39 | Kristina Feller | I would just ask, Commissioner Saad, do you have anything to report to the commission regarding any |
| 05:16:06.62 | Director Whalen | . |
| 05:16:15.06 | Kristina Feller | anything you're tracking for, uh, permits or, um, extensions to construction or anything like that? |
| 05:16:24.42 | Nastassya Saad | No, unfortunately I do not. I have reached out a few times to Michael Rex. THEIR OWNERS. the mayor and have yet to hear back. So I will try another follow up tomorrow. And if that route doesn't go forward I will. MOVE ON. um, |
| 05:16:43.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:16:43.49 | Nastassya Saad | why are you |
| 05:16:44.03 | Kristina Feller | Are you contacting Michael Rex? |
| 05:16:47.61 | Nastassya Saad | are we talking about the position around the, I can never pronounce this word. The omnibus man, yeah. It was kicked off by it was an introductory email from |
| 05:16:55.29 | Kristina Feller | So the omnibus men, yeah. Yes, yes. |
| 05:17:04.81 | Nastassya Saad | Mayor Hoffman. between myself and Michael Rex. And so she guided me to start TO START WITH HIM. for a discussion. And so that was my FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS TO get some input from the permit process and design, but we I have yet to hear back from him. |
| 05:17:28.08 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think maybe you, me, and Director Whalen can have a separate conversation. I don't think we really want to start with one of the architects regarding the permit, you know, helping to shepherd some of these outstanding issues or permits or, unresolved matters forward, we would take our direction from Community Development Department And Mr. Rex's projects might be within there. |
| 05:17:58.52 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:17:59.28 | Kristina Feller | but I think we were trying to look for the more problematic ones that need some assistance and guidance in that regard. |
| 05:18:06.89 | Nastassya Saad | Sure yes and maybe community Director Whalen, when you have a moment we can I guess three of us, that would probably be best to connect. And then I'm happy to pick it back up. |
| 05:18:20.47 | Director Whalen | Thank you, Commissioner Zod. And I have yet to connect with you, and that is entirely my fault. And we need to have a meeting to talk about what the mayor's direction is. So that's definitely in my court right now. |
| 05:18:29.06 | Nastassya Saad | THE FAMILY. Bye. Okay, whenever you're ready, thank you. |
| 05:18:32.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Does anyone else have any other announcements? Yes, Commissioner Pierce. |
| 05:18:38.68 | Morgan Pierce | the regular scheduled meeting of May 19, I will be fully vaxxed and not in this time zone. I will be visiting family and will be unavailable for that meeting. |
| 05:18:48.55 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Thank you for letting us know. Director Willen, do you have that May 19th? |
| 05:18:52.97 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 05:18:56.62 | Kristina Feller | So as long as the rest of us. are available, we should have a quorum. Okay. Yes, Commissioner. |
| 05:19:07.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have two questions. One, if Lily can provide, Director Whalen can provide us with possible addresses that are on the May 5th meeting, it would be helpful in advance to know what you think might be on there. I realize it could change. But if you knew that, if we could get that at the end of each meeting, that would be helpful. And then to I assume we're going to stay on Zoom for the foreseeable future. And for the month of June or June into July, I may be out of state but available. I assume that's not a problem on Zoom and may become a problem if we're not on Zoom, I guess. So those are the two questions for Director Whaley. |
| 05:19:59.51 | Director Whalen | Through the chair, thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. And thank you for reminding me too. You and I did talk about that might be helpful announcing those items at the end of the meetings here. So we have noticed for two, items for the upcoming May 5th meeting, and those are projects at Six Princess, And at, is Christy still on the call here? 3537 crescent i believe christy's off but a condo conversion on crescent And we can get you, if I'm incorrect in the address on Crescent, I will have Christie correct that. |
| 05:20:37.09 | Eva Huglen | Lily, it's 37, 38 Crescent. |
| 05:20:39.98 | Director Whalen | to. |
| 05:20:40.70 | Eva Huglen | Thank you. |
| 05:20:40.72 | Director Whalen | We're Maria. Thank you, Maria. Thank you. who actually probably posted the notices herself. |
| 05:20:47.94 | Kristina Feller | Great. |
| 05:20:50.32 | Director Whalen | Okay. |
| 05:20:50.64 | Kristina Feller | who's a good friend. |
| 05:20:51.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. And then the comment about Zoom is that What do you think is happening with me? |
| 05:20:58.22 | Director Whalen | I don't have an idea right now of when we'll be able to meet together in person in the council chambers. So, but I'll definitely let you know as soon as I know when we might be starting to do that. |
| 05:21:11.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But I mean, there would be like months of notice. They wouldn't all of a sudden say, next week you have to start doing that. |
| 05:21:16.88 | Director Whalen | We would, we would, we would, yeah, there'd be time to prepare for it and have procedures in place. And if you are out, so before COVID, if you were out of Sausalito, there were teleconferencing procedures that were allowed. And so if we were, we'll just have to see what the state of, you know, the California is at that time and what the, if the. |
| 05:21:29.89 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:21:39.48 | Director Whalen | portions of the Brown Act have been suspended as they are right now. |
| 05:21:43.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Zoom is easier if you're out of state. I was like... |
| 05:21:47.71 | Director Whalen | Agreed. |
| 05:21:48.29 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 05:21:48.37 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 05:21:48.46 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:21:50.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, thank you. I will keep you posted. |
| 05:21:53.28 | Kristina Feller | Great. All right. Well, if there are no other announcements or comments, I moved to adjourn. Thank you, everybody, for all your hard work. It's greatly appreciated. |
| 05:22:09.37 | Morgan Pierce | Thank you. |
| 05:22:09.79 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:22:11.12 | Morgan Pierce | Let's go for midnight. Yes. |
| 05:22:12.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Yeah. Right. |
| 05:22:14.63 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:22:14.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 05:22:14.93 | Kristina Feller | Good night, everyone. |
| 05:22:14.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. |
| 05:22:15.34 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:22:15.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Good night. Good night, everyone. |
| 05:22:15.96 | Mr. Zwick (applicant) | THE END OF Thank you. |
| 05:22:23.86 | Unknown | Restaurant Row is back for spring 2021, Thursday through Sunday with on-street table service in the southernmost block of Caledonia Street. You can call each participating restaurant to make a |
Elizabeth Brekus — Against: Representing opponents and the MacArthur family, argued the house is too massive on a sensitive ridge, inconsistent with average community sizes, and that the city is ignoring the EIR's reference to 2,000-4,000 sq ft homes. Urged the commission not to set a precedent by allowing elimination of the increased side setback. ▶ 📄
Bruce McMillan — Against: Owner of 1 Canto Gal, opposed the proposal citing inadequate setbacks, a tall concrete privacy wall, a large underground garage close to his bedroom, and noise from a hot tub. Emphasized the ridge's wildlife and iconic views, and that over 200 residents oppose the project. ▶ 📄
Eric Ketchum — In Favor: After reviewing the plans, concluded the applicant made good-faith efforts to comply with code and address neighbor concerns. Believed a compliant applicant who has listened to suggestions should be allowed to build, criticizing excessive delays and litigation. ▶ 📄
Linda Fairchild — Against: Questioned the scale and size, alleging the project is a joint venture rather than a single-family home. Noted concerns about construction disruptions, narrow road, removal of cypress trees, obstruction of views from 51 Wolfback, and the need to slow down the process. ▶ 📄
Michael Rex — Against: Representing the MacArthur family, argued the rear yard is misclassified as a side yard and that the side yard projection calculations are incorrect because the required average depth was not properly computed. Contended the applicant has not budged on setbacks in three years. ▶ 📄
Mel Atkins — Against: Friend of Bruce McMillan, expressed concern about pedestrian safety on the blind curve of Canto Gal where the garage entrance is proposed, suggesting the garage be placed on the other side of the property with a straighter road. ▶ 📄
Jeffrey Keefe — Against: Questioned the ownership structure (LLC with outside partner) and the inflated sale prices, suggesting a joint venture business arrangement rather than a single-family home. Opposed establishing a precedent for oversized development near GGNRA, calling the whole situation suspect. ▶ 📄
Christopher Patterson — In Favor: Immediate neighbor and seller of the property, vouched for the applicant as an honest and friendly future neighbor. Stated the architect has been transparent and the applicant has bent over backwards to accommodate concerns. Urged approval. ▶ 📄
Duncan Dashney — Against: Designer who reviewed the plans; found the design beautiful but considered the project inappropriate for the pristine, highly photographed ridge near GGNRA. Concerned about the slow encroachment of large projects on park-adjacent land and the effectiveness of bird-safe glass. ▶ 📄
Lynn Augstein — Neutral: Praised the design but felt the scale is out of place. Raised concerns about construction noise, rock removal, and duration in the sensitive area. Appreciated the potential transfer of lots to GGNRA and held that as hope. ▶ 📄
Ellen Borgeson — Against: Worried a large, visible house would make the small, hidden community a target for curious visitors from GGNRA, posing a security risk. Argued the house is incompatible with the modest homes on the ridge and would loom over the valley, conflicting with the EIR's aim for invisibility. ▶ 📄
Len Riffkind — Against: Representing Bruce McMillan, argued the house is too large compared to post-settlement homes that respected a 4,000 sq ft limit. Contended the relevant boundary is a rear yard requiring 30 ft setback, not 20 ft, and the garage location creates a dangerous blind curve. The design fails basic review principles. ▶ 📄
Mickey Allison — Neutral: Read the Sierra Club's retraction of their opposition letter due to incorrect information. Personally, she hoped the commission would listen to public comments and noted the importance of clarifying GGNRA's position on the project. ▶ 📄
Alan Patterson — In Favor: Beneficiary of an adjacent lot, fully supported the project. Remarked on the vitriolic opposition and noted that some opponents live in larger houses. Believed the applicant's family would be a benefit to the neighborhood and urged approval. ▶ 📄