| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:01.43 | Unknown | I'm sorry. . |
| 00:00:10.07 | Kristina Feller | We're ready. Fantastic, let's go ahead and let everybody in. And we'll get going. |
| 00:00:28.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission hearing for Wednesday, September 22nd. Community Development Director Whalen, could you please call the roll? |
| 00:00:42.89 | 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 17th, 2020. and Executive Order N0821 issued by the governor on June 11th of this year. And all members are joining this meeting telephonically through Zoom. It will now call the roll. Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:01:05.84 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:01:05.86 | Director Whalen | Good. |
| 00:01:06.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:07.04 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:01:08.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of them. |
| 00:01:09.56 | Director Whalen | Vice Chair Graff. All right. Chair Feller. |
| 00:01:12.68 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 00:01:12.86 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 00:01:12.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:13.57 | Director Whalen | And I'll note that commissioner side is on an excused absence. However, we do have a quorum with six planning for planning commissioners, excuse me. |
| 00:01:23.26 | Kristina Feller | Perfect. Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda this evening. Do I have a motion from anybody to approve the agenda? |
| 00:01:36.91 | Richard Graef | of the... back on. |
| 00:01:40.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:01:40.88 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 00:01:41.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:01:41.50 | Director Whalen | Director Whelan. COMMISSIONER LUXENBERG. Yes. COMMISSIONER GINIETS. Thank you. |
| 00:01:46.58 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 00:01:47.15 | Director Whalen | Vice Chair Graf? |
| 00:01:48.52 | Andrew Junius | I'm not sure. |
| 00:01:48.59 | Director Whalen | Bye. AND CHAIR, Feller. Yeah. |
| 00:01:50.83 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:01:51.22 | Director Whalen | that carries four zero to approve the agenda. |
| 00:01:54.44 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. So let's move on to item three, which is public comments on items not on the agenda. this evening so if if there's something a subject matter that anyone would like to raise with the planning committee is not already agendized Now is the time to do so. And Director Whalen, could you provide the public some direction on how to raise their hand in the Zoom application? |
| 00:02:21.36 | Director Whalen | All right, so we're expecting or accepting public comment on any items not on the agenda, except in very limited situations, state law precludes the Planning Commission from taking action on We're engaging in 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 be agendized for a future meeting. You will be limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application. under the participants list, and you'll be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, please press star 9. and we'll allow you to unmute yourself and share your video, and we'll need some time to adjust your settings to allow you access, so thank you for your patience. Please state your name for the record before beginning your comments. I do not yet see any raised hands for public comment on items not on the agenda. |
| 00:03:11.68 | Kristina Feller | Okay, let's just give everyone another minute if they're trying to find the right function. I am not seeing any hands at this time. Director Wellen, can you just confirm that I'm not missing somebody here? |
| 00:03:25.04 | Director Whalen | CONFIRMED. I do not see any hands raised. |
| 00:03:28.86 | Kristina Feller | Okay, let's go ahead and close public comment at this time. And let's move to the next item number four, which is the approval of the planning commission notes from our last hearing. which was September 8th. So I'd like to ask the commissioners at this time Um, if you have any comments on the meeting notes. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:03:53.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand, I guess related to page 5, line 3, that the resolution for 12L portal has not had an opportunity to be completed, so it's not attached to those notes. So I would suggest we just put this item on hold for the next meeting. |
| 00:04:14.66 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Does anybody else have any comments on, on the meeting minutes? If not, I do have a comment myself. Commissioner Eugenius, did you have A comment? I was actually looking on page... for line item 49. And We actually, this commission had approved everything we we, saw with comment. which included the railing, And so the planter boxes, lighting and the railing need to go back to historic preservation with the caveat of the discussion that we had regarding the circles in the top and bottom rows of the railing. So that needs to be amended. in these notes. The only thing that needed to come back to planning commission was the signage package. So we approved everything five zero otherwise. And we did so so railings and lighting and planner boxes did not have to come back to us again We were okay with them as long as historic preservation was. if historic preservation for any reason was not okay with it. then it would have to come back to us. it. did anyone have a different recollection than what I just |
| 00:05:47.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That was my election. That's why I was looking for the resolution, because I wanted to confirm that what we had done was consistent. That's what I was. That's why we wanted to see that resolution before approving. But yes, I agree with you 100%. |
| 00:06:03.35 | Kristina Feller | Okay I don't usually we don't attach the resolution to these notes so director Whalen if we could make those amendments As I just noted, since it appears that we're all in agreement that that change needs to be made. we can go ahead. Oh. |
| 00:06:20.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I just comment on that? A while ago, maybe three or four meetings ago, we decided that we would have a link in the meeting notes to the resolutions so somebody could see them and check them. And so that's it. And we started doing that a few meetings back. I don't remember how many meetings back. And so am I misstating this, Director Williams? |
| 00:06:51.51 | Director Whalen | Mr. Beller, if I may. That is correct. So we did start a number of meetings ago, including the resolutions, linked to the resolutions in the document. We now have a global link to the resolutions page, and I'm happy to bring back the minutes with the resolution attached. at the next meeting if that's the direction of the city council. if the If the minutes stand with the changes that Chair Feller enunciated this evening, There will be still the link to that resolutions page. So folks can go back to the resolutions page and staff will distribute as a one-way communication, the resolution for El Portal to the planning commission. |
| 00:07:35.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:35.64 | Director Whalen | I'm happy either way. either direction. |
| 00:07:39.59 | Kristina Feller | I would suggest that we Thank you. make the amendments as noted, since that's consistent with what the resolution would be anyway. And if you could just maybe, as a one-way communication, recirculate that global link, to the commission. So we can you know have that and tag that that link for future reference as well, I think that would be sufficient. |
| 00:08:08.16 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:08:08.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm okay with that. I'm not comfortable because of the concern you raised until we see the resolution, I'm not comfortable that I'd like to see the results. I don't think we have to put the link in on the bottom where the meeting notes, I'm okay with the global link, Director Whalen, I don't have an issue with the global link. What I have an issue with is I'd like to see the resolution and make sure it's consistent with what's said here, and if there's some error, we rectify it before we approve the meeting notes. That's what I'm saying. But I mean, the publics don't agree with on that. |
| 00:08:51.37 | Kristina Feller | And again, I think what I suggested probably addresses that because |
| 00:08:52.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:08:55.88 | Kristina Feller | The issue with the railing should be in that resolution, and that would be on the Global Link. And so we're sending this back with those amended comments that need to be reflected in these notes. And we will receive a one-way communication from community development on the global link to all resolutions. I think that should satisfy what we're talking about. |
| 00:09:22.25 | Mary Wagner | Madam chair, if I may, if I might be, or stop for a point. Yeah, I believe the resolution has been finalized and signed and I'd look to your community development director to confirm that. You did not direct that that come back to you. So that action has been taken. |
| 00:09:40.72 | Andrew Junius | and it will be |
| 00:09:41.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I actually asked, I asked her about that, and she said it hadn't been finalized, and I checked today, and it wasn't finalized. |
| 00:09:43.55 | Mary Wagner | I love it. |
| 00:09:50.07 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:09:50.39 | Kristina Feller | Okay, hold on, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Junius, any other comments? |
| 00:09:53.41 | Andrew Junius | That was true. No, I would just, I mean, if the motions, if the resolution's right and consistent with what I mean, you know, Chair Feller's right, we need to make sure says the thing about the railing. if we can just confirm that, and if that needs to happen next meeting, |
| 00:10:10.23 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So I'd like to suggest you know, you amend these notes. I confirm that the resolution is correct and consistent with the amendments we've asked for and bring it back at the next meeting. I don't think we need to belabor this evening. We've got a full agenda tonight. |
| 00:10:29.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:29.01 | Kristina Feller | Is everybody comfortable with that? |
| 00:10:29.10 | Unknown | to be able to do it. |
| 00:10:30.92 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:10:32.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:32.13 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:10:32.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:32.88 | Kristina Feller | All right. Great. Any other comments on the notes? Okay. Okay seeing none let's go ahead, Dr. Whelan with Item five are public hearing items. Thank you. |
| 00:10:47.05 | Director Whalen | I'm sorry. |
| 00:10:47.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:10:48.10 | Director Whalen | And before we begin our public hearing items, this is the time for commissioners to disclose any declarations regarding ex parte communications. Excuse me. |
| 00:11:00.22 | Kristina Feller | she's taking a drink why don't we just start uh uh let's see uh commissioner junius did you have anything to declare |
| 00:11:07.40 | Andrew Junius | I had a conversation with the applicant's attorney, David Sincotta, yesterday on 719-725 Bridgeway. |
| 00:11:17.21 | Kristina Feller | And any items to disclose or the merits of the project were not discussed by you. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:11:28.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I again visited 719-725 Bridgeway, but did not have any I didn't meet with anybody. And I also visited 424A Focus Street. I did not meet with anybody. I did see a surveyor there, but I did not have any discussions about the project. |
| 00:11:46.16 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:11:48.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No exparks. |
| 00:11:49.96 | Richard Graef | communication. |
| 00:11:51.99 | Kristina Feller | Right, thank you. I did visit both the Bridgeway project and walked around again. and I did visit the the Locust Street applicants area. I did not go up to the property, but I was walking around to look at view lines. I did not speak to anybody and I did not see anybody. related to the project. So no ex parte communication. |
| 00:12:22.94 | Kristina Feller | Director Whelan. |
| 00:12:25.21 | Director Whalen | Great, so our first public hearing item is item 5A, which is a project at 234 Woodward Avenue for a design review permit, encroachment agreement, nonconformity permit, and variance. And this item has been requested by the applicant to be continued without a staff presentation to your next meeting on October 6th. We recommend the planning commission take public comment and then move on to your item 5B. Thank you. |
| 00:12:53.06 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:12:53.26 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 00:12:53.46 | Kristina Feller | Great. Let's go ahead then and take public comment on this item, which is 234 Woodward Avenue. Uh, so we'll open public comment at this time. If you could, Raise your hand in the Zoom application. or press star nine on your cell phone. so I can tell if you'd like to make public comment. I'm just looking for raised hands, I do not see any. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment at this time. and make a motion to continue this item Are we doing this to a date certain, Director Whalen? |
| 00:13:33.29 | Director Whalen | Yes, please. October 6th, your next planning commission meeting. |
| 00:13:38.45 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:13:39.16 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 00:13:39.19 | Kristina Feller | So let's go ahead and continue this to our next hearing. |
| 00:13:41.93 | Andrew Junius | I'd move to continue to October 6th. |
| 00:13:45.91 | Kristina Feller | Great. |
| 00:13:46.60 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:13:47.08 | Kristina Feller | Seconds that. Thank you. Sherluxenburg. OK, we have a first and a second. Um, |
| 00:13:53.03 | Director Whalen | Could you take the role? Of course. Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 00:13:56.58 | David Sincotta | Thank you. |
| 00:13:56.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:13:57.15 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:13:58.28 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 00:13:58.84 | Director Whalen | I share a graph. |
| 00:13:59.88 | Andrew Junius | you know, |
| 00:14:00.36 | Director Whalen | Chair Fowler. Yes. It carries 4-0. Our next public hearing item tonight is 5B, which is a request for a conditional use permit, minor use permit, signed permit, tentative map, Encroachment agreement, true mobile permit, variance, and design review permit with heightened design review to demolish an existing building and construct a new two-story mixed-use building of a similar size a 719 through 725 bridgeway, also known as the Langston building. This is returning from your March 3rd meeting and interim planner, Jeffrey Graham, will be giving the presentation this evening. Hi, Jeffrey. |
| 00:14:40.62 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:14:40.64 | Jeffrey Graham | Hi, Lily. Hi. Good evening, everyone. I'm going to share my screen. Oops, I don't have permission to share. |
| 00:14:51.23 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Maria, if you can hear us, if you could kindly give Jeffrey Oh, there you go. You should be able to now. Jeffrey, why don't you give that a chime? |
| 00:15:01.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:15:09.42 | Kristina Feller | There we go. All right, over to you, Jeffrey. Thank you. |
| 00:15:13.24 | Unknown | OK. Thank you. |
| 00:15:22.13 | Jeffrey Graham | Okay. All right. Good evening. Tonight's presentation is for 719-279-255. also known as the Langston Building. The applicant tonight is requesting adoption of an initial study and mitigated negative declaration. Finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment due to the proposed mitigating measures to be followed by the project applicant. Approval of a design review permit with heightened design review. to demolish the existing two-story mixed-use commercial and residential building and replace it with a new building of similar scale and mix of uses. approval of conditional use permit for establishing a formula and the formula retail business. have for Napa farms. and approval of a conditional use permit for a drinking establishment for the consumption of beer and wine on the premises in conjunction with limited food service Approval of conditional use permit for a waiver of onsite parking requirements. and an approval of a minor use permit for outdoor sidewalk seating. approval of a sign permit for seven signs on the building. Approval of a variance to allow additional height to a portion of the front facade that includes the name of the building approval of a tentative We have a parcel map to create three residential condominiums and one commercial condominium. and recommendation to the city council for approval of an encroachment agreement for outdoor sidewalk seating. defense. projecting overhead bay windows and protecting signs in the city's right of way. |
| 00:17:11.70 | Jeffrey Graham | The site is located in the city's downtown area. The general plan designation is central commercial. And the zoning is also essential commercial within the historic area. that historic district of downtown. that The site is also located across from Vigno del Mar Park. I'm not sure. has As mentioned previously, It is developed with a mixed use commercial residential buildings. And there's also mixed use in commercial I'm not sure. mixed use commercial and residential buildings in the vicinity. |
| 00:17:53.79 | Jeffrey Graham | Here are some photos of the existing conditions of the building. As you can see in the top photo, I mean, that's going to be a The store poles are up for the proposed height of the building. |
| 00:18:11.17 | Jeffrey Graham | For the project description, as mentioned previously, the, um, applicant is proposing demolition of the existing building. and construction of a new mixed retail and residential building. The first floor will consist of a and the other one is the and we will be able to do that. The tenant will be Napa Farms, which is a formula retail business. And the second floor will consist of three residential condominium units. one two bedroom. and two one-bedroom units. for a total of 4,948 square feet. |
| 00:18:55.94 | Jeffrey Graham | Just to give a brief, history about the project. Um, The application was submitted on December 17th, 2017. on April 29th, of 2020 the historic preservation commission determined in his advisory certificate of appropriateness I'm not sure. and it was, I think it's a good question. the Planning Commission for consideration. I'm not sure. This project was first heard of the planning commission on March 3rd. Of this year. Um, Yeah. And before the public hearing, the applicant requested a continuance to address staff recommended conditions of approval related to slope stability. In addition, during the public hearing, the following issues were raised and focused on. uh, conditions of approval for the slope stability. Ensuring sufficient distance between obstructions along the sidewalk for passage by pedestrians. Discussion of requests. for onsite alcohol consumption. discussion of inclusion for the rooftop equipment on the roof plans. the height of the building and compliance with the height regulations. and discussion of formula retail definition and required review processes. Based on the applicant's request prior to the project hearing and additional issues identified, The commission voted to continue the item to a date on certain. On the following slides, I will be discussing the outstanding items or additional issues identified by the Commission. So the first thing is regarding the slope stability. conditions of approval. prior to and at the March planning commission meeting, The applicant raised concerns regarding the staff recommended conditions of THE FAMILY IS GOING TO BE numbers 53 and 55. or which are related to slope stability at the rear of the property. The city worked with the applicant, their attorney, Mr. David Sincotta, and the uphill neighbor, the Kahn family, and their attorney, Mr. Russell Austin, to discuss the proposed conditions. The proposed revised conditions provide options for how the site can be stabilized through a collaborative approach or alternative approach. The collaborative approach encourages the applicant and the surrounding property owners, including the city, to work together to decide who should participate in the slope repair. based on a site assessment Gun by the city. If no resolution is reached between the neighbors or if the applicant chooses to not pursue the collaborative approach, The alternative approach requires that the applicant is the only one is only responsible for the work within the project boundaries subject to certain conditions. the following, staff also provided a timeline associated with the revisions of the conditions between the aforementioned parties. Uh, Most recently staff review the red lines to the proposed revised conditions provided by Mr. Kahn. and prepared a revised final recommended set of conditions that take both parties' perspectives into account. This final set of recommended conditions related to conditions number 53 and 54, were forwarded to the applicant team and Kahn family on September 16th. with an invitation with city staff prior to the Planning Commission hearing. there was further disagreement The applicant indicated in writing on September 17th that they approved a revised condition Um, and the revised condition in its entirety. that has been included in the staff report and the final, draft resolution for review. |
| 00:23:15.47 | Jeffrey Graham | The next item is for pedestrian clearance for outdoor dining. At the March 2021 Planning Commission, the Commission suggested that the applicant provide at least five feet of clearance between any obstructions or safe clearance for pedestrians in this city's busy downtown area. As a result of that, the applicant proposed to adjust the location of the proposed new trees which provides the requested clearance. And if you, I'm not sure if you can see the, the diagram below, which is from project plans. I'm sorry. the distance from the outdoor seating fencing to the edge of the The tree grate is about five feet. |
| 00:24:13.00 | Jeffrey Graham | regarding the So, Conditional use permit for onsite alcohol consumption. The project proposes to sell craft beer for both off-site and off-site consumption. Um... Sale for offsite consumption is a permitted use. While the consumption of alcoholic beverages on site requires the approval of a conditional use permit from the planning commission, and authorization from the city council for consumption in the public right of way. The applicant would file both a type 21 And to type 20, Um, from the state alcoholic beverage control division. Thank you. |
| 00:25:03.88 | Jeffrey Graham | In regards to the rooftop equipment, The previously submitted plans did not show locations of the rooftop equipment. and this was requested to be shown by the Planning Commission at the March 3rd Planning Commission meeting. Um... In response, the applicant submitted revised plans which depict the ventilation, and the water. air conditioning, equipment on the roof. And this can be seen on sheet A1.1. |
| 00:25:45.36 | Jeffrey Graham | in regards to the height and front facade. prior to the March 2021 Planning Commission meeting, that the project did not comply with the city's height requirements related to portions of a building. within the first 15 feet. of the property mining. Um, The applicant responded at the March hearing with exhibits showing the building's front facade Lower. um, and compliant with the height requirement. However, in doing so, the architecture and the massing of the building became inconsistent with the findings by the Historic Preservation Commission and the recommended certificate of appropriateness. this. as proposed and as shown as the attached project plans. The building would maintain the height of the existing building. and can include a pop-up feature that includes a sign that identifies the building. The building will still be lower in height as compared to the adjacent buildings, but uncharacteristically so with lower height. And as a result of this, the applicant has filed for a variance for relief from the application of the zoning ordinance with respect to the height regulations within the first 15 feet of a parcel. line. Um, the findings for the variants are included in the staff report and, um, Staff supports the findings for the variants. |
| 00:27:13.14 | Jeffrey Graham | And here's an image of the proposed for the project. |
| 00:27:24.52 | Jeffrey Graham | Um, In addition, um, and the the 20, 21 planning commission meeting, the commission inquired about the possibility a future formula retail business using the Napa farms conditional use permit to operate. Per service to the city's municipal code, Approval of a conditional use permit shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid for the time period and we have not specified whether or not of ownership of the site or structure to which it applies. In addition, a change in ownership business or the use itself would trigger the need for an occupational use permit The occupational use permit process, um, and staff will determine if the change in ownership business or use is still consistent WENT. the approved conditional use permit. |
| 00:28:26.99 | Jeffrey Graham | So the Required findings are listed below. And in the staff report, um, and staff is supportive of the findings made for all of the, the entitlements that are being I'm not sure. Ask for tonight. |
| 00:28:51.81 | Jeffrey Graham | In regards to correspondence, Um, the following. And, Um, shows the correspondence submitted prior to the staff report publication. and also like correspondence submitted as of noon, the day of the hearing. All correspondence has been uploaded to the city's agenda. and should be included in the packets for the project tonight. |
| 00:29:29.12 | Jeffrey Graham | So, I think that's a good question. um, after circulating the Oops. |
| 00:29:35.97 | Monica Finnegan | Thank you. |
| 00:29:41.61 | Jeffrey Graham | Okay. After circulating the packet of materials for the project to the Planning Commission for review, Staff received questions from one of the planning commissioners for this project. Uh, and I will briefly be going over the questions. The memo has also been uploaded and was distributed. to the Planning Commission prior to this meeting tonight. The first question. that was included with the questions was where can the, when we find the Arbor support that supports the tree removal permit request um, The municipal code requires a tree removal permit in order to remove any protected trees. the applicant submitted and a tree removal a permit application and it was included with the memo. um, as included indicated on page 11 of the March 3rd a staff report the responsibility of issuing a tree removal permit is with the planning commission. I'm not sure. if the protected trees are on private, DEVELOP PROPERTY. and to the city engineer if the trees are on public property. The true trees that are slated for removal are on public property. And so the. Authority for issuance is with the city engineer. I'm not sure. also included with the memo, is the 2018 I'm going to ask you a question. prepared by Bartlett tree experts which indicates that trees are compromise. with buried root collars, potential root damage to the sidewalks, and various other programs. I'm not sure. that methods. Yeah. after the I'm not sure. City engineer has reviewed the required findings and concludes that they can be met if the planning commission approval is granted for the project that necessitates the removal. |
| 00:31:56.98 | Jeffrey Graham | Second question, is there an existing parking waiver on this property. Can you benchmark a waiver on any similar uses on Bridgeway that has this waiver? Um, staff is not aware of any parking waivers at the subject site. The subject property project is the only project staff is aware of since 2008 that has requested to invoke a section of the code. which allows for downtown parking survey and shared parking model to be utilized for a waiver of parking requirements. The next question, what is the narrowest sidewalk clearance, not including the tree gate at the outdoor seating barrier and the public right of way? THE FAMILY. staff. uh, The stats response is that the measurement from the outdoor seating barrier to the edge of the tree grade is approximately three and a half feet wide The measurement from the outdoor seating area to the edge of the sidewalk is approximately six and a half feet wide. |
| 00:32:48.16 | Andrew Junius | MEN. |
| 00:32:57.38 | Jeffrey Graham | I'm not sure. the Next question was regarding more information regarding the blade signage relative to the encroachment request Stats responses, the detailed specifications for the blade signage can be found on page five of the project's signed plans, attachment six, of the March 3rd 2021 staff report page one, of the plans and detachment six provides a section of the blade sign. relative to the building face in the property line. And page five demonstrates that the blade sign projects approximately 32 and a quarter inches from The first floor building face at the property line and shows that it is proposed at around 10, I'm not sure. around 10 feet above the concrete sidewalk. And the final question, is there a dissimilar dispute with the lens I don't know. Bank of America. of Wells Fargo and the lands of City of Sausalito. and the con properties. Lot eight. in order to address any instabilities the city owned property at 729 Bridgeway. and the city's Geotechnical engineer Miller Pacific has recommended that the city work with adjacent property owners to stabilize the area Adjacent property owners may include the properties at 719 to 725 Ridgeway, 14 and 10, Excelsior Lane and 120. Well, uh, stack recommends, um, approval of the draft resolution. attachment one and two. of the staff report. which is outlined here. I'm not sure. The alternatives that the Planning Commission can take are also outlined in the staff report. And this concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all may have. In addition, the The applicant is also here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. |
| 00:35:02.89 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Jeffrey. one of the best presentations and staff reports I've seen. So really appreciate you being so thorough and going through everything with us. and for this information in your memo today. So that's incredibly helpful. So thank you for that and thank you for clarifying the the written public comment that we've received on this, it's important that That's on the record. Sometimes we do receive late comment while we're already in the hearing and we're not aware of what's coming in on our email so Thank you for memorializing that as well. That's important. At this time, I wanted to open this up for questions from the commissioners of staff. Um, so Let's see. do you want to start us off? Do you have any questions? |
| 00:35:55.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. Thank you, Chair Fowler and Jeffrey, thank you for your thorough report. I do have a few questions and Some of them go back to the report from Sheldon Singh at the last public hearing uh, With regard to the discussion about sidewalk congestion as discussed with Mr. Singh at the last meeting, Moving out the retail storefront from where you see it on that mural, that's where the current storefront is. to the location that they're proposing is going to cause congestion on the sidewalk. So it's not just the distance to the greats. It's also where is the front of the building at the retail level. The floor plan says the following. It says the layout shown for this space, and I'm reading, is for preliminary planning purposes only to illustrate the possible uses. The final layout of the space will be determined and submitted for approval by future tenants. So for me, this raises a couple of questions. |
| 00:36:50.96 | Andrew Junius | to work with. |
| 00:37:01.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, We talked about that they would go back and look at the floor plan and see if they, so they could go back to what the current location of the retail storefront is, where that mural, where you see that mural in the photograph. And if we want to, if other planning commissioners did agree with that concept, would we insert a condition of approval saying they must do that? Or would they need to have another plan that shows that submitted to us? That's the first part of the question. The second part is the CUP runs with the land, which is what you indicated. And I'm confused by this language on the plan because it appears that the tenant is going to have to come back in, even though I thought that they were specifying the tenant, and submit the floor plan at that time. So I'm trying to reconcile this running with the land with that note on the plan that says that this is not the actual layout of the space and that they will be coming back in for approval on that. So my first question is, have you had conversations with the applicant? They were supposed to go back, I thought, and go back to the original where the current storefront is and not be pushing it out. If you know anything about that, and I can also ask that the applicant we get to that. And then secondly, are they intending for the tenant to come back in for approval at a later time? Because that's what the floor plan says. |
| 00:38:33.78 | Jeffrey Graham | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. I haven't had a conversation regarding that question, the applicant would be the best to answer those. questions. |
| 00:38:46.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, my second set of questions on the slope stability. Condition number 53A2 says the following, the preliminary estimate shall include a minimal percentage margin of error, no less than 25%. I'm very confused about what that means. If the final cost goes beyond 25%, what happens? I mean, I don't know. Do you understand what that language, you obviously have gone back and forth with this language and many red lines on it. What does that sentence mean? |
| 00:39:24.07 | Jeffrey Graham | I'm going to defer to the Community Development Director on this one. |
| 00:39:28.62 | Director Whalen | Sure, thank you, Commissioner Luxembourg. So my understanding of that condition from the Department of Public Works is that the city will be responsible for preparing that estimate with that amount of contingency, the 25% contingency. The costs when they come through will be the costs and the agreement would share the costs in the way that the parties come to an agreement. in the, as they come together in the collaborative agreement, the cost sharing allocation will be distributed through that agreement. So the preliminary estimate, my understanding, is to give an idea of the costs. |
| 00:40:09.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, all right, I guess. It's just strange that it says shall have this percentage, but they have no way of knowing that it, that, I mean, you're saying they're adding a contingency, which is slightly different than what that language represents. I mean, it might be better to just say that. Okay, I understand what you're saying. The second thing is if the applicant goes with the alternative approach, Is it the intent that the stabilization work or whatever wall they build in the event that there's a slide adjacent to the site, not on their property, that that wall is going to protect what they're building. If they decide to go with this, I mean, they can't build what's not on their property. I understand that. So is the intent that the alternative approach will ensure that whatever they're doing will protect that property. I understand there's two approaches. I'm just trying to see what the scope of the alternative approach is. Is it the intent to protect 719, 725 Bridgeway from a potential slide above it? |
| 00:41:29.01 | Kristina Feller | Director Whalen, can you help us understand that? |
| 00:41:31.95 | Director Whalen | Yeah, let me, thank you, Commissioner Luxembourg. I'm going to go to the actual conditions. If you give me a moment to look at the language again for the alternative conditions. |
| 00:41:36.47 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:42:22.57 | Kristina Feller | Well, while Director Whelan is looking at that, Commissioner Luxenberg, let me just, ask a quick follow-up question to you as part of this conversation. I'm assuming with the first part of your question, part of the concern of this commission should also be at the stop, start, stop, start, stop, start. We don't want to demolish a building there and leave a gaping hole. while there's an issue with Um, you know, the hillside, And we want to make sure that when this project starts it will It will. easily go through to completion without major stopping and starting. Is that correct? |
| 00:43:04.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know about stopping and starting, but I understand what you're saying in that regard, but I think it's important that you know, if that we understand the scope of the geotech work of what they're trying to accomplish. If they're going to build a wall that will protect this property in the event there's a slide above and then all this stuff just falls down next to it, It's got structural integrity that I understand that. I do understand the complication here that they can't build something on property they don't know. So, but on the other hand, and they should not be, and they should be able to go ahead and build something without getting approval of others. Uh, as long as whatever they're doing, it does whatever, but I'm not clear in reading the wording of this condition. |
| 00:43:37.34 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:43:53.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of what the actual scope of the geotech is. I mean, that's what I'm confused. |
| 00:43:57.27 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 00:43:57.32 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So Director Whelan, do you have that in front of you or are you able to help you? |
| 00:44:03.41 | Director Whalen | I do, I am looking at it right now. And I think it would be best probably if your public works director weighed in on that question. And I am trying to locate him and bring him into this meeting right now. So if we can hold that question and possibly answer it after applicants presentation, if we can locate Mr. |
| 00:44:17.54 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:44:22.18 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:44:22.26 | Kristina Feller | I can't. |
| 00:44:25.15 | Director Whalen | done. |
| 00:44:26.05 | Kristina Feller | Bye. All right, let's park that to the side for now, and we will come back to that. Commissioner Luxenberg, did you have any other questions for staff at this time? that we can get. |
| 00:44:38.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So at this time I don't, I mean, I think this is a great project. I just want to, we, I think we all want to make sure it's just done right. So obviously that's the goal. |
| 00:44:44.27 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:44:46.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:44:46.53 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:44:46.61 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you so much. Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:44:50.87 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. I would just a question for staff. I was a little surprised. I couldn't really find this in the code, changing subjects completely to the formula retail part of this, I find fascinating. and have a lot of experience in and other jurisdictions. Is the trigger really two stores? So this being their third store means they're a formula retailer. I read in the staff report that they've got a, two other locations, one at the airport and one someplace else. This is their third one. I mean, I would have thought that just, as a point of clarification, I'm just trying to understand how many, is it just two store to become a formula retailer? So you're treated like, Walmart if you have a second store, in a second shop or some kind, it seems a bit, THE END OF THE END OF THE I just wanted to clarify that. that I'm reading that correctly. |
| 00:45:34.74 | Director Whalen | Sure. If I, if I can't, Chef Terfeller, answer that question. Thank you for the question. The our formula retail regulations in Sausalito are not based on the number of locations that a business has, but the standardization of the business. So if there is a, standard logo, standard layout of display, standard items sold, those sorts of things, then it is a formula retail business. |
| 00:46:04.49 | Andrew Junius | So there's no threshold. The second one would be if there's standardized presentation and marketing and branding, that constitutes formula retail, okay? |
| 00:46:11.97 | Director Whalen | Correct. And the key, Commissioner Junius, is if the language in the code is, if it is a required standardization, I believe. I can pull the... I'll give you some word language for you if you'd like. |
| 00:46:26.08 | Andrew Junius | No, I was reading it myself. I just, I thought there'd be a number and I guess there wasn't because of that. So thank you for the clarification. Sure, thank you. |
| 00:46:33.26 | Kristina Feller | And any other questions of staff? Mr. Genius. Thank you. Okay. All right, Vice Chair Graff. |
| 00:46:40.96 | Richard Graef | No questions of staff at this time. |
| 00:46:43.66 | Kristina Feller | Okay. I have a couple that I'll put out on the table here. What is the standard CUP time limit that we see in the city? |
| 00:46:58.66 | Director Whalen | the time limit to implement the CUP? Thank you. |
| 00:47:01.72 | Kristina Feller | No, but if we approve a conditional use permit, what is the typical timeframe that, that approval has. It was mentioned in the staff report that there's a time limit I want to know what that time limit typically is. |
| 00:47:17.76 | Director Whalen | So conditional use permits run with the land. So they run in perpetuity, unless there is a lapse in the use. And then the conditional use permit is no longer valid. |
| 00:47:32.72 | Kristina Feller | what's considered a lapse in the use. |
| 00:47:34.94 | Director Whalen | Six months have elapsed. |
| 00:47:36.31 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. Thank you. Okay. Okay. And then can we... can we talk about the parking for just a minute because I obviously understand this is right downtown and this is a really, really important project, very visible. We want this to be successful. but these ordinances and codes are there for a reason. And I understand that there's no existing and I think that's a great question. I think that's a great question. Oh, commercial. Correct. |
| 00:48:18.08 | Jeffrey Graham | That is correct. |
| 00:48:19.88 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and it seems like they're looking for a way from the parking And, you know, I raised this because this is all happening at the same time that, you know, there's discussion about parking lot one, potentially changing its use as well, which would be would impact this particular project. Again, I want to make sure that this is a successful project And to do that, you know, you need to have, you know, parking and convenience because it, you know, this is considered somewhat convenient retail. There is certainly a lot of pedestrian movement in this part of town. but there's also destination as well and convenience retail. Um, How is this handled in other parts of Bridgeway in this part of town? |
| 00:49:13.49 | Jeffrey Graham | Sure, I can speak to Um... The fact that a downtown parking survey and shared parking model was implemented for this project. um, and it found No. And I feel like, you know, that we're going to have Director Rayleigh McChie. wouldn't mind helping me out. and explaining that. Um, that Okay. |
| 00:49:42.11 | Kristina Feller | Oh, sh- Yeah, no, Director Whalen, definitely, because I know that there's sort of a rather old study that the city has referenced here, but maybe you can shed a little bit of light on this. Again, the goal is to make this successful. |
| 00:49:58.75 | Director Whalen | Sure, thank you for the question and opportunity to provide clarification. So there was a parking study and a shared parking model that was developed by a consultant in 1997. It was updated in 2015 and the city's zoning ordinance was also subsequently updated to eliminate the reference to the 1997 study so that it could be a fluid document. The parking study was again updated in 2019 and utilized for this project at that time. |
| 00:50:31.46 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:50:34.88 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and where, what, can you kind of specify where it is anticipating parking for projects like this to go? Is it just the public lot? |
| 00:50:46.47 | Director Whalen | So the shared parking model looks at parking during different times of the day and evaluates whether or not there's adequate parking in certain areas of the city for new development, existing parking. And so that utilizing that the model to the point for the purposes of this project found that there already is enough parking to cover the waiver that the applicant is proposing. The other, I think important key element to note here is that there are five different conditions that could exist for a parking waiver. And one of them is simply the replacement of an existing structure. And so the applicant does meet that finding. um, on its face without the parking study, but they did go ahead and commission the parking study to demonstrate that there is sufficient parking in downtown. |
| 00:51:47.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then I just wanted to touch on the, the blade signage and for the record, if you could clarify that the March submission and the hearing we had and any drawings associated with that that signage has not changed to whatever Drawings were submitted. or for this project, excuse me, for this hearing. Is that correct? |
| 00:52:13.16 | Jeffrey Graham | That's correct. The signage is the same as the March 3rd meeting. |
| 00:52:18.31 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. And at the March 3rd meeting, there was an issue with the story polls at the top of of the building. And can you just, again, for clarification of everybody here, can you just clarify Um, that sort of, I guess you're calling it a pop out. Is that what you're referring to it? |
| 00:52:40.40 | Jeffrey Graham | I believe the staff was |
| 00:52:42.76 | Kristina Feller | Not a pop-up. Not a pop-up. |
| 00:52:43.55 | Jeffrey Graham | Yeah. |
| 00:52:44.36 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Can you clarify if that, what the height of that is and if that is consistent with what? Is it the same height as the story polls before or were those adjusted just again for clarification the record here. |
| 00:53:00.38 | Jeffrey Graham | Sure, so on page, uh, city. A3.1 of the project plans. the proposed height. is just over 34 feet. And that is reflected. in the I want to store your pause today. we received confirmation from the applicant. |
| 00:53:28.49 | Kristina Feller | Right. Okay. And is that consistent with what it was before? |
| 00:53:35.83 | Jeffrey Graham | Yeah. I believe at the March 3rd meeting, it was a little shorter. I don't have the exact height. I can look in the past staff report for that. |
| 00:53:42.36 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. That's okay. And I also know the applicant is listening and so. that's a question that we'll probably ask them that if they can't cover in their presentation, we'll probably get clarification in the question with them too. Sure. And then finally, regarding, because this has been a big heated issue with, the slope behind this property. I have to say I'm pretty disappointed that there doesn't appear to be full concurrence here. This has been going on for quite some time. And this is one of the major reasons this was continued from the last time and it it It doesn't sound like there is a meeting of the minds. I don't want to mischaracterize that, but can staff just, I'll highlight again for the avoidance of doubt here, just summarize, highlight what, what the, what the issue is and where there is a lack of agreement |
| 00:54:45.58 | Jeffrey Graham | Um, Director Riley, wouldn't you mind. |
| 00:54:52.22 | Director Whalen | Sure, so there was a significant comment from the Kahn family regarding the alternative, condition that is being proposed. So that would be 53B, I believe. And they provided red lines and suggested changes to the condition that staff drafted the revised condition. Some of the points from the cons were that they wanted to see a requirement for a maintenance, maintenance responsibilities for the applicant for the, clearing debris that comes down the hillside in perpetuity. And the city looked at that request from the Kahn family. However, the city cannot mandate that the applicant in perpetuity clear debris on property that they may not own. So we have included in the recommended revised condition, some encouragement for the applicant to work with adjacent property owners and develop a maintenance agreement to remove material that may fall against the structure associated with the alternative approach. The another one of the points from the Khan family was that they thought it was important that the alternative approach um, be prescriptive in terms of what needs to happen on the applicant's own property to stabilize the slope. from staffs response was that we could not include that in the draft condition of approval from a risk management standpoint. It's important that the revised final conditions applicable to the alternative approach do not prescribe a certain solution, but instead require the applicant to develop plans on their own property and the city can use then discretion to require a third party review of those plans I'm sure the cons will also. have an opportunity and utilize the public comment period to let the commission know of any additional concerns that I may have missed. |
| 00:56:58.87 | Kristina Feller | Perfect. Thank you. Thank you for adding that in. Okay. Commissioners do you have any additional questions for staff at this time If you do not, I'm going to ask for the applicant to prepare the details. I see Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:57:15.43 | Andrew Junius | of the novels. |
| 00:57:18.40 | Kristina Feller | Yes, sorry. |
| 00:57:19.48 | Andrew Junius | All right, no, thank you, Chair Feller. Very quickly, Director Whelan, is it your understanding that the conditions as written are now acceptable to the applicant? I'll certainly ask the same question to the applicant, but the understanding is that they're supportive of this as written. |
| 00:57:34.88 | Director Whalen | And they have put that in writing as well. |
| 00:57:37.01 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. And then a final follow up to the staff, I thought your question, Chair Feller, was an excellent one about timing in a variety of different ways. that just to be clear, under condition eight, the applicant here, if it's approved, the conditional use that they can, they have two years to actually implement, right? To start construction within two years. Is that generally correct? |
| 00:57:59.66 | Director Whalen | They'll have two years from when the building permit is pulled, that is implementation of the permit. So once the building permit is pulled, then there's two years to implement the permits. |
| 00:58:14.07 | Andrew Junius | the project pursuant to the conditional use of the term. |
| 00:58:16.34 | Director Whalen | Oh, are you sorry? I'm not looking at the resolution. I apologize. Commissioner Junius is, I may have been miss misspoken about the designer re-permit. |
| 00:58:23.15 | Andrew Junius | That is the issue. Yeah, this is the conditional use permit number eight. Okay, I'll take that. And I thought to Chair Feller's question was like, how long Can this go on forever? So I think there's really two issues to make sure everybody understands. The first is, once they're eventually approved. I think that it really says they have two years to actually pull the permit and start the project that is the conditional use, that is required by the conditional use. And then at that point, I would assume the permit is governed by the rules of the building code and how long that lasts and if they need extensions to finish the work. But I also, So is that relatively straightforward? |
| 00:58:57.22 | Director Whalen | So I am looking at the condition number eight here. So the conditional use permit will expire in two years. Um, following the effective date of approval, which is 10 days after any approval is granted. unless an extension has been filed prior to the expiration date, or the project entitlement has been implemented and implementation of the conditional use permit is if applicable conditions of approval, prerequisite to construction have been satisfied construction permits have been issued. |
| 00:59:34.07 | Andrew Junius | understood. |
| 00:59:34.26 | Director Whalen | So that's the trigger. |
| 00:59:35.62 | Andrew Junius | okay and i i think you might want to work the reword that condition in number eight a little bit because it doesn't have that or at the end. It basically says it expires in two years unless you get an extension Clearly that's not the case. If you implement conditional use, you've got it. runs with the land in perpetuity, as long as you maintain, you know, satisfy the conditions, et cetera. I'm pretty sure maybe a little, You know, wordsmithing there might be appropriate. I'll leave that to you. I'm not sure. I guess the other just high level question I thought was really interesting. I, I don't know what, I don't know how cities, you know, ensure that once a project actually starts construction, you know, building demolished, happen. I wish we had ways to make sure that they finish the project, but I don't know if we do. just an observation. Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 01:00:22.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Junius. I think it's important because when we, Dr. Whalen, when we're talking about pulling permits and having two years, I think you need to clarify the difference between pulling a demo permit than pulling a building permit. And when does that two years start the trigger? We don't, we want to obviously avoid this is, you know, where the, This is center ice. This is our downtown. We don't want some gaping hole of a demolished building with no construction activity happening there. for a lot of different reasons. We wanna make sure that, you know, if there is some lag between demo and construction, that there is sufficient language and the conditions of approval that that there's not just a gaping hole there that somehow there is some, some type of stylish, um, or building wrap or something like that. So this isn't an eyesore. and will only add and leverage value to our very important and very treasured downtown. Um, Let's think about that. Let's put that on the table here and make sure that our conditions will be sufficient to support a successful project endeavor here from soup to nuts, from demo to occupied buildings to Commissioner Junius's point. I think it's a really good one. |
| 01:01:59.30 | Director Whalen | I can, Chair Feller, respond to some of those points. We wouldn't typically allow for the demolition permit to occur unless the applicant is substantially close to receiving their building permit. And in some cases, we'll hold the demo permit until the building permit has been issued for that very reason that we wanna make sure that the project is almost ready to go for construction. The other point that I wanted to make is that the time limit here for the design re-permit is the applicant will have two years to pull a building permit. So that's the two year timeframe. We do have construction limits. So once the building permit has been pulled, then the applicant will have for this project, it'll be 30 months to construct the project. There are provisions in municipal code for extensions to be granted by the zoning administrator or the planning commission. And sometimes projects do utilize those extensions of the construction time limits. If the project does exceed the construction time limits, there are penalty fees that the applicant I must pay. |
| 01:03:21.50 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Good. I'm sure we will come back to this in our deliberations. But for now, let me just look for any more questions. questions of staff, from the commission. I don't see any. So I'd like to at this time welcome the applicant to give their presentation. Um, The applicant has 15 minutes to do their presentation. I see Mr. Rex is here. Let's make sure he has the ability to share his screen. and all of that looks like you are a co-host now Michael. We also have the timer clock up here, which we'll put to 15 minutes, if I could ask Maria to do that. And again, just for, I know you've been through these hearings many, many times, but for anyone else in the audience should, for any reason, we stop you or ask questions that time does not count against your 15 minutes. And if you want to indicate to us anybody else from your team that would like to speak, And if you want to reserve any time at the end, then we can give you a heads up if you're not looking at the timer clock, if you want to save some time at the end, so you just let us know. |
| 01:04:38.46 | Michael Rex | Okay, thank you. Can you hear me okay? |
| 01:04:41.09 | Kristina Feller | We can welcome tonight. |
| 01:04:43.37 | Michael Rex | Okay, nice to be here. Andrew and Marsha August could not join us tonight. They're traveling at the moment. That's they regret not being able to be here because it's so important to them. David Sincotta will be speaking first. I'm gonna then jump in to provide some information. I'm gonna give you a little bit of a little bit of a information and then David will wrap up. Okay, and we do wanna save some time for rebuttal. Before I begin though, a point of order. You asked a lot of really good questions that I'd like to answer. I didn't prepare that for this presentation because how could I know? I would assume that if I need, I don't know if I'll need it, but if I do need, time to answer those questions. Does it matter whether you ask them before or after my presentation? |
| 01:05:43.84 | Kristina Feller | Well, again, any questions that we ask you will not count against your 15 minutes. So we can save those till the end if you, because obviously you wouldn't have known those questions. So you can go ahead with your presentation |
| 01:05:50.96 | Michael Rex | Yeah. |
| 01:05:51.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:51.40 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:05:57.03 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:06:00.85 | Kristina Feller | I'll ask the Zoom team to also unmute Mr. Zucada, who I believe is unmuted here and you can turn your camera on if you would like to. And then just let me know how much time you'd like to reserve to the end and we'll go ahead and get started here. |
| 01:06:20.12 | Michael Rex | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:06:21.32 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. three or four minutes at the end or what would you like? |
| 01:06:24.71 | Michael Rex | part. probably three minutes. |
| 01:06:27.16 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so Maria, if you can help me keep an eye on the timer and don't, and uh, give us a heads up when we're coming on three minutes. |
| 01:06:36.74 | Michael Rex | Yeah. |
| 01:06:36.76 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Thank you. We're gonna hand it over to you then. to you and your team and start the clock. |
| 01:06:43.05 | Michael Rex | Thank you. I want to thank Lily and Jeffrey Graham. Graham's our fourth planner on this project. He had a lot to come up to speed on, did a great job, both planners. Just as a way of background, as you know, it's our second hearing. We've waited seven months since our last hearing. I've been working on this project for four years. To give you some perspective, we submitted to the city over three and a half years ago, and we have a building sitting empty since for the last year and a half. So it's really important. Tremendous amount of revenue has been lost. you And it's important we get approval tonight. We're asking for your approval tonight. We have a building from 1894. Historic analysis and structural analysis determined that it's been remodeled so often and so badly that the original building is unrecognizable and it's structurally at risk. It's not structurally sound. And originally we were going to try to renovate it It turned out that it wasn't really practical or reasonably possible. And that's, so we changed the application to replace it with a similar building with a similar use. And Historic Preservation Commission approved it. That was a year and a half ago when they approved it. So it's taken us a long time to get here. And it is considered historic, not because of what it looks like. It's considered historic only because it's a contributor to the streetscape solely by its scale and height. And we determined from the very beginning that we needed to, if we're going to replace the building, it had to be a similar scale and height. the on the parking just briefly here, I, I, now there's no, specific waiver for parking. The use we're putting there is very similar to what exists with the exception of some minor increase from retail to restaurant because we're adding a few seats inside, which Napa Farms tells us without a few seats inside when it's really cold and raining, they won't, it won't pencil out economically. The grandfathered status for the use is there is 12 parking spaces. It's unofficial but there has been use there. And the requirement for a brand new building for on-site parking is 18. So the relief we're asking for really is only six. That's the increase in intensity use has been there for decades. And they're not just using the parking model, I'm not sure. I'm gonna come back to that because it's really cogent to your questions about the parking model. on the uh... The benefit of this project is not only to have a safe building and preserve its historic value by its scale and height, but we're keeping the three units down, residential units on the second floor. But not just keeping them, they'll be brand new. And one, the largest one, two bedrooms, will be de-restricted for the next 40 years. If it's rented, it will go to a low income earner, and if it's sold as a condominium, it must be sold to somebody in a moderate income bracket. That doesn't, that's not the case now. And so that's quite a benefit. In terms of colors, they're very muted. I could share my screen briefly here to show you that. Here's the colors. God. Can you see the colors? |
| 01:10:34.90 | Kristina Feller | Hold on a minute, there we go. |
| 01:10:37.19 | Michael Rex | No doubt. It's kind of a warm gray. The window sash and doors are black. The roof, only the uproof people looked down on it, but we kept it dark, not bright. Rod iron railings will be black. So it's basically a one-grade building with black detailing. And we did that purposely so it would blend in. Okay? Another... Let me just keep going here. Um, Yeah. the Um, I wanted to point out that on the, Jeffrey mentioned that we want to sell beer on the premises. Well, not just beer, beer and wine, just point of clarity. And the tree grates, the tree grates, we measured between the wrought iron railing, five feet to the opening in the tree grate. Thank you. not the tree grate itself because the tree grate will be perfectly level with the sidewalk and people can walk over it and and uh wheelchairs can roll over it just like the greats at larry mindell's outdoor cafe in fact we'd like to use the same grades they will not have a dip in it like some of the tree wells and they will not have that granite that settles. So it shouldn't be any problem. The five feet will be completely clear and accessible. And it's only at one point. Although you might want to change condition, where is it here? Condition 26 says, four feet. you probably want to change condition 26 to read five feet. And, uh, I I. On the rooftop equipment, how am I doing on time here? I can't see, when I screen share, I can't see the timer. Now I got to get back to my screen. |
| 01:12:33.90 | Monica Finnegan | We have 9 minutes and 11 seconds. |
| 01:12:36.06 | Michael Rex | Okay, I'm doing okay. Um, the roof equipment here with you. Let me pull up the drawings. Here they are. Okay. I better enlarge it. You'll never be able to see it. Okay. Um, hang on. Yeah. We located the rooftop equipment in the very center of the building so it's far from the neighbors and it's tucked up behind the parapet so you can't see it from the street. We didn't put a screen around it because the neighbors above are the only ones that can see it and they're up so high they'll look right down on it the screen would not be affected. We also have a pizza flue coming up out of the grade in the back. Again, we located it as far from property lines as we could. We screened it from the outdoor living areas behind the residential units with a hedge. We have to set it away from the hedge two feet for fire protection. So, none of that was on the plants before, and now they are, okay? I also, On the building height, I'd like to just show you Let me pull that out. We did a before, you know, an option so you can see the difference. And let me enlarge that for you. Yeah. What's below is the one without the variance. What's above is what we're asking for. You can see that the building looks squat, the proportions are poor, the relationship between adjacent buildings is poor. That's why we first agreed to it and then changed our mind. We thought this was a mistake. because the building's value is its scale and height, we thought we should replicate the scale and height. We did pop up the center area here, It's not as high as the existing building. The dotted line is not the roof behind, the existing roof. The existing roof peaks up above the existing parapet. So the building we're proposing is lower than the existing building. The part that bumps up in the middle is only 18 inches high higher than the cornice. but it's only five and a half inches above the height limit in the first 15 feet of the lot. So the variance is to give us relief for five and a half inches, only for this pop-up in the very center of the building, which we tried just chopping off or lowering it five inches. And again, it looked awful. It seemed to need a break in that horizontal line. Five inches is de minimis. It shouldn't be a problem. And if you read the findings, they can all be clearly made as staff supports, okay? So that's that one. The, So I'm going to turn it over to David now. And then wrap up. after his presentation. David, all yours. |
| 01:15:40.65 | David Sincotta | Okay, thank you. Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? |
| 01:15:44.42 | Kristina Feller | Yes, we can hear you. you know, |
| 01:15:45.75 | David Sincotta | Yes. Very good. Thank you for including us in this. And I will try to answer some of the questions that were raised by both Commissioner Luxenberg and Commissioner Feller the I really want to talk about specifically about the conditions of approval that deal with the slope and the stability. I want to make it clear that the project applicant understands what their obligations are. their obligations to submit plans. that will not only protect its existing building, but also make sure that it's plans that they do implement will not have any harm to any of the adjacent properties city's property or the cons properties Uh-huh. Department of Public Works has made it clear in the conditions of approval that at a minimum, We have to have a soils report. by a soils engineer, we have to have a structural report by a civil engineer, that we have to put some additional plans and calculations And that the Department of Public Works can also ask for additional borings and studies for that. We also understand that as is conditioned on other projects, that if there are still some questions after that, It could be a peer review that's being asked for by the Department of Public Works to make sure that the plans that are proposed will not harm anybody but will actually create some stability for the slope for all of us in that area. Um, I do want to point out that one of the conditions THAT WAS different from Mr. Khan's proposal is he had sort of a peer review occurring first. and then having us submit our plans. I don't. I don't think that's traditionally the way the Department of Public Works works. I think that's why the final conditions of approval that were approved by the city and by DPW as a submitting of plans first, And if there are additional work that is necessary or additional study, Additional peer review might be asked. To address another question that was raised about Uh, not having this project start with its demolition because of its primary condition. location. on the center of Bridgeway. Uh-huh. can tell you that There is a commitment on the part of the project applicants, Andrew August. that you can see that they already did and it was empty for so long they put that murals in to make it a little bit more attractive. but I also want you to know that in other jurisdictions, I've seen the condition B that you can't get your demolition permit until your building permit is approved. And I'm if That's not the policy here in Salino. I would suggest that it would be something that would be acceptable to the project family. So... Um, Let's see. |
| 01:18:46.15 | Kristina Feller | Just giving you a time check, I'm not trying to interrupt you. We're at three minutes. |
| 01:18:51.19 | David Sincotta | Okay. Thank you. I think I've addressed Some of the conditions that have been raised uh, I think Michael has done an excellent job of talking about some of the changes since the last project. and I'll let Michael wrap up and I'm available to answer any questions about the conditions dealing with the slope stability. conditions of approval. They're not exactly what we wanted. They are, I do want to add one more thing, the maintenance issue. I can tell you that the maintenance issue is something that we would like to work out. We also like to work out the collaborative approach if it's at all possible. We're willing to do that. To answer Mr. Luxembourg's question, I think that 25% contingency out. was, inserted at the request of of Mr. McGowan, DPW. make sure that there was adequate financing so that we could we all would know what we're getting into if we do a collaborative approach. So I think it's, Pretty much it. cycle around. |
| 01:19:49.36 | Michael Rex | Thank you, David. I wanna leave a moment or two for a rebuttal. But I do want to add that without this variance, the building won't look as good. It won't conform to the historic value of height and height. of scale. And I also, we approve all 100 conditions. It's amazing, it's exactly 100 conditions. And staff recommends approval. There's a resolution in your packet for your action tonight. We ask that you use and improve the project. Now, do you want me to respond to your questions after? |
| 01:20:24.10 | Kristina Feller | So let's go ahead and stop the clock. Zoom team, let's put it back at a minute 25. If you can do that or. We can add a couple seconds manually. Let's go ahead and stop that. Thank you. |
| 01:20:32.69 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:20:32.76 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:20:32.85 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:20:37.37 | Kristina Feller | Um, So first of all, thank you very much. you know, for the presentation. Thank you both for addressing some of the questions and incorporating those in your presentation. I know that we all do have some questions of you, the applicant, before we go to public comment. And I just want to give the opportunity to the commissioners first if there are any questions at this time for the applicant, as we've just heard there, their presentation if you have any additional questions of them. And then we can dive into some more detail to what we've already already asked. Um, yes, commissioner Junius, please. |
| 01:21:18.09 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Keller. I just wanted to acknowledge Mr. Sincada offer of a condition that makes it 100% clear that the demo permit and the building permit come out together. So that we know the project can start construction the minute the building comes down. I thank the applicant for that. |
| 01:21:34.27 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I concur and I think that staff that's something we'll be looking at as a condition here. So just giving you a heads up. Thank you, Commissioner Junius. I know Vice Chair Graff, you had your hand up as well. |
| 01:21:48.51 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Chair Feller. I'm not sure. I'm looking at sheep |
| 01:21:52.07 | Kristina Feller | I'm not. |
| 01:21:56.88 | Richard Graef | Oh, let's see here. I'm not sure. Move over and yell. Bear with me. A4.1. the site section. Um, And Uh... It's a little scary to me, I see this giant slope and I see a retaining wall And I, don't know enough about the physical issues here. Um, But I want to be assured that the engineering of this wall the height of it. the position of it and all that is really going to do what it's supposed to do. Um, I think the intent is certainly clear. But, um... I just would appreciate a little bit more explanation of the thinking that went into this. It could be brief. And also I see, and it was mentioned that the, pizza exhaust. goes underground and I guess I'm assuming that there's no issues with that as long as it's I Thank you. done correctly. So that's about as where my biggest concern I have no other questions about project. when we have our chance to talk about it. have other things I would comment on. |
| 01:23:27.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Michael, do you want to comment or respond to anything vice chair of graph brought up |
| 01:23:36.95 | Michael Rex | Um, Sure, I can respond to individual questions as they arise. I also took notes. |
| 01:23:42.94 | David Sincotta | I also took notes. if you want me to about the |
| 01:23:47.09 | Michael Rex | Yeah, I also took notes of the questions you asked before my presentation and |
| 01:23:52.61 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:23:53.39 | Michael Rex | Um, I don't know. |
| 01:23:54.18 | Kristina Feller | We'll get those for sure. Don't worry. |
| 01:23:55.90 | Michael Rex | Okay well I'll just I'll just answer the questions as they currently arise per person okay. So to Mr. Graff's Commissioner Graff's questions I want to show you that sheet that that he refers to okay so it's clear. Um, that this almost a story and a half wall that you see in this section is an existing wall. we're keeping it, okay? So we're not cutting the grade at this location. And the grade gets shallower as it moves to the north. It's not parallel to the building. And so we are going to push the building back along the north side where the grade isn't as steep. And you could see that grade dotted in in this drawing. If I could get a little pointer here, no, I can't. The dotted line is the slope where we plan on doing more digging. It's not nearly as high or as steep. behind the existing wall we're keeping. Okay, so however, As part of the development of the building permit set of plans, We'll have a full geotech report and engineering study to demonstrate how we can build this new building without destabilizing the slope behind the building. And if the staff wants peer review, we agree to peer review and we'll pay for it. So I just thought those would be important things to point out. The other question is, yeah, the flu goes underground. It'll, that exhaust flu will run in a waterproof chase, okay? Thank you. And so there shouldn't be any problem with it. |
| 01:25:50.05 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Michael. |
| 01:25:51.70 | Michael Rex | How? |
| 01:25:52.05 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:25:52.93 | Kristina Feller | Mr. Sincotta did you want to add anything to to this topic of the the slope |
| 01:25:59.44 | David Sincotta | And just briefly to address Mr. Graff's question, the but plans have not been done as to what it's going to take. . Mr. McGowan, MADER. Oh. a great effort to try to come up with some ideas as to what it might be. |
| 01:26:15.56 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 01:26:17.99 | David Sincotta | and And it included all kinds of things. It could be a shotcrete wall, could be a mesh net, could be a retaining wall. None of those things have been finally determined and won't be until all the studies are done and determine what's appropriate and submitted with those plans. And it's Mr. McGowan and his team and who he believes is necessary to review those that will help us make sure that that's |
| 01:26:42.83 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for that. Yes, our team with DPW is extraordinary, and there are a number of solutions, but you kind of need the geotech to know what the solution is going to be. right designed so certainly appreciate that fact and and I'm glad that DPW is engaged in this at this early stage. It's important. And obviously, again, we want this to be successful. bar none. Vice Chair Graf, did you have any other questions for the applicant? |
| 01:27:16.41 | Richard Graef | No, that really helps me because clearly the details of how this is all getting don't show at this stage. We're not able to to approve Um, whatever that final solution is. So I guess we just go with that. |
| 01:27:36.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:36.14 | Kristina Feller | Uh-huh. Yeah. Well, and I would support you actually need to have the design first and DPW needs to weigh in on that before you go into peer review so I would support that as a process that is a very standard industry practice. not uncommon to projects All over the U.S. Um, |
| 01:28:04.91 | Richard Graef | Have faith in the team. |
| 01:28:04.96 | Kristina Feller | I don't know. I do. |
| 01:28:08.05 | Richard Graef | All fair. |
| 01:28:09.16 | Kristina Feller | who, I do. Um, Yes and you know our seismic requirements in this part of the world are pretty stringent so um I I also trust our code which Commissioner Luxenberg, do you have any questions of the applicant at this time? |
| 01:28:24.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I do. I'm going to re-ask the questions in a slightly different way for Mr. Rex. And this is, as people have said, this is the 100% corner in Sausalito in a lot of respects. It's very congested, and this is a very important project, and it needs to move ahead. But let me ask this question that I ask. On your drawings, you indicate that the final layout for the tenant this is not approving it there's going to be a final layout coming back for approval which seems inconsistent with what I thought we were doing here I thought we were approving a plan for a specific tenant with a CUP that would run with the land. So are you intending once you have final plans for them to come back in? |
| 01:29:14.10 | Michael Rex | I don't know. Thanks for that question. AND I THINK THAT'S A There's the interior layout and there's the exterior layout. We don't anticipate any changes to the exterior of the building or its configuration or layout. For the internal layout, which is as far as I know, not regulated by the city, the layout we show is one that we developed in concert with Napa farms. It wasn't our layout, we developed it with them. And, but, And this is conceptual. They may want to make some adjustments. We want to give them an opportunity And that's why we noted that on the plan. But if they were, we would expect them to be minor because this plan was developed with them. So, but it shouldn't really be a big concern to the city because I don't believe the city regulates the interior layout of a store. No, because I won't change. |
| 01:30:25.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:30:26.47 | Jerome Christensen | Thank you. |
| 01:30:27.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was commenting on the language you used on your plan, which you said for approval. So let me go back to the exterior because I'm struggling. I don't think I can make a design review findings for circulation if you're going to not maintain where that mural is, where that existing storefront is. And I don't see why that given the layout is not final that that two extra fee would be really important for safety. And don't see why that couldn't occur. And I thought back in March, because I made this point strongly then, and we were going to come back with that |
| 01:30:35.59 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 01:31:09.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that set back the way it is now, the way sort of the doors are set back, And but six months later, we're still back to where we were. So I guess my question is, We can condition it on that. If other members agree, and I don't know if they do, we can make a condition that says that has to be set back, but it would be helpful to know whether Napa Farms can do that with this layout. It seems, looking at it, that it wouldn't be a big deal to move that back to where the existing storefront is. Is that possible? |
| 01:31:46.12 | Michael Rex | If the Planning Commission applied that condition, we would object and you'd have to deny the project and we'll appeal. And why? Why? For very good reason. We did have it recessed. We originally submitted it recessed uh, where those tables and chairs were pulled into the front of the building, okay? and It was rejected by the city. It was rejected because it was inconsistent with the historic guidelines. When we submitted the plan, the city sent our historic analysis for peer review. And Mr. Van Platt, said this is not consistent with historic guidelines and the consultants hired by the city at our cost agreed. because the guidelines call for, shop windows brought right up to the street. and recessed entry doors. So they wouldn't accept our application until because it was inconsistent with the city standards, unless we revised the plans and pulled those windows all the way forward to the street. And let me show you the plan so you can fully appreciate the change the city insisted upon. Um, I Let me enlarge it. Here you can see that the windows are up at the sidewalk because that's the pattern of historic buildings downtown. and The way system is, can you see the plan? |
| 01:33:28.57 | Kristina Feller | the waste system Michael, do you mind making that just a little bit bigger? I'm sorry for- Oh, sure. It would be helpful if we could see it zoomed in a little. |
| 01:33:34.60 | Michael Rex | Oh, sure. It's a good thing. It's large on my Is that big enough? Yeah. Okay. |
| 01:33:43.83 | Kristina Feller | That was fine, what you had. |
| 01:33:45.16 | Michael Rex | We lost it. Wow. |
| 01:33:47.52 | Kristina Feller | There you go. |
| 01:33:48.01 | Michael Rex | Oh, I got the wrong floor. Just a second, there we go. Okay, you can see the storefront windows are brought up to the street. and the front door is recessed. And when we did that, the city staff accepted it, the city's consultants accepted it, and so did the Historic Preservation Commission. So to ask us to go backwards and retrace all these steps and go back to HBC and delay the project even longer, particularly when we waited a year and a half for this hearing after the last HBC approval, is just simply, I'm sorry, a no. The other reason it's a no is because we simply wanna be treated like other businesses all up and down Bridgeway that have an outdoor cafe on the sidewalk. and to make us pull it back, is treating us unfairly. So we have very good reasons why we ask you to approve what's before you. |
| 01:34:50.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, I... First of all, I would suggest that I realize this has been a long process for you, but we've had a worldwide pandemic since that time. It has totally changed the way things operate, the way people walk. And so when you submitted this, that was a different, this is a new normal. So I'm not suggesting you go back and start over. I'm suggesting that you just maintain what the existing facade of this building is. And I would also suggest that if you look, because I did go up and down Bridgeway and look at other things, and their storefronts are set back the same two feet. This was done on multiple facades on bridgeways. So contrary to what you're suggesting, that is that way. So I do suggest that, you know, if it's possible within the layout of Napa farms, that I'm not suggesting a process go start over. I'm just suggesting we modify this on that issue. Let me ask my other questions on the slope stability. |
| 01:36:00.14 | Kristina Feller | Mr. Lexenberger. Just real quick. |
| 01:36:02.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:36:05.02 | Kristina Feller | We just want to ask the questions of the applicant right now. We can get into the debate and sort of confer a little bit with staff. on some of these issues too. So let's try to get to the questions. |
| 01:36:12.01 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 01:36:12.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand. |
| 01:36:16.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, that's why I moved on. So with regard to this alternative approach, I'm hearing a lot of discussion about process of how this report's gonna happen, there's gonna be a peer review and whatever, but I'm not, and I did get an understanding, we don't know how you're protecting this slope. slope well I'm hearing that you're going to do a report and geotext are going to find it out and then the C is going to review it and all these steps are going to happen and then somebody's going to come up with a solution and whether it's anything from the soil nail wall to whatever but I what I'm hoping that it's a little frustrating that we don't have an answer to what you're going to build and I'd be a little concerned I think chair Feller said this earlier about if we demolish if you have if you don't if you start demolition and in the answer to what's going to be built on this soil structure or whatever is it hasn't been decided and you get under construction and and then no one can agree on what the solution is and it sits vacant because no one can get an answer. I'm hearing a lot about, and I appreciate the fact that you're willing to build the alternative approach or the collaborative approach and there'll be a peer review in all these steps, but nobody has said what it is you're going to build, whether you're gonna, you know, what type of wall or whatever. And it seems like a little bit of a car before the horse. If we don't know that it can be built, uh everyone says that we got a process to figure out what would be built for we're going to approve a project without if i'm understanding what i heard tonight without knowing what's what the answer is. |
| 01:37:59.75 | Kristina Feller | So- Commissioner Luxembourg, what is the question for the applicant? |
| 01:38:05.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | question is, I'm just asking them to confirm, you don't actually know what you're going to build until they do a geodeck analysis. I want to know what, if you do the alternative approach, what do you put, what is the goal of that approach? I understand that we're not going to put in our set of conditions how to build it. I understand that. I'm not suggesting you do that, but I would like to understand what the alternative approach does Are you building a wall? Are you protecting stuff to catch stuff as it comes down? I'd like a technical explanation of what you're intending to build. |
| 01:38:43.17 | Michael Rex | I understand your question. It's a good question. OK, what are the goals, particularly if we pursue the alternative approach? The goals are twofold. that we have to plan a project in detail as the construction of this building. You're approving a concept, okay? You're not approving how it's going to get built. We have to demonstrate how it's going to be built with the input from a geotech and a structural engineer. And what we intend to build has, I would say has two goals. One is to protect the new structure from debris falling towards it. from uphill properties. that we don't own. Okay. in fact The city's own geotech determined that the most hazardous part of the slope is up at the top, where it's beyond vertical. It's unprotected and leaning outwards. If that comes down, we need to design some sort of system that will protect our building, okay? That's goal number one. And if it came down, the city identified also with Miller Pacific that the property above the city's building, where Gene Hiller is, adjacent and north of the Kahn property, is also at risk of failing. And that could come our way, although it probably won't because the Kahn Turs as I mentioned, are pulling backward on an angle. It would, it probably would, if land came down from 120 Buckley, it's gonna, it's highly unlikely it would land on Langsham's property It will land on the city's property. Nonetheless, we'll take that into account, and that'll be part of the analysis. So from the land from above or land from the side, from adjacent properties, we're going to come up with a means to protect our building from the anticipated slide. We hope it will never be needed because we expect those uphill properties to do something about their land, which is their responsibility. The other goal is we have to demonstrate we can build our building without destabilizing the slope behind our building or uphill land on adjacent parcels. So the goals are twofold. The last answer I can offer is we, myself as an architect, will not be determining this solution. It'll ultimately be based on a design from our project structural engineer, following criteria provided from the geotech based on soils analysis, okay? All of which will be submitted before anything's built and studied and approved. So the only people we need to agree on what we propose is the city. And the city can bring in whatever experts they want and we'll pay for it. But what do I anticipate it being? A wall, wire mesh, a geo-grid of some sort, shotcrete, the whole slope. Probably not a shotcrete or a mesh laid on the slope. Because the hazards above all that. we expect soil to come tumbling down to our building. And so we need some sort of offense a vertical fence probably that can contain it. And you see these fences along freeways all over. They tend to be a wire mesh and they're held back with some tiebacks to prevent them from overturning. And if that's what we end up with, which is |
| 01:42:32.64 | Kristina Feller | Oh. Michael, you just went on mute. Michael, you just hit the mute button. We didn't hear that. |
| 01:42:38.97 | Michael Rex | I don't know how that happened. I just wanted to add that we might possibly plant a vine on it. If it's a wire, vertical wire mesh, when I look at it from our tenants' residences, That's what I anticipate, but it won't be up to me. It'll be up to the engineer. Thank you. |
| 01:42:57.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Does that help? Yes, that helps. It gives me a concept of what you're trying to accomplish, even though you can't specify the solutions. That's very, very helpful. And then I think I just heard you're going to get this geotech resolved before you pull a demo permit. Is that my understanding? Thank you. |
| 01:43:17.85 | Michael Rex | Oh, absolutely. That will be among some of the first things we will focus on because it has to be part, all of that has to be part of our permit application for the building permit. |
| 01:43:17.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, absolutely. |
| 01:43:30.67 | Michael Rex | Of course we want to know. |
| 01:43:32.43 | Unknown | Oh! |
| 01:43:33.96 | Michael Rex | We have every incentive to protect our building. |
| 01:43:36.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:43:36.90 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, absolutely. |
| 01:43:38.25 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:43:38.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's very... That's very helpful. Chair Feller, those are all the questions I have at this time. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:43:44.14 | Kristina Feller | Excellent, thank you, thank you very much. Um, Okay. Let's go ahead Mr. Rex if we can go into some of the questions that you've probably heard us ask. staff. I'd like to also really focus on the tree grate and that clearance with the outdoor seating as part of that And my concern is You know, people might walk over that, but you know, I've seen people clomping around in high heels, I see people with canes, I see people with dogs. We wanna make sure that you know, we really have to rely only on that three and a half foot clearance, not the full five feet if you can't rely on the grate as part of the sidewalk |
| 01:44:30.34 | Michael Rex | Yeah, let me respond to that. there's no reason we can't rely on the grade what the problem is is that the tree wells were not properly designed in the first place and even the city's retrofit create a drop-off with this gravel crushed granite infill lately there's some tree the city's actually cemented in the tree well with a pervious concrete which i think is unfortunate but in an attempt to make it all level with the sidewalk that goal is appropriate we propose to use tree grades we would like to match the tree grades at pojos they're very handsome they have very small openings they meet standards. They're perfectly flush with the sidewalk. There's no reason people can't walk across it. In fact, if you go down to Pojos, everybody does. If you spec the right tree grade, it's not a problem, and that's what we're doing. And I can share the plan with you if you want to see that. |
| 01:45:36.97 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, I think we want to get Thank you. Thank you. you know satisfy you know all the questions that we we had that you heard us ask staff if you can address those that would be really helpful |
| 01:45:47.43 | Michael Rex | Yeah, I'll show you the plan again. I have to enlarge it. uh, You can see the five foot dimension is not to the tree trunk, It's down at the bottom. Can you see it? |
| 01:46:02.29 | Kristina Feller | maybe click a little bit closer if you could. There we go. |
| 01:46:07.74 | Michael Rex | Yeah, the five feet's measured not to the tree trunk, but to the opening in the tree grate. And we did that specifically. So there's a complete smooth walkable surface over the grate itself. And so, At the last hearing, you asked for at least five feet And we've done that. But keep in mind, it's only at those three locations on a diagonal from the guardrail. And the guardrail does not extend out any more than the required ADA width for the handicap table and the aisle way to get around it. So we made that projection the absolute minimum, which is, less than the restaurant right down the street, Salido's. They projected all the way out practically. And we're not saying that two wrongs make a right. We think that was wrong. And so we're not even going close to that type of encroachment into the sidewalk. I didn't measure the sidewalk at a right angle, but it's gotta be, I don't know, six, seven feet wide. There's a fire hydrant in one location. To accomplish this, we have to replace two trees. We also have to relocate some PG&E meters, but we're willing to do all that. because we think the outdoor dining, even though limited, will add vitality to the streetscape. as well as an economic benefit. |
| 01:47:57.03 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:47:57.97 | Michael Rex | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:47:58.68 | Kristina Feller | Do you currently do you or I guess your client, do they have an agreement with Napa farms? I mean, is there, high certainty that this is really the tenant. Is there an agreement in place? |
| 01:48:13.60 | Michael Rex | Um, We, Did I stop sharing? |
| 01:48:18.27 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:48:18.95 | Michael Rex | Yeah. Um, We've checked in with them from time to time because this has taken so long. Are you still interested? Can we still call on you? Because it definitely helps financing if we have an anchor tenant pre-selected. We don't have a lease with them because we had no idea when we could. provide a lease. but I'm sure if we can get this project approved tonight, we could enter into some negotiations. But to date, they have indicated they're still really anxious to set up a shop here. While to date they are located in airports, their business goal is to branch out from airports. And they thought the first place in Sausalito would be an ideal location for this use. |
| 01:49:10.35 | Kristina Feller | However, letter of intent or |
| 01:49:13.25 | Michael Rex | We don't have a letter of intent, but we've had lots of meetings with them. I think if for whatever reason their business model changed and we did not end up with a lease, we would look for a similar operator within the formula retail that we're hoping you approve tonight. But that is not our first choice. It would only be out of necessity if they backed out, which we're not anticipating. |
| 01:49:39.69 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Can you just quickly touch on the lighting Um, anticipated on the exterior here. |
| 01:49:47.69 | Michael Rex | Okay, I'm gonna pull up the elevations. Thanks for asking about that. Hang on. Just a minute. Let me go there. OK. Hold on, I can't see the code. They got to move it. I couldn't see the Here we go. Gotta shrink her down a little bit here. Let me go to the elevations. |
| 01:50:20.92 | Michael Rex | In fact, I had a question about lighting and the conditions of approval. of Okay, I'm gonna enlarge Well, wrong button. I'm going to enlarge the elevation at the front. All right. Well, Here we go. Can you see the elevation? |
| 01:50:40.78 | Monica Finnegan | We can. |
| 01:50:41.74 | Michael Rex | Yeah. Um, lighting on the outside. Up on these balconies the code requires an exterior light at every exterior door. So we have to have lighting out here. And what we're showing is wall sconce on each side of these little doors. And I've submitted a picture of them. I don't have it ready to share, but it's basically wrought iron and it has a frosted lens. And we expect to have a low level wattage. We don't need the bright light up there. The bright light actually would even shine in the bay window. So we didn't want to even disturb the residents, much less get something glary outside. There's a little spotlight. You can just see it. I can't, you know, I don't have a, I don't know if you can see my cursor, but. |
| 01:51:33.84 | Kristina Feller | You can see it. |
| 01:51:34.70 | Michael Rex | Oh, well, there's a blade sign at each end, and there's a little tiny light that would point and be directed at the blade sign on each side. That's what these little arrows are. They're actually recessed up under the overhang of the bay window. And so they wouldn't project below the building and they would, The lamp would be up inside the recess fixture and rotate towards and point only at the blade sign. There's... The Napa Farm market sign you see would be a channel light and silhouetted with an internal light, a little LED strip. So they would just kind of glow as a silhouette against the building behind it, which is very typical. The Marinsco building has lighting like that for their sign. We don't have any light up on the Langsom building. It didn't seem necessary. And then in the recess entry, we had I think three recessed down lights, which would wash light across the doors and light the address. And those would be recessed and directed straight down. And also because the code requires a light outside every door, we have a little tiny light over the doors up to the residential units. Those doorways are not recessed, so we couldn't put it up above the arch. We put it right above the door on the transom bar between the door and the transom window above. And again, they're very tiny LED, and they would be pointed straight down, and they don't have to be very bright. They just provide safety at the door and allow people to see where to put the key Uh, keyhole. |
| 01:53:36.08 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:53:36.45 | Michael Rex | And that's the extent of the lighting. |
| 01:53:38.56 | Kristina Feller | That's okay. And then, Do any other commissioners have any? further questions. It's time for the applicant. before we go into public comment here. |
| 01:53:52.77 | Michael Rex | I would like to respond to some questions that were asked earlier by commissioners. |
| 01:53:57.14 | Kristina Feller | Sure. |
| 01:53:57.44 | Michael Rex | May I? |
| 01:53:58.59 | Kristina Feller | Please. |
| 01:53:59.35 | Michael Rex | Okay, I'll try to keep it brief. um the uh the questions by commissioner lexenberg we've touched upon for commissioner uh uh jenis um Formula retail, well you got that one I think, Malili answered that. I wanted to point out that the city requires a construction management plan. And it could include what a barrier would look like to how we direct people around the site to be safe and what that barrier would look like. It could include canvas over the scaffolding like we did on Princess Street. Thank you. That wasn't required, that was a gift from the owner at the request of the nearby merchants Um, the, um, We certainly the last thing we want is to do the demo and not build the building. So there's no intent to create a gaping hole And in fact, Um, uh, because we need the development we would get the demo permit at the same time as the building permit, there's no reason it wouldn't be continuous construction. um, And that's our intent. the Condition number eight, uh, That was, Let's see. uh, I think you asked that that condition be amended to note that when the CUP expires, when the building permit is issued, that that should be clarified. But if you read the very last line, it says until a building permit is issued. So I would argue that base is covered, okay? The, Let's see, we have display. AND I THINK THAT'S A Thank you. Commissioner Keller about the parking. I already mentioned that while there's no waiver we have We should be able to appreciate the 12 grandfathered parking spaces for the previous use. and I want you to know that Well, August family. head. for half of that update, to the parking model in 2019. It was a $10,000 study and they volunteered to pay half of it because it was so old. Um, However, in updating it. It states that the city is obligated to maintain it and update it every year. So it shouldn't be old. And if they did update it, that can't be our fault. However, it shouldn't really matter because it does not just include the public parking lots. I think there's over 400 spaces in the public parking lots. But in addition to that, it includes all parking in the downtown district on the street and in private parking lots. And there are a number of those at the Trident and elsewhere behind Angelino's. all of that parking was considered. and the impact that we have is six spaces. And the conclusion of the report was that that impact is so minor you can't even measure it. That was the conclusion of Robert Harrison who is a traffic engineer that the city uses. So he should, his input should be credible, okay? So we're asking for very minor relief. And if you don't give us that relief, We certainly don't want to have an onsite parking garage because that would destroy the street front and the historic character. What would happen is we'd lose our limited stools inside and a few tables and Napa farms telling us that they're essential when it's raining or cold out for their economic viability. So I just want you to understand and put that all into perspective, okay? Um, the of I think, let's see, that may be it. Let me just check. uh, Oh, the last one. What was the disagreement between us and the cons right up until yesterday, okay, when I submitted my letter? The red lines that came from Robert Kahn asked to delay the project for a substantive discussion. We've been trying to have that kind of discussion for seven months, actually going back to December, never happened. And it also, requested the condition of approval be written. So we have to pay for the design and analysis and development of a plan to stabilize his property. Absolutely ridiculous. So that's where the disagreement really lies. They don't wanna pay to protect their own land. Okay, and that I think answers the questions you asked. Thank you. |
| 01:59:23.01 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you so much for being so thorough and fielding some of our questions. I'd like to move to public comment now, but I just want to check in very quickly with our community development director who was searching for some information that Commissioner Luxenberg had asked for And I want to make sure that we Um, come back to that before we go to public comment, because the public might have a comment on whatever it is you've you've come up with, Director Whelan. So can can you give us an update? |
| 01:59:59.94 | Director Whalen | Sure, so I think this is in reference to the question from Commissioner Luxembourg regarding the slope stability and the alternative approach and the purpose of that. I believe that the applicant did touch on it, but I am happy to report that Mr. McGowan is here in the audience with us. And so we could possibly, Commissioner Luxembourg, if you don't mind, um, asking that particular question again, Mr. McGowan, as he wasn't here when it came up. |
| 02:00:31.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can ask it again, but I think Mr. Rex answered it. So I mean, he, he, I was trying to understand the goal of the alternative approach and I thought he answered it pretty well. So, uh, and he also indicated that his solution might not be the solution, but that was that basically the way they were approaching trying to analyze it. So, uh, but if Mr. |
| 02:00:32.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:00:52.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If Mr. McGowan has anything to add to that, I'm happy to hear that answer as well. |
| 02:01:00.23 | Kristina Feller | Welcome, Director McGowan. Good to see you this evening. |
| 02:01:04.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:01:04.21 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate all your hard work on this particular application. Did you want to add anything, any flavor to this comment or discussion? |
| 02:01:04.23 | Unknown | I know. |
| 02:01:14.34 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, if that's okay. I'm sorry I was a little late to the meeting this evening. Had to take care of some parents. So it's just. I think Michael Rex covered a lot of the things that can come up as far as a wall type of system that will protect against sluffage from an adjacent property. So he hit on all the points of installing a retaining wall, which is great, but I have seen some other alternatives. In other words, making the actual structure itself a lot stronger on the back side of the building to sustain any type of sloppage as well. In other words, in some city environments where you don't have enough room between adjacent properties, you can bulk up that structural piece of the actual building to account for any type of sloppage as well. So that could be considered in the future as well. So that's all I had to add. Thank you. |
| 02:02:15.26 | Kristina Feller | We're glad you added that. That's helpful and very important and appreciate you being here for this discussion. |
| 02:02:23.80 | Director Whalen | Chair Feller, I'm so sorry to interrupt you there. I just had another point, if I can add to this particular conversation. Okay. is that the alternative condition in 53B does require that the applicant either incorporate their plan into the design review permit, sorry, the building permit plans for this particular design review permit, submit a standalone application for the alternative plan. and it needs to be concurrent with the building permit application for the project. So they will be tied together. So there wouldn't be a situation where the building from the issue of demolition of the building would occur without the plan being approved by the city for what is going to happen to the backside of the property. |
| 02:03:12.29 | Kristina Feller | Right. Thank you very much, Director Whalen. I appreciate that clarification. Okay, I think that was a good discussion. Hopefully it's also helpful to the public who is here to comment on this application So at this time, I'd like to open up public comments. please raise your hand in the Zoom application or I do see a cell phone here. If you'd like to press star nine, if you'd like to, make a comment, then please do so at this time. Um, the public has a three minutes for their comments and the timer clock. Hopefully you can see that on your screen. You can go to full view and see the timer there. So I'm gonna start with Sue Todd's iPad. If I'm not saying that name properly, please correct me. If you could state your name. and turn your camera on and welcome this evening to public comment the floor is yours |
| 02:04:11.61 | Andrew Junius | I'm not sure. |
| 02:04:11.85 | David Sudo | I'm like, |
| 02:04:12.32 | Andrew Junius | I'm not sure. |
| 02:04:17.70 | David Sudo | Hi, my name is David Sudo. First I wanna say I love what Mike does for this community, you know, and I really like this project. My one concern is the same concern I had this spring, And that's the fire hydrant in this drawing, in this drawing sets is not enough current position if they want to move the fire hydrant If the fire department will allow them to do that, and then they could maybe get the clearance they need. But I went and measured this week and my guess is we're right about four feet of clearance between the proposed fence line and this fire hydrant as as it's actually on the site. I guess my one suggestion might be to swap the ADA seating to the other side of the building and reduce the railing to, you know, to five and a half, four and a half feet instead of five feet. from the front of the building and that might get them the extra clearance. But I think that, the applicant and the city needs to go back and look at that point to make sure that we're meeting our goals for for, uh, for clearance. Yeah, I'm still, The tree movement is better than it was, but I'm still not convinced that people actually move diagonally on a sidewalk to go around trees. And the last point, which is not directly to this project or maybe it is but I find it odd that our CUP process requires a certain amount of parking for tables that are inside the building but doesn't require it for outside the building. I think we should either, it should be consistent with one way or the other and I'm unsure why we are where we are. at this point. Thank you. |
| 02:06:13.40 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, David. Thank you for being here this evening and for your comments. Um, The next raised hand I see is from a cell phone number 415-302-5589. So if we could go ahead and unmute your phone. And if you could please state your name, uh, I'd like to welcome you this evening to public comment. |
| 02:06:44.94 | Kristina Feller | Zoom team, do we assist the caller with unmuting? We have asked if you press star and oh, it looks like they've unmuted. Here we go. |
| 02:06:54.00 | Robert Kahn | Thank you. I think I got it. Thanks. Hi, my name is Robert Kahn. My family owns the Uphill property at 1014 Excelsior Lane. The reasons why we're concerned about the revised process and these conditions, which add a lot of vagueness about the required soap improvements, but also reduce the involvement of city staff and their geotechnical engineer are twofold. First, the applicant and their geotechnical engineer have suggested on multiple occasions that they could meet their obligations here through merely doing some grading and drainage improvements on their property. The city's geotechnical engineer, as in writing flatly disagree that this would solve the problem. The applicant has repeatedly suggested that they don't have to stabilize the hillside. just their own parcel. And if they stick to this approach, we could end up in a situation where there will be literally no way to solve the problem. The hillside cannot be fixed from above. according to the city's geotechnical engineer, it has to be fixed from below. either through a retaining wall on that parcel alone or through a joint stabilization project on both parcels So the end result here could be that the applicant does something less than a full solution, says they've met the letter of the law of condition 53 and were left with a known hazard on the hillside. that'll be impossible for anyone else to pick. This is compounded by the fact the applicant keeps saying is the uphill neighbor's responsibility. which is a total misstatement of law. And I wanna make that crystal clear. The city's geotech says that the applicant's property created the hazard to the entire hillside by excavating and cutting into it in the original development. neighboring property owners including Wells Fargo took responsibility for this by stabilizing the entire hillside. after doing such excavation and not leaving a problem for the uphill neighbor. This is a really unusual solution where there's both a known public health problem And the city also owns the property next door. So I think there's a strong public interest in making sure that there are clear requirements about stabilizing the entire hillside and also more active role by both the city and CEO technical engineer. to make sure that we don't end up with an inadequate solution. I'd also like to mention, with regard to approval the mitigated negative declaration That document contains a statement that everybody else including the applicants who agree I think it's quite wrong. stating that the hillside is not subject to geologic hazards. . Geotechnical engineer Miller Pacific is on record in writing, specifically disagreeing with that conclusion. in the negative declaration. So it seems strange to me that with everything we're talking about, the city would approve a document that says there's no, hazard on the hillside when everyone acknowledges that that's not the case. Finally, I'd like to mention that in order to require the applicant to complete the stabilization work if they start the project One commonly used option is to require a completion bond or letter of credit. to ensure that the work the stabilization work gets completed. And I think that would be appropriate in this. situation. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to respond to any questions the Commission might have Thank you. |
| 02:09:42.09 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. for your time and for being here this evening at this hearing. Thank you very much. Okay, I am looking for any more. raised hands at this time. for public comment. Let me just give everybody a minute. Um, Let's see, I see Monica Finnegan with clapping hands. I think you might want to comment. |
| 02:10:10.69 | Monica Finnegan | Hi, good evening, it's Monica Finnegan. I'm here personally and as a representative of EDEC When EDAC was formulated more than a year ago, we took a look at a lot of the vacancies that were downtown and we highlighted the projects on Princess Street that were under development and under review that were stalled a bit. And we highlighted 719 Bridgeway. Those were highlighted as properties that could fulfill some of the EDAC mission of really improving economic vitality and returning us to some stability. I think that we would all agree that the vacancy of this building is like a gaping hole in the smile of Sausalito's retail corridor. You've been talking about gaping holes through the whole process here. So it's really important that we do do something as much as we all like the mural, I think, bringing a project to fruition here would be very viable and important. aspect of our economic our return. I think HPC planning and CDD have done a very thorough job of evaluating this. And with the conversation I'm hearing tonight, I think they will continue to do so to make this a viable project for all parties. The approval and the development of this project would establish tremendous momentum in our Build Back. our economic vitality. that's been the mission and the purpose of EDAC. So I'm hoping that we can move forward on this. One of the surveys that we just recently completed, which we recorded at our last public meeting, |
| 02:11:42.81 | Unknown | THE FAMILY IS NOT ABLE TO |
| 02:11:49.21 | Monica Finnegan | This project contributes to so many of the values and the issues of the survey and the needs for economic development. It's going to generate sales tax, it will generate real estate tax. We are having some housing units restored. It's a high quality retail tenant that is being proposed. And it is paying attention to the value of the historical um district of the of the downtown area so both personally and in concert with the letters two letters that edac has submitted in support of this through the process I really hope that this project gets approved and we can move forward tonight thank you very much |
| 02:12:31.56 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for your comments. Okay, let's see if we have any other raised hands in the audience for public comment this evening. I am not seeing any at this time. Zoom team, do you just want to confirm you don't see something I do not? |
| 02:12:55.10 | Director Whalen | That's correct, Chair Beller. |
| 02:12:55.14 | Kristina Feller | That's correct, Charlie. |
| 02:12:56.79 | Director Whalen | We don't have any other raised hands. |
| 02:12:58.67 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Let's go ahead and close public comment at this time then. Maria, if I could ask you to put a minute 25 back on our clock there. I want to allow the applicant their their final time for any Final comments, rebuttal, anything they'd like to use their time for. So let me, let's go ahead and unmute Mr. Rex and Mr. Rex. And Mr. Rex, Mr. Rex. Thank you. let me hand it over over to you. |
| 02:13:30.90 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 02:13:31.03 | David Sincotta | Glad to start. |
| 02:13:31.30 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:13:32.20 | Kristina Feller | Oh, please, please. Sorry. Yes, please go ahead. |
| 02:13:32.23 | David Sincotta | Oh, good. I do just want to add that Um, There's a lot of confusion about what has been proposed, and I thought we made it clear earlier. We don't have a final plan yet as to what needs to be done. And then, WE DO INTEND TO PROTECT Oh, please. as well as the properties we have. And so, Uh-huh. There is a process. I'm surprised to hear Uh-huh. PEOPLE THINK THAT PEOPLE THINK The Department of Public Works has less of a role back. in these conditions of approval, I thought they expanded overall. |
| 02:14:10.40 | Unknown | . |
| 02:14:10.98 | David Sincotta | So, and Not only did it get expanded role, the project applicant will have to pay for that expansion. So, All of that is in there, and I think that that's appropriate protections or, ourselves as well as the adjacent neighbors. Thank you. |
| 02:14:27.33 | Michael Rex | And if I may, I'd like to add, in response to Kevin McGowan's suggestion that we strengthen the building itself, we need to have some protection uphill of the building because we have outdoor living spaces behind. So those spaces wouldn't be protected if we stiffen the building. Also, David Sudo's comments about the fire hydrant, I'm not aware that that fire hydrant isn't drawn in the right place. We certainly will check that. If it's closer than we show it, his idea of maybe switching the handicap table is something we can certainly look at, okay? Thank you. |
| 02:15:08.10 | Kristina Feller | Your time has unfortunately elapsed here, but I appreciate |
| 02:15:10.17 | Michael Rex | Bye. |
| 02:15:10.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:12.47 | Kristina Feller | you commenting on that and of being willing to have a look at that. Appreciate that. We might have some more questions or clarifications So don't go too far away. But but thank you for your presentation. And again, thank you to the public for your comments, both written and this evening. And so at this time, let's pull this back up to our virtual dais here and start the deliberation discussion amongst the commission based on all the information that we've heard and some of the answers to the questions that we've had. So who would like to start us off? Commissioner Junius, do you want to start us off this evening? |
| 02:15:55.15 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. that we're going to be Great project in general. I know it's complex and there's a lot of moving parts here. So we appreciate the staff doing such a great job. informing the community and the commissioners of all the details. um, It's. It's an unfortunate situation with respect to the uphill neighbor. I've seen this quite a bit in my practice in the city, and it's, obviously the best, and what we were hoping for. would be agreement among the parties. best when we people work together. those usually come out with better solutions. We all kind of can probably agree with that. But when that doesn't happen, you know we're left with a situation where we need to decide to move forward and I think and the other thing that we're talking about both our codes and laws that we have the ability to to approve this project tonight. I'm very comfortable with the concept being proposed and the idea that Thank you. various technical specialists, DPWs, the department, et cetera, peer review, all these different things are gonna ensure whatever gets built here is going to be safe and to code. that is not a question in my mind at all. to get to the And so I certainly would like to see the project move forward this evening. I'm not sure. I did, I thought the question from Commissioner Luxenberg was interesting about the sidewalk widths and I totally appreciate the fact that we probably got pretty unfortunately some narrow sidewalks in Sausalito if we had because we're such a walkable city, inviting city for tourists and it's wonderful to walk down bridgeway and sometimes it does get very crowded but I also completely sympathize with the applicant situation here. We really can't be putting applicants in a situation where they bounce back and forth between the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission and the staff. And I think Commissioner Luxenberg agrees with that as well. a little bit of a tough situation, I think I'm actually, I appreciate the design consideration here. a street. I mean, I don't have to walk bridgeway again as well. comfortable that it was mostly glass to the retail store frontages to the property lines and a nice street wall. That's the feeling I always get. I guess I'll look closer next time. but I'm very comfortable with the, with the approaches here. I'm looking forward to voting yes. |
| 02:18:17.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you very much. I wanted to, before we go on and not to get out of turn here, but I wanted to sort of throw out a couple draft conditions of approval here based on the discussion tonight. Um, and maybe I should have started with that, but I think that you will find these, you will all find these consistent with what the conversation has been The first condition of approval that that I would like to see is that Uh, that the demo and building permits be tied together or any other, even a temporary permit. Like I'm not, I don't know that I'd be very comfortable looking at temporary shoring for any any anything here because of course that has a certain shelf life to it. And that would trigger another issue between demo and building. So I would really want to condition to ensure that those two things are tied together. And then the second piece that I'd like to add to the condition of approval is ensure that the applicant maintain some, what I'll just call site screening. so that that so that you know to to the the street front to our let's call the main drag in our beautiful downtown, particularly across from such a lovely park as a Viña del Mar, that just similar to what they've done with the mural in the window, sort of in the spirit of that, that that this site, this active site, once it's active, in demo construction and any kind of execution that it be screened in a thoughtful and appropriate way. Um, downtown. Um, the Third... condition of approvals, I wanna ensure that there's a five foot minimum clearance at the sidewalks that is fully ADA compliant. we do have very narrow downtown sidewalk areas And I want to make sure that, you know, you know, that those areas are maintained I think Commissioner Luxembourg did make a very good point that this is a new world we're in a COVID world or hopefully soon a post-COVID world, but it has changed the way that we circulate and our social distancing. And so let's just be a little bit mindful of that. We don't want to create log jam areas. And we've certainly had those discussions at other hearings for other applicants. And so, So those are the major conditions that I just want to throw out there as we can continue the discussion deliberation obviously want to hear back from everybody and and I'm sure you have more ideas as well to help ensure that this is a successful project. |
| 02:21:22.23 | Kristina Feller | Yes, Commissioner Ingenius. |
| 02:21:23.65 | Andrew Junius | I thank you for those additional conditions, Chair Beller. one clarification and maybe this needs to go to a question to the applicant and I think that's a good question. I'm tying the demo permit and building permit. I think I'm totally supportive of that. It's possible sometimes that some preliminary, sometimes we call them soft demo permits to get some interior you know stuff out maybe some if there's asbestos or some type of you know, early a demolition that would obviously not, you know, remove the building and wouldn't even see it, but you know, there may be some preliminary internal work applicant might want to do here while they are moving through the pretty laborious building permit process that could get them ready and make the project go even faster. Thank you. I would just see if the applicant would need any little adjustments to that to make sure they got some that would be a very, very, very, very, very, very to compromise the building itself. |
| 02:22:15.27 | Kristina Feller | That's a great point. I'm making a note of that. And we will pull the applicant back up here and clarify that. And I'm assuming you're thinking any remediation work or if you have to remove any fixtures that you want to keep or anything like that. Um, The soft demo, I think, is a good term. So I'm making a note of that. Thank you. I'm going to |
| 02:22:40.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I concur with tying the demo permits and the building permits together as you suggested, other than a couple of asbestos removal or anything like that. And I agree that we should have a condition regarding screening |
| 02:22:52.60 | Andrew Junius | green. |
| 02:22:56.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm still very concerned about Having gone by the site walking, driving, bicycling, maybe hundreds of times. people are walking out into the street. And once the crowds that we normally get are starting to come back, uh and the gentleman said earlier he doesn't know if people walk at a diagonal what's going to happen is people are going to walk out into the street they're going to walk out into the bicycling lane uh i i think it's a simple thing to maintain the this is the one property uh where you know people walk inward there are others that also have their those things set back i call the restaurant the The other restaurants on the street are set back two feet. And people are putting in parklets that are temporary or not temporary, and those could be a problem also. And I think we need to be consistent, but we are being consistent. We had a parklet that came before us and we have a five foot fully around that, that area. And I think that here the, you know, if they set it back, you might not even have to remove these trees. I mean, maybe it's good to remove the trees. Seems like a lot of work to remove |
| 02:23:57.55 | Andrew Junius | Really? |
| 02:24:10.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | these two trees and replace them with other trees and replacing it with grates with holes in it. They're currently the grates don't have holes in it. It's probably not good for the tree. So I don't know what the answer to that is. But I do think this is an issue. I want to ask, can we bring Director Whalen back? Is she? Absolutely. |
| 02:24:32.67 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 02:24:33.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I Director Whalen, I We've had a pandemic, things have changed. You're doing a lot of stuff with parklets. uh, We've heard on other cases, there are things before historic district where they've made a historic preservation commission. They've made a decision and it's specific and it says you can't do X. If you do, we have to go back for the landscape or whatever. I do not want them to have to go back to historic, but did the historic commission actually say in their decision that they can't move this back? I heard there was some concern about it. They redesigned it because they heard concern about it. But this is a case of telephone. Somebody heard one thing, so they did something else and moved on with this. And I think that was before the pandemic. And had this come in today, they might have had a different thought. But if their decision doesn't say it has to be here, then, you know, I, I, I, I'm moving this to that line, I think solves a lot of problems and I think it works really well. And so I don't, you know, we have, |
| 02:24:47.87 | Andrew Junius | It made it. |
| 02:25:44.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | findings we have to make on pedestrian access and bicycle access that you know people walking the street that this is a problem for and so do you know whether the decision specifically says that it has to be here or whether that was just somebody said that and then they revised it because they heard concern about it But they didn't require it. |
| 02:26:05.24 | Director Whalen | Thank you for the opportunity to provide clarification on this point, Commissioner Luxembourg. This was actually an issue that occurred prior to the Historic Preservation Commission hearing this project. And it occurred during the work that staff did with the historic consultant that we hired for this project, Page and Turnbull. And Page and Turnbull recommended, or actually required that the storefront be brought forward to comply with the historic district guidelines and standards. And they would not have been able to recommend approval of the mitigated negative declaration without those modifications made to the building. So staff would be very, very concerned if those storefronts were required to be set back And we would recommend continuance of this hearing in order to circle back with Page and Trimble and consult with them and bring them back, most likely to this hearing, so that they could have a discussion with the Planning Commission, if that was an item of concern. |
| 02:27:18.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Did Taysha and Turnbull have tables on the sidewalk in those plans, or this was just about the storefront? I mean, the problem is the combination of the two. It's the tables and the lack of the setback. It's sort of one or the other, and they're asking for approval for tables as well. Were there tables on those drawings when when the historical consultant reviewed this, |
| 02:27:44.05 | Director Whalen | I am happy to go back and take a look at that right now. If the commission wants to continue your deliberation and I can get back to you on that question. Thank you. |
| 02:27:54.51 | Kristina Feller | So, Commissioner Luxembourg to your point, can I ask Director McGowan to come up here? Because the other way to look at this is do we need the trees there? I know that's part of the cityscape, but Director McGowan might have some insight as to whether those trees are necessary Um, in front of this building at all. that would solve the problem the other way. Director McGowan, I know you might, uh, I know you're on mute, knock camera, but, um, if you could, there you are. If you could, comment on that or give us some insight from the city's perspective to that. |
| 02:28:41.84 | Kevin McGowan | It's a difficult question to answer because the city trees and the streetscape are linked to other groups in the city, such as Sausalito Beautiful and others. Are they needed? I don't think that we've been consistent with having specific spacing between trees along bridgeways. Some places we have them, some places we don't. So unfortunately, I don't have a great answer for you of whether those trees can be removed at this point in time. So sorry about that. At this point, I would just take the application at its face value, and we'll do our best to work with the applicant. |
| 02:29:21.67 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you, Director McGowan, thank you for that. Okay, Commissioner Luxembourg, did you have any more thoughts or comments or additional conditions of approval that you wanted to consider? |
| 02:29:41.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Hey, I do agree with you that if we remove the trees and not replace them, that might solve the problem. And maybe that's an avenue to consider. I mean, if we don't, I'm just throwing this out there and I'm now looking at the staff report. If we don't approve the tree removal permit, which is not ours to approve anyways, it's public works. But if we come and we take that out of this, then maybe it solves, maybe it makes the spacing better and makes this problem a lot, whatever, and it's public works decision anyways, I think. |
| 02:30:21.98 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I guess I'm not, as uncomfortable with the sidewalk. I certainly see where you're coming from and can appreciate that. I think all of these sidewalks, by the way, are. are small we we had something similar two weeks ago in our last hearing where This was also a concern However, This is part of our downtown atmosphere. It is part of, um, sort of a healthier environment for people as well. And we just happen to be incredibly fortunate here in Sausalito with the climate and the weather that we have, Um, I would still require, you know, a five foot minimum clearance for full ADA circulation no matter what you know that that includes fire hydrants that includes you know, between fire hydrant and, you know, barrier where the outdoor seating is or whatever it might be. Would you be comfortable with that? |
| 02:31:28.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are you suggesting we put in smaller tree grits? I mean, because they don't have five feet if you don't count the triggers. |
| 02:31:37.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:37.85 | Kristina Feller | I am just saying it's five foot minimum clearance. It needs to be fully ADA compliant, which means that those tree grades cannot be too impervious. Um, again, you know, being, I guess the one, female representing tonight on this commission You're wearing any kind of heel you need to be careful where you're walking near a tree. Great. anybody with a cane or slightly, and easy on their feet. You know, we just need to be mindful of these things. So that's why I'm saying it has to be fully ADA compliant. So if there is a tree grate there, it has to meet a certain standard. |
| 02:32:15.80 | Unknown | Can we bring Mr. McGowan back? I asked him a question about those three first Sure. |
| 02:32:21.61 | Kristina Feller | Director McGowan, if you can hear us, if you don't mind joining us again. for a clarification on an item here at the dais. Thank you. |
| 02:32:31.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of. Director McGraw, not to put you on the spot, the tree grates in front of this building are impervious. They don't have any holes in it. They're not seemingly a hazard. The ones that are proposing have little grooves in them. So for high yields or anything like that, that's potentially a problem. Are what type of... They're proposing certain tree grates, but in the end, it's up to you, I believe. Is that correct? |
| 02:33:05.41 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, as far as the accessibility of the sidewalk, there may be some different materials that we can utilize to put in place that are still pervious that will allow water into the tree well, as well as prevent, let's say, tripping hazard as well. So we'd have to look into that quite a bit. at this point. I don't have a direct answer of what will work or what won't, but I'm pretty sure our maintenance folks have an idea of some things that we can put in there. |
| 02:33:32.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are the ones with grooves ADA compliant? I mean, they're not intended to put wheelchairs on them, but are those ADA compliant? |
| 02:33:41.09 | Kevin McGowan | I believe, well, I'm not an ADA expert. |
| 02:33:45.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We could. |
| 02:33:46.54 | Kevin McGowan | Okay. I believe as long as they have a hole in them of less than a half inch that they are compliant. But I would have to check that. |
| 02:33:57.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 02:33:59.03 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:34:01.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Chair Feller, I guess I would be comfortable with I mean, I'd be comfortable with them moving back to the other things, because I think that's the right answer. But to your earlier comment about, and something that says a minimum of five feet ADA compliant and and something about addressing high heels or whatever, something about, you know, safety with regard to walking. I don't know what words you use for that, but I think a condition on that regard if if if director Whelan comes back and says this is locked in by the historic whatever, then we are adding that condition, I think would be helpful. |
| 02:34:42.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:43.73 | Director Whalen | THE FAMILY. Thank you for your patience, Chair Feller. I am back here and I'm using two computers. So I'd like to share my screen on my other computer. And then I would also actually like to ask the applicant if we could bring Mr. Rex up to verify what I am looking at since this plan date is from 2018. |
| 02:34:53.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:35:04.58 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so go ahead and share your screen and Mr. Rex, if you are there, Um, Zoom team, if we can unmute Mr. Rex. and make sure he can come on screen as well so he can participate. |
| 02:35:25.44 | Director Whalen | Go ahead. |
| 02:35:25.56 | Kristina Feller | in Maryland. |
| 02:35:26.71 | Director Whalen | Sure, yeah, and I've asked him to unmute and share his video here. So this is a plan set with a date of April of 2018. So this was the plan set. |
| 02:35:27.03 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, and then, |
| 02:35:27.57 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:35:40.53 | Director Whalen | understanding is that the page and Turnbull team looked at during their preliminary review and recommendations. And so you can see bifold doors here that go across. to hear. |
| 02:35:53.73 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:35:54.03 | Director Whalen | And so my understanding is that the tables, the tables and chairs and benches here are all, were all proposed inside the applicant's property on the other side of the property line here and not on the public sidewalk. |
| 02:35:54.55 | Unknown | So my understanding |
| 02:36:11.07 | Director Whalen | applicant can correct me if I am incorrect. |
| 02:36:16.76 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, Mr. Rex, if you can hear us, I think you've now been made the co-host, so you can also turn your microphone on and turn your video on. There we go. |
| 02:36:28.39 | Michael Rex | Okay. Yeah. Hi. Um, Well, Lily, you're confirming that our original plan that we submitted to the city did not have the tables projecting into the sidewalk. The question was, the plan did Turnbull see the revised plan and support it as being consistent with the Downtown Historic Guidelines with the windows brought forward where the tables shown on that plan that they supported. And built a neck deck around. |
| 02:37:06.68 | Director Whalen | I'm a six. I misunderstood that question. I am 99. point nine 99999% sure, but I will pull up the plans that they, um, they were viewed under their final recommendations and verify and apologies if I misunderstood the question. |
| 02:37:25.22 | Michael Rex | Am I correct on that? That was the question. |
| 02:37:28.61 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:37:28.61 | Michael Rex | Yeah. |
| 02:37:28.63 | Director Whalen | Yeah. |
| 02:37:29.47 | Michael Rex | Chairman Knudsenberg. |
| 02:37:31.21 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:37:33.25 | Michael Rex | Yes. |
| 02:37:34.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think we're trying to find out the plan that we were just showed is the plan that you submitted that they would not approve. Is that what? |
| 02:37:41.98 | Michael Rex | be |
| 02:37:42.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:37:42.35 | Michael Rex | Thank you. They did not approve that. They said it was not consistent with the guidelines and they couldn't make a... |
| 02:37:50.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And they couldn't approve that plan. |
| 02:37:52.04 | Michael Rex | But the question is, do they see the |
| 02:37:52.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And the question is, what plan do they approve? |
| 02:37:56.32 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:37:56.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What did they approve? We have a copy of the plan that the historic |
| 02:37:57.33 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:37:57.37 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 02:37:57.57 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:37:59.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | commitment Commission approved? |
| 02:38:01.82 | Kristina Feller | So commissioner Luxenberg Lilly is, or director Whalen is looking for what page and Turnbull actually did approve. So she's looking at that and pulling that up and that should answer |
| 02:38:10.01 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:38:13.42 | Kristina Feller | your question and what Mr. Rex is saying as well. |
| 02:38:17.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm also looking for what plan did the Historic Preservation Commission, because the consultant can't approve, the consultant can recommend but not approve, and then the commission does approve. |
| 02:38:30.12 | Kristina Feller | Right, because HPC saw this after we saw it in March. So, Director Whelan, do you have, um, |
| 02:38:39.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:38:39.05 | Michael Rex | They saw this before, long before we saw this. No, they approved it a year and a half before we got to the March 3rd hearing. |
| 02:38:42.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:38:46.14 | Kristina Feller | So let's hear from director Whalen cause she's got |
| 02:38:46.58 | Michael Rex | They haven't seen it at all. |
| 02:38:51.96 | Kristina Feller | all that information in front of her. |
| 02:38:54.17 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 02:38:54.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:54.64 | Director Whalen | So the HPC did review this project in February of 2020, right before the pandemic, and I believe it was April of 2020 as well. And the project they would have reviewed is the project that Paige and Turnbull support. So I'm just gonna pull that up right now and verify that the plans that you're presented with this evening are the same schematic with regard to the, you know, the facade of the building and projections and sidewalk dining that Page and Printable reviewed for the MND that you're reviewing this evening. |
| 02:39:31.21 | Kristina Feller | Okay. While you are doing that, Director Whelan, Maestro Graf. Do you? Do you have any additional thoughts, comments? deliberation amendments to suggested proposed conditions of approval or anything. |
| 02:39:50.70 | Richard Graef | I'm sure. While this issue of the sidewalk and the setback and everything are, being hashed out. I'd like to talk a little bit about the building design. And, which I think is totally appropriate and really well thought out. I support the pop-up at the top of the building on the relationship of the building to its neighbors. is correct. now. So I think... Uh... Mr. Rex has done an admirable job there. I'm looking at a rendering. What sheet is it on? Uh, AO3. All right. |
| 02:40:45.97 | Richard Graef | I know. All right. one that has a color rendering of the of the building Ah, darn, I can't see him find it. |
| 02:41:00.78 | Michael Rex | I want it. |
| 02:41:03.68 | Richard Graef | There's one, here's one without the trees and here's one with the trees. |
| 02:41:07.38 | Michael Rex | Yeah. |
| 02:41:07.58 | Richard Graef | And by the way, |
| 02:41:07.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:41:09.37 | Richard Graef | I do support having the trees. since we're looking at that But I'm looking at at this building and I'm what I'm feeling the lack of is a subtle accent color somewhere throughout. And if you notice, adjacent buildings all have small bits of color or treatment or trim or whatever that give summer a week. to the through the caller. Whereas the Langston building, Uh, It feels like it needs something. It needs something to liven it up. just a wee bit. Um, |
| 02:41:54.83 | Andrew Junius | Oh. |
| 02:41:55.78 | Richard Graef | I think that a lot of it has been accomplished shade and shadow and form and you know, the bay windows and all that, but I, I do feel personally, that there could be a little subtle color treatment somewhere. So, That's my comment on the design. Otherwise it's great and it's totally appropriate. that we're going to have Also, I want to thank Michael for his really Flockful. I'm not sure. presentation and responses to everything tonight. You know, he... I'm going to go. It was really on top of it. And I want to compliment him there. Um, So that, |
| 02:42:44.73 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:42:44.82 | Richard Graef | So, |
| 02:42:44.85 | Kristina Feller | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:42:45.05 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:42:45.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Vice chair graph on, on sort of the. on your comment about sort of adding some depth to the THE END OF THE END OF THE facade or, you know, the articulation |
| 02:42:58.81 | Unknown | Ha ha. |
| 02:42:59.38 | Kristina Feller | There's something specific that you're suggesting. Is it like a slightly different shade on, for instance, a window trim or is it just along the pedestrian first floor ground floor level or is it the whole building if there's something specific that we can then Um, agree on and then condition the project after we confirm with the applicant one way or the other if they're open to that. um, That would be helpful. |
| 02:43:38.26 | Richard Graef | Well, I think I, At this point, I'd rather not get into that. specific. because I think if we're going to if there's If there's consensus and if Michael I happen to agree and then he would figure out how to do that. in the most appropriate way. I'm just putting it out there that that's what I'm seeing. missing from this building. And so I may be the only one who's seeing that. |
| 02:44:04.82 | Kristina Feller | So I may No, I think it's a great comment, but I just, I'm trying to clarify, is it the, whole building or is it something right on the ground level? |
| 02:44:18.62 | Richard Graef | Well, it would be. The whole building. I'm not suggesting to just go in there and start, you know, painting all the trim or something, but I think there are some Little areas of the building that could take a little subtle um, to sort of lift that out of a monochromatic gray. which I find to be kind of. |
| 02:44:44.19 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:44:44.65 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:44:46.86 | Richard Graef | It's not satisfying to me. |
| 02:44:49.19 | Kristina Feller | okay let me let me ask the other commissioners is there any objection to that that input in that comment is that something that you could support |
| 02:45:00.37 | Unknown | to grow it. |
| 02:45:01.59 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 02:45:01.93 | Unknown | Yes, good. |
| 02:45:03.48 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, okay. Um, So we can... add that as a condition I'm just going to make note of it and then we're going to ask the applicant about that. I'm sure. Vice Chair Graft, do you have any additional |
| 02:45:17.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:45:17.32 | Richard Graef | I'm trying. |
| 02:45:20.61 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. comments and input, that's a good one. |
| 02:45:23.78 | Richard Graef | Okay, well, I would only go back to the to the front facade with the seating and the tree well, |
| 02:45:35.93 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:45:36.60 | Richard Graef | Um, Actually, I think the solution here does what we asked it to do. and that is give us five feet. Um, It's tight. I agree. I think that clearly is setting back a setback would relieve that situation but I, understand the, HBCs. point of view there and I guess we really can argue with that. and looking at the schematic that Michael showed us I think this is a better design. Um, if the whole business could be sent back a couple of figures. I would relieve the sidewalk. The problem is later we're take a whole complete redesign of the pedestrian level facade because all that stuff would So, |
| 02:46:39.73 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 02:46:40.14 | Richard Graef | entry would have to change the width of the entry would have to change It would be really a rather and I think that's a good question. redesigned on the hall. up at a level facade. So I am not really strongly pushing for that. I'm just sort of wishing we could have had it. |
| 02:46:57.62 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 02:46:58.11 | Richard Graef | Um, |
| 02:46:58.63 | Kristina Feller | Well, I just want to do a quick time check. little bit before 920. So I want to make sure that we're also addressing all the detail. There's a lot, there are a lot of findings here and so I think you know this is sort of by exception only um if there's something specific that we want to condition or That's a big issue. |
| 02:47:24.42 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:47:24.59 | Kristina Feller | So I see that Director Whalen has come back. Um, Vice Chair, grab hold on just a minute on any more comments. And let's go back to Director Whelan on the clarification. |
| 02:47:32.84 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 02:47:33.11 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:47:37.57 | Kristina Feller | regarding Paige and Turnbull. |
| 02:47:39.89 | Director Whalen | Excellent, thank you. So I do have two documents for you to take a look at here. And I'll pull up, I wanted to show you the Page in... oh, here we go. So I'm gonna switch to this one here. You see the final draft of the ISMND. Okay, so I'm going to go to page 11. So this is the ground floor plan that was reviewed by the historic consultant and made a part of the |
| 02:48:14.20 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 02:48:16.17 | Director Whalen | CEQA review. So it does show the the schematic for moving the facade out a bit and the tables and chairs with the railings right away. And then I'll move over here to this resolution here. You should be seeing resolution 2020-1 from the HPC. And I will go to sheet A2.1. |
| 02:48:45.42 | Director Whalen | Yep. And I had it. Thank you. |
| 02:48:51.51 | Kristina Feller | It's okay. Take your time. |
| 02:48:55.63 | Mary Wagner | There we go. |
| 02:48:57.15 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:49:07.15 | Director Whalen | What did I miss? I'm scrolling too fast. |
| 02:49:14.06 | Director Whalen | Thank you. Here we go. |
| 02:49:14.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:14.70 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 02:49:14.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:14.82 | Director Whalen | you |
| 02:49:15.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:15.03 | Director Whalen | I love you. |
| 02:49:23.08 | Director Whalen | So this is the sheet I'm looking at right here. So this is in the HPC resolution and you can see the same design with the facade pulled out and the tables and chairs in the right of way. So confirming that both the environmental consultant and the HPC reviewed this final proposed schematic. |
| 02:49:45.66 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you for confirming that. I think that puts a lot of questions in everyone's mind to rest in confirming that. Thank you. Um, Okay, so back |
| 02:49:59.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chair Fowler, in that regard, I think one of the ways there is a condition number 26 and it has 48 inches. If we could change that, I think that's per your earlier comment to 60 inches, which everybody's concurred that we're happy with 60 inches that between 26, if it says 60 inches and 27, which says that they're temporary, they're removed every night. And if this really becomes a safety hazard, the city can always come in and tell them to remove the exterior title. So for me, if we change that to 60 inches, in order to move that issue along, I would like to get the time from the Coast to Historic to us less than a year and a half somehow in the future so that if a pandemic hits again that I think if they had had this today, they might have made a different decision that they would have realized that the public health would outweigh this issue. But given that this is removable, that's my suggestion. |
| 02:51:13.87 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so, So we'll change that to 60 inches. and we're all in agreement on that. Um, So, I guess that is the one I'm just counting the conditions so far. So one, two, Um, three. Four, okay. So the one, Are there any other thoughts or comments or additional conditions? modifications that anybody on the commission has |
| 02:51:46.28 | Richard Graef | I'd like to hear from Michael regarding my |
| 02:51:46.79 | Kristina Feller | I don't know. Yeah. |
| 02:51:50.15 | Richard Graef | a comment about color. |
| 02:51:52.38 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, we're definitely going to go back to him. I just wanted to double check. if there were any other additional conditions or modification. |
| 02:52:00.93 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you. list those conditions that we're contemplating right now. |
| 02:52:06.23 | Kristina Feller | Absolutely, yeah. So the first one, the condition that we are going to tie the demolition and building permit |
| 02:52:16.27 | Richard Graef | Yeah, okay. |
| 02:52:17.42 | Kristina Feller | together. And I'm adding to, and I had added to that that I don't think we should be entertaining temporary shoring because that's going to open up a whole nother can of worms. and that however, any kind of soft demo slash remediation work could be allowed prior to the full building and demo permit. combined. Um, The second. |
| 02:52:42.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can we add to that, visible from the exterior? |
| 02:52:48.39 | Kristina Feller | Pardon? |
| 02:52:49.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the soft demo visible from the exterior, if we could. It should not be, in other words, I shouldn't be taking out window, they shouldn't be demoing windows or anything that's visible from the exterior. |
| 02:53:04.74 | Kristina Feller | Okay. That's yeah, that's fine. Um, that's fine. So interior only, okay, that's fine. Um, The second condition of approval would be that the applicant would need to maintain you know, sort of tasteful appropriate site screening throughout any execution of work on the site. And so whether that be some kind of, of mural or sort of an, you know, an outline of what, what the future building will look like or something tasteful so that the intent of that is that it it won't detract from the charm and nature of downtown historic district in downtown, particularly across from Arvinia Del Mar Park and that it, it, um, It will not look like a gaping hole. in downtown Sausalito. So that's the intent behind it. So that's the second one. The third one is really the five foot minimum clearance, the 60 inches minimum clearance. from any, any fire hydrant tree, anything like that. to the outdoor seating fence and closure. And so I think you said that the modification to number 26, but that's the third condition. |
| 02:54:46.27 | Richard Graef | and ADA compliance. |
| 02:54:46.43 | Kristina Feller | And |
| 02:54:50.69 | Kristina Feller | It must be fully ADA compliant. Yes, thank you. Fully ADA compliant. |
| 02:54:51.64 | Richard Graef | Absolutely. |
| 02:54:55.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So in 26, you need to add the change it to 60, but you also need to add that what you're saying about the fire hydrants and all that kind of stuff. |
| 02:55:01.95 | Kristina Feller | going in. Yeah. And then the fourth one, is the issue regarding some exterior coloration, articulation and less monochromatic look. Um, maybe. pump up the trim or something of that kind to be more consistent. with the neighboring buildings which we're going to ask the applicant to confirm if they're interested in entertaining that one or not Um, so that's, those are the four. unless anyone has any other comments and I'll ask the applicant, to come back up here and |
| 02:55:46.32 | Richard Graef | I'm saying five. |
| 02:55:46.38 | Kristina Feller | I'm saying, |
| 02:55:47.68 | Richard Graef | Chair Fowler. the the |
| 02:55:52.85 | Kristina Feller | The demo, the permits. |
| 02:55:54.85 | Richard Graef | THE PERMIT. |
| 02:55:54.99 | Kristina Feller | MR. The- |
| 02:55:56.71 | Richard Graef | The demo, the soft demo. a five-foot clear ADA the site screening and perhaps color. |
| 02:56:07.92 | Kristina Feller | I think all the permits are one, the site screening's all one, the minimum clearance in ADA is is all together and then the articulation is the fourth. the colorings ARMS. |
| 02:56:24.60 | Kristina Feller | Um, The only other thing I can think of is, and this was commented on by the applicant, is this 25% contingency for adequate financing that was already identified in the findings and so that's just a budgetary number I don't think we need to be commenting on that at this time do does anyone By all means. |
| 02:56:47.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | My only issue was if that's a contingency I understand now that it's explained to me what that meant, but if it could say that, that would be useful. If it just says the preliminary estimate will include a 25% contingency, that would be a little clearer than indicating there is a margin of error. |
| 02:57:10.10 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:57:10.25 | Kristina Feller | I'm going to go. |
| 02:57:10.32 | Richard Graef | I'm going to go. |
| 02:57:10.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:57:10.42 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:57:10.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:57:10.91 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:57:11.91 | Kristina Feller | Okay, nice chair grass. |
| 02:57:14.05 | Richard Graef | Back to design issues, I also want to say, not forget that, um, uh, I would also support all of the signage as proposed. |
| 02:57:26.70 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you. Okay. Very good. Okay, let's go ahead and ask the applicant to come back up here so we can Um, or discuss anything further on these you four items that we have laid out the fifth being just articulating a little bit more about the what the 25 contingency is for So Michael, are you going to comment for the opportunities? |
| 02:58:00.64 | Michael Rex | Yeah, hi, thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment. Um, For the floor conditions that you propose having or the one that you know about the five foot that you're just amending number 26, It's already there. You just want to amend it. Um, |
| 02:58:18.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:21.45 | Michael Rex | find all of those acceptable, okay? In fact, David Cincanto already agreed to the one that the demo and building permit would be linked together so he offered that already i do want to point out though on that one when you said no temporary shoring, I wanna caution you that to build the retaining wall on the right side, the north side at the back. OSHA may require temporary shoring to build that wall. |
| 02:58:51.23 | Unknown | Uh-huh. |
| 02:58:51.70 | Michael Rex | So I want to separate that construction technique necessity if it in fact is required to not be prohibited because you mentioned no temporary shoring i think nothing temporary visible from the front that would be unsightly. but not showing necessary to build the building. |
| 02:59:14.40 | Kristina Feller | What I wanna try to avoid is any temporary shoring that should there be a delay or a gap in some kind of financing or these things happen on projects every day, all over the place. that usually there's a life expectancy of your temporary shoring. And if you can't complete your project by the time you have your permanent shoring in, you then are getting into a problem with the city and that, that is never a pretty site. and lawyers get involved and things get derailed. So I'm trying to minimize the amount of temporary shoring on such a um, on this type of a property with the slopes you're talking about, I think you need to really focus on your permanent solution, your permanent shoring here. |
| 03:00:10.36 | Michael Rex | I'm just pointing out that to build the wall, we might need to temporarily short the grade that's cut. by OSHA standards, we wouldn't have a choice. The thing is, is it's way at the back of the property. And if you're conditioned to provide proper screening at the seat, so you don't look into this big construction site, you shouldn't see the temporary shoring in the back to build the rear retaining wall. uh, I'm sorry. |
| 03:00:37.06 | Kristina Feller | I'm not worried about seeing it. temporary, turns into permanent, which fails. That's what I'm worried about. |
| 03:00:45.53 | Michael Rex | well, how do we resolve it if it's required by the code? It has a limitation that you can't have without some shoring if it's over a certain height. |
| 03:00:51.35 | Kristina Feller | The ocean has a limit. All right. |
| 03:00:58.25 | Kristina Feller | Well, I've never known temporary shoring to be required by a code. It might be part of, you know, your solution. |
| 03:01:02.45 | Michael Rex | My- |
| 03:01:06.20 | Kristina Feller | but I've never known it to be required by a code. |
| 03:01:09.03 | Michael Rex | Maybe Mr. McAllen could respond to that question. |
| 03:01:09.07 | Kristina Feller | Maybe it must be. |
| 03:01:13.01 | Kristina Feller | Sure. Director McGowan, if you can hear us, If you could come, there you go. |
| 03:01:24.20 | Kevin McGowan | I'm sorry, what is the question again? |
| 03:01:26.82 | Kristina Feller | So, What I'm trying to avoid is temporary shoring. across the solution of retaining the back part of the slot in a manner that could, |
| 03:01:41.35 | Andrew Junius | AND I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO |
| 03:01:42.90 | Kristina Feller | inadvertently create a problem between demolition and construction. Because temporary shoring, as you know, has a certain shelf life to it. It's never meant to be permanent. And so I want to make sure that the permanent solution for any kind of shoring of the hillside Um, is is implemented and that we don't run into this timeframe problem between demolition and construction. even though the permits are being pulled at the same time, You don't want to get into a massive temporary shoring solution. because it'll expire. |
| 03:02:27.33 | Kevin McGowan | Would you condition the permanent so that you would have this permanent shoring in place before you move on with the demolition? have a condition of approval that addresses your concerns. |
| 03:02:43.11 | Kristina Feller | I guess the question to you is, being in the weeds with some of the technical discussions about the hillside Um, I don't know. Um... THE END OF about some of the solutions that that you've been talking about uh again i'm not worried about seeing the temporary shoring it's not a visual problem that is the problem the problem is you know making sure that you've got the permanent shoring in there. would you suggest that that we condition this so all permanent shoring is in place before the construction of the building. Is that what you were saying? |
| 03:03:27.78 | Kevin McGowan | That's an idea, but again, these things haven't been designed yet. So we're kind of middle state and, um, maybe we need to put our heads together, Michael, to figure out how we can address this particular issue. But I think what Chair Feller is referencing is that we don't want that temporary shoring to stay in for a super long period of time when the whole building gets built. |
| 03:03:50.24 | Michael Rex | Does that sound correct? Well, you can put a condition, a time limit on it. It can't be there more than four months or six months. My point, Kevin, is that if we do a cut over a certain height, the OSHA or the Geotech may require some temporary shoring. And the suggestion was is that a condition of approval not allow temporary shoring. And so I caution that we may not have a choice if it's required by the Geotech or OSHA um, But again, what do we visualize? Most of the temporary showing that we do in this day and age is shotcrete. As they cut down, they shoot the hillside with concrete and some reef, they put some mesh and then they cut further. That's typical shoring, but it is temporary. There's no such thing really as permanent shoring. By nature, it's temporary to allow you to build your building. So I caution against a condition that allows no temporary shoring, that's all. |
| 03:04:55.60 | Kevin McGowan | Why don't we put the time limit on it, Chair Feller, and say a six-month period for temporary shoring or we can address it with the community development director if more time is needed. I'm fine with that. |
| 03:05:07.43 | Kristina Feller | I think- |
| 03:05:08.47 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 03:05:09.06 | Kristina Feller | I think six months is fine, absolutely. |
| 03:05:12.15 | Michael Rex | OK, no problem. Bye. Can I respond to the other ones? I overall, I said all those are great. Those new conditions. I want to respond to, Uh, Chairman Graff's comments. I actually think it's quite astute of you, Richard, to point out that the building's rather monochromatic. And I'd like to share screen just for a moment to look at our CAD model, if I may. of Here is it without the trees and here is it with. Okay. It is pretty monochromatic and probably too much so. We'd be happy to either add another tone. It might be in these recess panels perhaps or along the band. I think there's a number of places we can add a tone on tone, so it's not all one color. We could also, in a few little small areas, add a little playful highlight of color. In fact, we did it on Princess Street. The scaffolding should be coming down next week and you'll see it. And we actually added very small touches of periwinkle to a rather beige and cream building. and it really does make it friendlier. So I think it's a great idea. We welcome responding to it favorably, okay? Um, And the last thing I want to show you is Hang on, I got it right here. I want to show you the tree grape. Um, This is the tree grate. Can you see it? At Pojo's. Okay. This is the tree grate we'd like to use because it's right down the street. And you can see it has holes in it, but they're really tiny. It lets the water through, but it's not going to allow a spike heel or a cane to move through it. It's completely smooth and flush. And look at the space between their planter boxes and the tree grape. I bet you that's not even two feet. People walk over this tree grape all day long and wheelchairs can roll across it. This is what we're proposing. So I don't think you have to worry about it, okay? And, oh, and the last thing I want, and then I'll, be quiet here. Here we go. I would not give up on the trees. Look what happens when there's no trees and look what happens when there are. That removing the trees is not an improvement. Thank you. |
| 03:07:56.89 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so Director Whalen, can we... |
| 03:08:02.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry, can I just ask a quick question, because he brought that up. These are different trees. Can you just describe generally how they're different? They're a different species. Oh. |
| 03:08:13.96 | Michael Rex | The city has a new tree program for downtown and they've already started to install them because the ones that were planted before are prone to disease. In fact, many of them are dying. The new trees, I actually don't know quite what they are, Kevin might know. They're really beautiful and those are the trees we've used because that's the trees the city wants downtown. |
| 03:08:38.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so you didn't ask, the trees are new because of Public Works' program for trees. It wasn't what you were proposing for this building. |
| 03:08:44.27 | Michael Rex | I'm not. They're new for several reasons. They're new because we need to move them over so we get the time. |
| 03:08:50.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I understand that. The difference in the species was only because. No, no. |
| 03:08:54.14 | Kristina Feller | because |
| 03:08:54.65 | Michael Rex | Yeah. |
| 03:08:54.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:08:55.25 | Michael Rex | Thank you. use the city's new selection. |
| 03:08:57.75 | Kristina Feller | THE FAMILY IS THE FAMILY. |
| 03:08:57.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 03:08:58.24 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Luxenberg, this is part of the city species selection. Just for clarification, none of the conditions that we're talking about here |
| 03:09:10.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:09:12.32 | Kristina Feller | include completely removing trees and not replacing them. So that's not even on the table. I don't want to derail the conversation because, you know, I'm mindful of the time we have another hearing after this, and I think we're very close here. So let's, Let's stay focused on what we have. I'm not sure. regarding the issue with the articulation of the facade and Vice Chair Graff, your comments. I'm not sure. know part part of the condition is is i would ask the applicant to work with the city and if you would like to to be included in that as sort of our task force to do that or our subcommittee to do that I don't wanna volunteer you without your wanting to do so. Would you be willing to do that? I'm sorry. Okay, great. um, So I think unless there are any other comments or discussions from from the commission I think we're pretty close here and I would definitely be willing to entertain Um, a, emotion. |
| 03:10:29.45 | Andrew Junius | I certainly would move to approve with all of the conditions as outlined in the last few minutes. |
| 03:10:35.58 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Terrific. director Whelan. Um, Do you need any clarification to what those are again, or would you like to take the role? |
| 03:10:45.33 | Director Whalen | So I have, thank you for Chair Fowler for that question. I have been taking some notes here and drafting some conditions for the commission to take a look at if you'd like to. I am still working on some of them, but you can definitely take a look what I'm working on right here, right now, and make sure that this complies with your direction. |
| 03:11:04.67 | Kristina Feller | Or do you want me to just reiterate what they are? |
| 03:11:09.31 | Director Whalen | Whatever you prefer. |
| 03:11:10.96 | Kristina Feller | Let me reiterate what they are. And these don't have to be in any order, but one is The condition is to tie the demolition and the building permits together. Um, However, you can allow soft demo for any interior remediation. Um, and that part of that that we have to be part of this particular condition will allow temporary shoring for a maximum of six months. The second condition is for the applicant to provide site screening for the full duration of the execution of all works on the site, demolition, building and any of that. Um, in a manner that will support um, you know, the character of downtown, And so this doesn't look like a gaping hole, but actually, um, maybe gives people something to be excited about for the future of what that parcel will be. The third is a modification of condition 26. We want, to a minimum of a 60 inch clearance for any between any physical obstruction on the sidewalk and the outdoor seating area, for instance, a tree trunk or the edge of that, the tree grate. fire hydrant, anything like that. so that there's a minimum clearance of 60 inches along that hole. |
| 03:12:55.96 | Andrew Junius | minimize. |
| 03:12:59.77 | Kristina Feller | property front. and the tree rates need to be fully ADA compliant. If the ones in front of Poggio are the are the ones and those are fully ADA compliant fine. The fourth is to to add a little bit more articulation to the front facade through means of maybe some kind of additional coloring or shading. of the paint. And we would like to assign Vice Chair Graff to work with city staff, and the applicant to finalize what that might look like. |
| 03:13:46.45 | Kristina Feller | So we have a motion and a second and we're ready to take the roll. |
| 03:13:55.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have a question. Did we change the language on Contingency from margin of error to contingency, was that one of the conditions? |
| 03:14:05.96 | Director Whalen | It's just going to ask about that one. was the suggestion to change the language from a minimal percentage margin of error, no less than 25% to a 25% contingency. |
| 03:14:24.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is that the direction? That was the direction. I think everybody was okay with that. through the treatment. |
| 03:14:30.85 | Director Whalen | Bye. That's fine. Okay, I'm seeing nods from all commissioners. We will, we will, um, include that in the motion that was made. Thank you. |
| 03:14:43.56 | Andrew Junius | Thanks. |
| 03:14:43.61 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 03:14:43.62 | Andrew Junius | I agree. |
| 03:14:43.71 | Director Whalen | I agree. Perfect. Thank you. I will now call the roll if the commission is ready. Thank you. Excellent. |
| 03:14:50.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:14:50.95 | Director Whalen | Commissioner THE CITY IS GOING TO BE |
| 03:14:54.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | us. |
| 03:14:56.01 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Junius. |
| 03:14:57.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:14:57.19 | Richard Graef | Yes. |
| 03:14:57.97 | Director Whalen | Nice chair, Graf. |
| 03:14:59.43 | Richard Graef | Absolutely. |
| 03:15:00.85 | Director Whalen | Chair Feller. Yes. Excellent. And this project was approved on a four zero and one So unanimously by the members of the planning commission here this evening, all actions of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council within 10 days of this decision. appeals must be accompanied by an application appeal form and a fee. And so please contact the staff at the Community Development Department if you have any questions about how to file a timely appeal of this project. |
| 03:15:32.97 | Unknown | recording in progress. |
| 03:15:37.66 | Kristina Feller | Excellent, thank you very much. Let's move on to item 5C on our agenda this evening. |
| 03:15:43.66 | Unknown | RECOVERY. |
| 03:15:43.97 | Michael Rex | Boarding stop. |
| 03:15:44.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:44.74 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 03:15:45.45 | Kristina Feller | Director Whalen. |
| 03:15:47.85 | Michael Rex | Thank you, by the way. |
| 03:15:49.60 | Kristina Feller | Yes, thank you. |
| 03:15:51.83 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Michael. Thank you. |
| 03:15:53.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:15:53.99 | Richard Graef | Okay. |
| 03:15:54.80 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:15:56.00 | Director Whalen | Okay, great. Thank you Chair Beller. The next public hearing item tonight is item 5C, which is a request for a design review permit with heightened design review, a non-conformity permit, an accessory dwelling unit permit and a conditional use permit A exception to the privacy standard for ADUs. And we have assistant planner, Mike Janusak, hanging in with us this evening. and he will be giving the staff presentation. Thanks, Mike. |
| 03:16:25.51 | Mike | Thanks so much, Lily. Good evening, commissioners. I will share my screen here. |
| 03:16:47.33 | Mike | Okay, so you should be seeing my title slide. |
| 03:16:51.82 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:16:52.55 | Mike | Yes, thank you. So, Thank you. Tonight I'll be presenting the staff report for 424A Locust Street. This is an ADU And in addition, it requires A designer view with heightened design review. nonconformity permit, ADU, and conditional use permit. This is also known as project ID number 2021-00084. |
| 03:17:22.94 | Mike | So a little bit about the site, it is located, near the corner of Bonita Street and Locust Street, not far from City Hall. The parcel is 1,989 square feet. you'll notice that it is an interior landlocked parcel. It is a rear lot behind 424 and 426 focused street. The site is accessed via a two foot wide two foot wide. gangway. uh, that is deeded through an access and utility easement from 426 focus. It's in the Newtown neighborhood. The property is relatively flat. It does slope slightly from Southwest to Northeast, There's a A total of about eight feet of fall in that direction. and the property is on R3, which is multiple family. And the surrounding properties are a mix of one, two, and multi-family homes. request this evening a design review permit. So, It includes the excavation of the existing crawl space, The excavation is total at a maximum point at seven and a half feet. of cuts. and a total of 145 cubic yards of excavation. That alone would trigger administrative designer views Um, Typically a project of this size will not trigger planning commission, Review however pursuant to 1050.020. The multiple reviews go to the highest authority. designer view with planning commission is triggered and that is tied to the non-conformity permit um, The designer view request also includes new exterior features such as the new deck railing, staircase siding, new windows, new skylights. There's also a bump out of the existing entry porch AND THE um, Both the existing and proposed building coverage are greater than 80% of the maximum allowed. the proposed is nearly 100% it's 49.2%. 8%. building coverage and the max is 50 the nonconformity permit, as I mentioned. the the planning chemistry review, the site, It sits in the setback on all four sides. Um, So the request before you is to maintain the rear yard setback to the north as well as the side yard setback to the south. um, And just so you know, there are three side yards because there's no frontage. it's a flag lot, so there's no front. property line. There's three sides. and the applicant has elected that the north the north northeast is the rear yard, the rear parcel line. included in the nonconformity permit is to Shift. part of the nonconforming structure. part of the encroachment. on the southwestern portion. Shift it to the northeastern portion of the site. And I'll go into that in more detail later. The ADU permit, the applicant's proposing a lower level attached 719 square foot ADU It contains, as required for ADUs, it contains a kitchenette, a separate entry. It's a one-bedroom. There's a living area, storage, and laundry as well. The facade elements are identical. It is completely attached, so it's Um, you You can't tell it apart from the outside, from the primary dwelling unit. And, um, the It should be noted that the Planning Commission's role in the review and approval is limited. to the development standards and requirements and table in the table in the staff report, corresponds to Sausalimus code. 1044.080. Um, Typically ADUs are processed ministerially. ever. Um, one of the the objective standards cannot be met, and that is the one for overlapping windows that standard 11. And so the design exception has been requested and that requires a CEP as well as some specific requirements and criteria are met in 1044-080. And as I mentioned, the CEP is triggered I'm not sure. It's required where the ministerial standards cannot be met. and the applicant It's specifically an overlapping window from the lower level ADU directly opposite an existing bedroom window. at the adjacent residence at 422 A Locust. |
| 03:22:44.51 | Mike | project background. on January 20th. Community Development received a historic resource determination application On March 18th, 2021 HBC determined the property does not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA and the final advisory decision has been forwarded to the Planning Commission. on March 30th. CDD received a design review application On September 8th, the story poll THE FAMILY. The story poles were installed. for the front entry porch bump out. Um, on September. The story poles were originally installed by the architect. the applicant, use the Thank you. December 2020. similar checklist, which was inconsistent with the city council ordinance for story polls. We've taken that checklist out of circulation, but it was in April and the applicant submitted in March. So, the The applicant subsequently had the surveyor come out and verify that the poles were indeed installed per plan and they've since submitted the certification from the license land surveyor as a late mail to the commissioners earlier today. On September 10th, the hearing was noticed both onsite posted on site and then mailers sent to residents and owners within 300 feet. Three public comments have been received. as of, the deadline today. correspondence received prior to the staff report publication at the end of last week. Lisa Newman and Clara Zavani and John J. Macedo. and correspondence submitted as of noon the day of the hearing was from Laitha Mark Hedy. |
| 03:24:47.12 | Mike | existing conditions. It is a constrained site. THE BUILDING uh, So the single family home is 759 square feet. THE PEOPLE THAT ARE Building coverage existing is 48%. There's a in the northeast corner of the site. There is a 24 inch DBH maple tree along the north, property line. There's a existing citrus, an apple tree and a birch tree. small screening trees. And you'll see that The building is located I'm sorry about that. Building is located in the setback on all four sides. Um, This is the location of the rear yard setback encroachment here. building is in the west side yard. Step back here. This sliver of the building is in the south side yard and this portion of the building is in the east side yard THE FAMILY IS the most severe encroachment is on the west side. There's actually a portion You can see it on the roof plan. This is the building footprint outline, but the roof over the outdoor storage area, extends over this area. actually comes to within approximately three inches of the property line. |
| 03:26:11.06 | Richard Graef | Excuse me. Mike, do you have a cursor or something? You're talking about things on this plan and are you pointing things out |
| 03:26:20.02 | Mike | I was, I'm sorry you couldn't see them. |
| 03:26:23.18 | Richard Graef | I couldn't see. |
| 03:26:23.51 | Mike | Um, Okay, so you're not seeing my cursor. As... I'm probably Oh. So you're seeing my presentation view. |
| 03:26:33.86 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I'm seeing your little white arrow in the black, I didn't see any arrow on the drawings or when you were talking about |
| 03:26:42.73 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:26:42.75 | Richard Graef | That's better. |
| 03:26:43.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:26:43.93 | Mike | Yeah, that's better. Okay, I'm gonna share... No, that's unfortunate. who was sharing the wrong screen. I'm sorry about that. My screen one and screen two were cut. switched around on me. So we'll just pick up before we left off. So as I was pointing out, so here's the rear yard encroachment. the west side encroachment. There's a sliver at the south side and here's the east side portion. |
| 03:27:10.70 | Unknown | Bye-bye. |
| 03:27:11.02 | Andrew Junius | . |
| 03:27:18.02 | Mike | sighted in the setback. And then the roof is over here and again, Most severe is the three inches here. So the existing, and here you can see a shot down the Western property line. and you can see this about a foot and a half from the fence which is on the property line to the West. |
| 03:27:43.53 | Mike | Um, This shows the northeast corner of the building. Um, the the existing configuration of the exterior staircase. You have two runs of stairs, and then there's a landing in the middle here. |
| 03:27:59.25 | Unknown | here. |
| 03:28:00.38 | Mike | And there's also, you'll see there's a brick retaining wall. Um, existing at underneath the stairs. the crawl space. and the basement are unfinished. So you'll see. Down here, no windows and this door does not appear to be a the Finished. finished ceiling height. the proposed first floor, so the ADU will go on the first floor. Here's the location of the entry, the kitchenette, Um, And |
| 03:28:40.05 | Mike | There's also, it'll, and that are constructed within the existing building footprint except for This portion here kind of has a pan handle and then you'll see this is, roughly 46 square feet where that brick retaining wall will go away and the building, will bump out. in this location and it'll be underneath the existing porch and the expanded porch. There's a second floor where you can see the expanded deck. And you can also see, uh, a reconfigured staircase so there's no longer the kind of the two runs with the landing in the center. It's just a single flight of stairs and the stairs will be totally reconstructed and will be a metal frame staircase. Here's the proposed elevation. You'll see the exterior materials. that are proposed. vertical Western red cedar siting, dark anodized aluminum windows. Here's the railing I referenced earlier, it's perforated metal and steel with the wood cap. |
| 03:30:02.57 | Mike | Also note the two skylights proposed and the additional glazing on the facade and here again is the ADU entry. on the lower level. One of the there's two to I want to highlight about the application. The first is the additional screening proposed. Um, In addition to the citrus trees, there are key trees in this location and there's three additional trees that are rendered here. to mitigate for the overlapping window of the lower level ADU, which is shown here in the dashed outline. You'll see this picture is taken from the neighboring bedroom window at 422 A. And this retaining wall shows that Um, that site sits at a slightly lower elevation and there is some existing vegetation. The applicant is proposing a composition that layers both existing retained vegetation, and then also proposed additional vegetation. |
| 03:31:11.50 | Mike | The other item I want to The highlight that I've touched on a little bit is, the non-conforming structure needs to comply with. Section 1062.050A. And those are additional criteria for the nonconformity permit that are specific to nonconforming structures. that in order to exacerbate a nonconformity, there needs to be a subtraction in another part of the the structure. And so that's occurring THE FAMILY. as a shift from the roof canopy of the outdoor storage area that's three inches from the property line on the west. and this red outline. this portion of the, the encrushment will be removed. It'll be a reduction of 13 square feet approximately. in order to offset the addition of the four square feet here. Um, which will be, Um, It's currently a gap between the staircase and the building foundation, and it'll be filled in as both floor area and additional deck area. on the northeast corner of the site. |
| 03:32:26.71 | Mike | I'm not sure. And so to the findings, the design review permit has 13 findings, heightened design review, an additional seven. The nonconformity permit has seven. The structure findings are an additional four. The ADU permit has no discretionary findings, but the ADU design exception has 10 findings. that are specific. um, specific use findings. that are also referenced by the CUP. which has nine findings. So I'll just, I'll at a high level summarize a few selected, a selection of the findings. Design Review Permit Criterion 7 states the design and location of buildings provides adequate light and air. staff finds the proposed ADU is located within the existing basement of the residence. uh, and a shift of the existing non-conforming setback encroaches Uh, The shift of the existing not conforming self-back encroachments is proposed, which will reduce the most severe the west encroachment and shift a portion to the least severe encroachment area, the east. design. Review permit criteria nine states, the proposed project provides a reasonable level of privacy to the site and adjacent properties. staff finds the proposed The project proposes to remove existing windows along both the south and west facades, thus increasing privacy between the subject property and 306 and 310 Bonita. And the project proposes to retain existing landscaping and provide additional landscape screening between the adjacent residents and 422A locusts. Titan Designer View Criterion 3 states the site will be developed in a manner that minimizes the obstruction of views, particularly primary views. staff finds that the composition of the proposed landscaping demonstrates particular care to protect the view from the bedroom window located at 422 A Locust. Doughton Design Review Criterion 5 states the slope and topography of the site allow for limited excavation and minimal alteration of the site topography outside the building footprint. staff finds. as shown on the grading plan. the amount outside. The footprint of structures is minimal. It's five and a half cubic yards outside the building. Nonconformity Permit 3 states the non-conforming structure is not incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds the non-conforming structure is compatible It's improved with a single family structure with comparable FAR to the surrounding properties. Non-conformity permit six states, if it is a non-conforming structure, the applicant has reduced the non-conformity to the extent reasonably practicable. staff finds. The project is conditioned. And it's condition of approval number eight in the draft resolution in your packet. to subtract a portion of the non-conforming setback encroachment in the west side yard in order to add the non-conforming setback encroachment in the east side yard The West Side Yard encroachment is the most severe. of the existing nonconformities on the site while the additional bulk is proposed in the largest yard on the site. non-conforming structure criteria B states the shift of non-conformity provides a public benefit. The existing roof canopy in the west side yard is only three inches from the property line. The shift will increase the roof line to affect the One foot three inches from the West property line, which will provide a public benefit non-conforming, Structure criterion C states the shift of the nonconformity brings the structure into closer conformity with applicable zoning regulations, staff finds the shift reduces the overall Side yard setback. |
| 03:36:29.50 | Unknown | Hmm. |
| 03:36:29.87 | Mike | Encouragement areas. by approximately nine square feet. ADU design exception criteria in G. states with respect to a privacy exception, the project provides a reasonable level privacy consistent with required designer view permit findings. staff. Staff finds the proposed exception to privacy standard 11 is mitigated through a layering of existing and proposed Landscaping between the adjacent residents located at 422A It also meets the design review criteria. conditional use permit. criteria in H. states the proposed use will not materially adversely affect nearby properties or their permitted uses. Staff finds that any privacy impacts created by overlapping windows will be mitigated through enhanced screening. and conditional use criterion I states findings required by chapter 1044 specific use requirements. for the approval ARE MADE. and specific Findings to section 1044.080.H2. Those are the 11 I believe specific to the ADU design exception are made for the ADU design exception So just a cross reference back to the ADU specific criteria. I'm not sure. And with that, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the attached draft resolution Just find an attachment six in your packets to take the following actions. approval of a designer view permit with heightened design review. for the proposed excavation of the existing crawl space expansion the existing entry and entry porch and roof. window expansion and replacement. and Skylight Edition. Um, also is subject to heightened design review. approval of the non-conformity permit. to maintain the existing rear and side yards step back encroachments and shift the legal non-conforming THE END OF THE END OF THE side yard setbacks. to the east side yard. and approval of the 719 square foot lower level ADU. and also approval of a conditional use for the ADU design exception to the privacy standard THE END OF in section 1044.080.E11. Alternatively, the planning commission may Deny the application direct staff to prepare a resolution with specific findings for denial. or two, they may continue the hearing for additional information and or project revisions. |
| 03:39:11.34 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:39:12.68 | Mike | and I'm happy to answer any questions and thank you for your time this evening. |
| 03:39:18.94 | Kristina Feller | Mike, thank you. Thank you so much. That was another excellent and there are a lot of interesting little details with this particular project. and an unusual sight. So thank you for taking the time to walk us through all of that and those in the audience. either listening at home or here on the Zoom call with us. Bravo. Thank you for that. Um, uh let's see let's see if any commissioners have questions for staff at this time uh vice chair graft |
| 03:39:54.95 | Richard Graef | couple. One is because I physically was not able to visit the site I'm a little unclear as to the overlapping windows. issue. And so perhaps that could be explained on a site plan or something. that would really help me. And then the other was, if you detect any issues regarding the skyline. glare or anything like that from up for you all. Other than that, I really don't have any questions. Thank you. |
| 03:40:33.22 | Jerome Christensen | Thank you. |
| 03:40:33.24 | Mike | Sure. |
| 03:40:33.91 | Richard Graef | federal. |
| 03:40:34.32 | Mike | All right. Yes. |
| 03:40:37.51 | Richard Graef | Yeah, everything else is pretty clear. |
| 03:40:40.12 | Mike | Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Graff. I'm happy to share that elevation again, to sort of depict the overlapping the overlapping windows. And so if this slide can help Um, |
| 03:41:00.14 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Well, that one I can understand. the attempt to screen the window and I that. get back there. Is there a plan, a site plan? Sorry. you could point out where that window is relative to the neighbor property. or they go on the neighbor's property. |
| 03:41:19.48 | Jeffrey Graham | They... Sure. |
| 03:41:23.74 | Kristina Feller | So vice chair Graff, are you trying to figure out sort of the distance between the new window and where the neighbors bedroom was. |
| 03:41:33.65 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I'm just trying to understand physically and in space. what the situation is because I couldn't see it in person. |
| 03:41:42.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:41:42.09 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:41:43.30 | Richard Graef | Well, sorry about that. Thank you. |
| 03:41:45.80 | Kristina Feller | Oh, it's a good question. |
| 03:41:47.99 | Mike | Yeah, and it is a, It's a quirky site so it can be a little tough to get oriented so I'll try and The applicant can probably speak to it. with a little bit more. Um, |
| 03:42:04.24 | Richard Graef | And he could show it in one of the bigger |
| 03:42:04.77 | Mike | Sure. more detail. Take your question. |
| 03:42:07.91 | Richard Graef | I really like that. |
| 03:42:07.92 | Mike | Ariel. |
| 03:42:08.70 | Richard Graef | or something. |
| 03:42:09.93 | Mike | I'll show you here is the opposite, or this is the view with the rendering. And then there's also an opposite view in the plan set that shows |
| 03:42:10.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:42:18.96 | Mike | the view from So here's the view looking the opposite direction to 422A. So it is, |
| 03:42:33.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Michael, could you just point out on the site plan where that window is? Just on the site plan, point to that window and then move your cursor across to where the |
| 03:42:39.36 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:42:39.38 | Mike | and we're |
| 03:42:43.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | neighbor's land would be, although it's not on the plan. Absolutely. |
| 03:42:48.20 | Mike | It would be here. I mean, it's under the deck. where the ADU is located. So it's actually, it's this, it's, you can see the window in the site plan, the neighboring, |
| 03:42:57.10 | Unknown | in the site. |
| 03:42:59.31 | Mike | building is not shown on this. but it would be over here and it is. It's a lower level window and then as I, Um, explain the the neighboring property the neighboring building sits a little bit lower as well |
| 03:43:14.90 | Kristina Feller | So would you say this is about 20 feet away, 30 feet away? |
| 03:43:15.14 | Mike | I think. |
| 03:43:22.07 | Mike | It's... it would be if this is 15 then yes I mean depend assuming they have a five foot setback it would be about you know roughly 20, maybe 23 feet. |
| 03:43:35.40 | Kristina Feller | and five feet lower. |
| 03:43:35.93 | Mike | Look at the... |
| 03:43:38.25 | Kristina Feller | Like from a topographic? I don't know. |
| 03:43:40.50 | Mike | I don't think it drops that much. I think that... |
| 03:43:45.59 | Kristina Feller | Just to give Vice Chair Graff an idea of the decision. |
| 03:43:46.12 | Mike | Bye. you could Yeah, I mean, I think that's probably maybe a two and a half foot retaining wall. I don't think it's... Thank you. five feet. |
| 03:43:58.71 | Richard Graef | Okay, so basically if I was standing in a neighbor's looking out the window, this is what I would see. Yes. |
| 03:44:09.86 | Unknown | who, |
| 03:44:10.42 | Richard Graef | that window would be at roughly eye level, depending on how tall you were. |
| 03:44:15.23 | Mike | Um, Yes, and you can ask the applicant who took the photograph as well. They might be able to speak to exactly the vantage point, but it's from probably standing eye level at the at the window or directly outside the bedroom window. |
| 03:44:30.99 | Richard Graef | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:44:31.90 | Mike | looking across. |
| 03:44:32.86 | Richard Graef | Okay, great. Thank you so much for that. |
| 03:44:35.46 | Mike | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:44:36.24 | Richard Graef | And then any concern about the skyline? |
| 03:44:40.93 | Mike | Um, there's potentially They could be... because there are taller buildings, but they are on the Southwestern, they flanked the the house. the subject property to the south and the west and the skylads have proposed in the northeast corner so There's potential for glare impact, but they are at the far end of the house. And so it's something that, I'm not sure. We could look into having louvers, retractable louvers for the skylights if you think it's a concern worth raising. |
| 03:45:20.89 | Richard Graef | Well, it's only that if there was, clearly there's not going to be going to be much impact. just directly around it. like maybe across the street |
| 03:45:30.41 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 03:45:32.75 | Richard Graef | a hill a bit there might be some. It might be visible. So we don't know that. |
| 03:45:43.53 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 03:45:51.75 | Mike | I'm not sure about Um, that far in the vicinity, but directly adjacent, I think there are some buildings that are at a higher they do have They're much taller. and the, Thank you. the subject property, but potentially up the hill as well, if that's your concern. |
| 03:46:13.00 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Great, thank you. All right, Commissioner Luxenberg, do you have any questions for staff? |
| 03:46:24.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just a couple quick ones. The GeoPIC report says that if the house is not lifted, then the proposed basement excavation should be and should get the footing down to the firm bearing strata. Is that the approach they're taking? or they're not lifting the house, right? |
| 03:46:42.11 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 03:46:43.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:46:43.81 | Mike | I'm not sure the applicant is more in tune to the foundational work. So I think he can speak to the technique at the play. |
| 03:46:52.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that's really important. Um, The second question relates to the geotechnical reports indicated something about drainage. So I'll ask it now, and then when the applicant comes on, you can answer it. But what the approach to drainage is, and also are you aware of they've got this two-foot |
| 03:47:12.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:47:13.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | thing to get into this place a long distance because there's no frontage. But how are they getting construction materials, concrete, that stuff, |
| 03:47:18.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:47:18.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:47:21.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You have to go down that long. |
| 03:47:21.76 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:47:23.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's the only way in, correct? Correct. |
| 03:47:26.61 | Mike | there's a staging plan out in the right of way and they would need to get an encouragement permit from DPW to do construction staging in the street. Okay. I see. |
| 03:47:34.62 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:47:36.11 | Mike | And I, yeah, I suppose, um, They would have to be pretty efficient with how they load materials onto the site. |
| 03:47:45.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. all right that's all i have chair feller thank you thank you that's an excellent report by the way |
| 03:47:52.51 | Mike | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. I appreciate that. |
| 03:47:56.71 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Junius, do you have any questions for staff? |
| 03:48:04.58 | Andrew Junius | I do not. |
| 03:48:05.84 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you. Um, Actually, Mike, I don't have any either. I think that this was pretty straightforward and your report was excellent. The staff report and your presentation tonight So I appreciate that. Um, And I just want to confirm that notice went out to all residents within 300 feet of the property. just like that. |
| 03:48:30.02 | Mike | you |
| 03:48:30.34 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:48:30.40 | Mike | Yes, that's correct, both the site posting and the mailer on the 10th. |
| 03:48:35.42 | Kristina Feller | Perfect. |
| 03:48:36.18 | Mike | Thank you. |
| 03:48:37.11 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, if. Nobody else has any questions. for staff at this time, I'm gonna go ahead and ask the applicant to come up and present to us. Mike, who here is representing |
| 03:48:57.24 | Mike | Jerome Christiansen is he's the applicant the property owner and the architect |
| 03:49:01.26 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 03:49:02.19 | Mike | So if you have. |
| 03:49:02.32 | Kristina Feller | you have |
| 03:49:03.57 | Mike | All parties, one-stop shop represented. |
| 03:49:07.84 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Welcome, Mr. Christensen. Before you start, let me just ask, |
| 03:49:08.50 | Mike | Where can we go? |
| 03:49:13.06 | Kristina Feller | The Zoom team, could you put our timer clock up here? So you have 15 minutes to present. You're welcome to take that whole 15 minutes. save some for later on for any rebuttal or final comments if you'd like if so just let us know so we can give you a a warning um if you want to save some of that additional time. And do you need to share your screen? I want to make sure the Zoom team is giving you those permissions as well. |
| 03:49:43.72 | Jerome Christensen | I think it'd be good just to answer some of the questions that came up. I think I need to clarify a few things that were said. But, um, |
| 03:49:53.03 | Mike | Graham, you should be all set as co-hosts, so you can share your screen as you need to. |
| 03:49:53.23 | Jerome Christensen | Thank you. Oh, okay. that's what we're doing. |
| 03:49:57.11 | Kristina Feller | as you know. |
| 03:49:57.52 | Jerome Christensen | Thank you. |
| 03:49:59.09 | Kristina Feller | Well, in that case, I will hand it over to you and welcome this evening. Thank you for being here and the floor is yours. |
| 03:50:05.32 | Jerome Christensen | All right, well, thank you, commissioners, and thank you, Mike and Lily as well for your help. And thank you everyone for staying up so late to my little team project here. It is a challenge. It's a, shoehorned in and, um, We worked hard to make it fit and make sure that what we're doing is not negatively impacting our neighbors while giving us something more than we have now. So again, my name is Jerome Christensen. I live here with my wife, Kate, my son, Arlo, who's 12, and my daughter, Isaiah, who's seven. We really enjoyed being here in Sausalio. We bought the house about four years ago. after looking for a very long time. And we love it, we love the neighborhood. Our kids both go to the local public schools here. One of them's in the Marin City School, the other one's here. and they really enjoy being at those campuses. Um, Yeah, this was the only house we could afford at the time. We bought it and it needed work. We knew right away that we would need more space because it's only 800 square feet. And the addition below was sort of a clear choice because we knew that there was enough space in there that something could happen with a little excavation. Um, But it's an unusual site that's hard to develop as you see on this. You know, I think, One thing just to note, I'm hoping the project is pretty acceptable to everyone, but it is a site that's pretty difficult to develop. I think as an owner architect, I have maybe an ability that some people don't have to do that. I don't know that anyone else would be able to pull this off as I work through it. It's just, it's been very challenging, but, Again, with the design, you know, in terms of what we're proposing, we deliberately tried to minimize the impact on all of our neighbors. We are not proposing to raise the house at all. So to answer another commissioner's question, we're keeping the house exactly where it is. We're opening up space underneath the house, but we are not lifting the house. Um, So we're working within the footprint. We're doing a modest addition at the deck, which is to basically capture our bedroom up there. And I can go into that a bit more. We met with the neighbors a number of times. We've talked to people a number of times. We've asked for solicited information for them. Everyone has been very supportive, which is great. It's a great group of people that live around here. We all sort of work together because it is a denser condition than many other places in South Salido. So it's a sort of tight knit community. And we didn't receive anything substantial that needed to be adjusted because I think we did work so hard to fit it into what we had already. So, you know, in closing in my just introduction here, We really want to stay here. We've got to add space to stay here because as we all know, after the pandemic, You know, living on top of each other in a small space, even a big space is difficult. Um, and you know we've been very sensitive to the neighbors And You know, again, I don't know who else could pull this off. So I don't know if we want this developed, this gotta happen now is the way I'm looking at it. And we're gonna continue to work to mitigate any kind of effects this might have on the neighbors. |
| 03:53:17.02 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:53:19.48 | Jerome Christensen | A couple of clarifications I wanted to make. and answers to some of the questions that some of the commissioners brought up. So I'm gonna share my screen now. Let's see, share screen. All right. Um, So Mike, just to clarify one thing, it is challenging to access it. a picture of a walkway. The walkway itself is four feet. We have a two foot easement on that walkway. but I'm actually working with my neighbors to, and these are both of these neighbors wrote letters in support. So we're all working together on this. So this is the way we get in and out of the property. Um, In terms of the clearances to for that lower window. So it's actually about 25 feet away. And so that's where the lower window is. I don't know if you can see my screen there, |
| 03:54:12.81 | Unknown | Oh, I'm sorry. |
| 03:54:12.96 | Jerome Christensen | This is where the neighbor's window is. This is where our window is proposed. and it's about 25 feet away. The gray drop currently is about three feet, but we're actually, reducing the level here. So it will reduce the grade step, but it actually makes the window sit behind the planting a bit more. So I think that's what was represented. And one of the important things to note here is, you know, we could do more to screen it, but in doing so we block all their sunlight. So we talked a lot about how to maintain sunlight and view. And one thing this ordinance doesn't talk about is You can put up a fence and completely shot in your neighbor, apparently, to get the privacy. So working with the current tenant there, the idea was how we give you as much sunlight as possible, but also block some form of screening. So that's how we came up. with the planting solution there. Um, to the, so that's what the overlapping windows, for the skylight issue you know one thing to bring up here is these two if you can see these buildings that are kind of um Let's see. that are back I don't know if you can see my hand here. This building is a few stories higher than ours, as is this. And then this gap is filled with, there's like a staircase right here and a tree. So these skylights will not be visible from the uphill anywhere. There are, the reason we have them is because we have no ability really to have windows on these back walls. So otherwise we end up with very dark rooms. So these skylights are in lieu of windows which would otherwise be I think even more of a kind of hazard, both in terms of fire issues, We have one here. we're taking our way here, but also just in terms of privacy issues. So we saw them as a couple of the net benefits um, And also, you know, again, they're screened by these buildings essentially. Um, In terms of the geotech, so we're not lifting the house, drainage, the approach to that is, you know, we're going to insert like a mirror drain or a foundation drain on the property. There's no foundation drain there now. The water basically makes its way into our basement and through the property. There's no... know all the downspouts dump onto the property so the solution is to capture that water And as required by the public works is to put it in a pipe and take it to the curb. So, you know, I had explored trying to capture on site, but everything we do in such a small property would potentially exacerbate water conditions in other properties. So there's really not an onsite solution here, but that was my first instinct was to try to keep it on the site. Cause I would really rather not run something all the way down the walkway, but that is the only solution that seems to work. And then in terms of access, again, we do have the the deeded access, but this walkway is larger than that. easement. So we'll be using that whole thing and we'll be working with our neighbors to make sure that's acceptable to them. been very supportive so far. Um, I think that addresses the things that were brought up. Is there anything else that people have questions about? |
| 03:57:23.92 | Kristina Feller | Well, Zoom team, let's go ahead and stop the clock. there, thank you. Um, I appreciate the presentation. Let's go ahead and maybe stop screen sharing for just a minute. Okay. And allow the commissioners to ask any questions they might ask. |
| 03:57:39.74 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:57:46.97 | Kristina Feller | I have one just to start off with, and then I'll move to Vice Chair Graff. What you're creating here is an accessory dwelling unit. So do you intend to rent this out? |
| 03:58:03.45 | Jerome Christensen | You know, the initial intent is not to rent it out initially, but that is part of a long-term strategy to make this sort of feasible for us. So when we worked through the planning department, Um, It seemed like a great solution to have this as a feasible accessory dwelling that could be used, but that isn't our initial idea. The initial idea is we have two bedrooms and there's four of us and it's 800 square feet. So, The reason why we went to the accessory dwelling unit is because our ability to develop the site was limited by the planning code, which meant if it was a single unit, it could only be developed to a certain FAR. which it's such a small property that we couldn't even like add the basement So this is giving the sort of unusual property the opportunity to kind of develop the entire space, which is not visible to anyone outside. It's sort of like we're working around these sort of rules to do something which is pretty banal to the entire neighborhood. No one is impacted negatively in terms of our footprint. because it's really the same footprint that we have now. |
| 03:59:15.17 | Kristina Feller | But the reason I ask is really the intention of accessory dwelling unit is to create more housing units. |
| 03:59:21.35 | Jerome Christensen | Yeah. And our intention is that that would be a future plan, but it's not a Present plan. So, you know, when our kids are older, the thought was to be able to use it as a second unit. but at De MoMA we're using it to for a for our family. |
| 03:59:41.70 | Kristina Feller | Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. Voice Church Graf. |
| 03:59:46.95 | Richard Graef | You asked the question that I was going to ask. We got the answer. Thank you. |
| 03:59:52.90 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg, do you have any questions for the applicant? |
| 03:59:57.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, thank you for answering the questions that I asked earlier. And my question also was similar to Chair Feller's question. So, and I understand the code really well. So I understand what you're doing, but I just want to make clear, you're going from a two bedroom, two bedrooms to a total of two bedrooms. Is that correct? Am I missing? No, we have two now. We're going to three. You're going to three now. That's right. |
| 04:00:19.45 | Jerome Christensen | No, we have |
| 04:00:23.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | because we got a late mail or something from another neighbor talking about large number of whatever, large number of people and whatever, and it just doesn't, you're adding basically one bedroom by this. You're not increasing the size of the house at all, and you're adding a bedroom. Yeah. And so the late mail is regarding parking, but for what you're doing, you're not exacerbating parking, and it's not one of the issues on ADA anyways. But you're really not. What you're doing is very simple. You're staying within the existing footprint and you're adding one bedroom basically to the site. Yeah, we're trying to- And you're allowing a unit in the future, which will allow for potential housing |
| 04:00:42.45 | David Sincotta | Yeah. |
| 04:01:06.78 | Jerome Christensen | Yeah, we're trying to keep it. |
| 04:01:13.87 | Jerome Christensen | Yeah, and to the parking point, first of all, I offered to review this project with that neighbor, and she declined. It was very pleasant, so I was sort of surprised to see a late mail from her. but with regards to the male, Sorry, to the parking, you know, if we were ever to rent this out as a single unit, it's going to be like one person, it's too small. So you're talking about one additional car. I'm sorry. It's true we don't have a garage because we can't. Our two cars go to three cars. That's the kind of added burden we're putting on the street. for an additional unit, which I, you know, in the short term, there's no change. to your point. |
| 04:01:55.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. That's what I was envisioning, and that explains it well. And I think the exacerbation is not what the neighbor was concerned about, so I appreciate it. |
| 04:02:07.33 | Kristina Feller | Well, I don't think that this property would be subject to a parking requirement anyway, because it's so close to public transportation. |
| 04:02:15.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, sure. Yeah, that's correct. It's just, but also, I didn't, the, the, the lay now gives the perception of something different than their, what they're, of what they're actually adding as far as they'd be adding one person at most, which is probably one car at most, if at all, because they're within transit. So. |
| 04:02:30.60 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:02:33.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:02:33.50 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 04:02:34.25 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Junius. |
| 04:02:38.06 | Andrew Junius | Oh, just a couple of comments. Thank you, Chair Fowler. Mr. Christensen, really impressive, I really do. applaud you for the effort here. I hope we're going to get you through here tonight. THE FAMILY. you know, Non-conforming structures are really tough. and you are really, in a spot with virtually no you know, no room to maneuver. I think it's unfortunate. I mean, I do think in some respects that the Sal Saludah Code really forgiving because it does allow you to move a few things around. I know in some communities you can't do anything, you know, this building's gotta sit there. If you change anything, it's gone. So you have that little bit of flexibility, You're right. this is the only way you can add some area i think it's a creative and a completely appropriate use of the edu laws at this point we are going to get an additional unit it'll eventually be a two unit property at some point in the future. I think that works for me. I'm not sure. and just well done. Thank you. I'm ready to make a motion when we're ready. |
| 04:03:41.27 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I'm going to open this up for public comment here in just a moment. Any other questions? Comments or questions? from the commission. No. All right, let's go ahead and open this up for public comment. Again, to do so, please raise your hand in the Zoom application or if you're on a phone, please press star nine. I see one hand up here and if I'm going to make note we've got seven minutes and 38 seconds left for Mr. Christensen. Zoom team, if we can put that to three minutes. Um, The public has three minutes for each commenter. to comment and if you can see the timer on screen now, one hand up that I see is a Jacques if you could please unmute yourself and share your screen and please announce yourself. and state your name and the floor is yours. So welcome this evening. |
| 04:04:53.08 | Jacques Ullman | Yes, my name is Jacques Ullman. a neighbor directly Next to this building and I want to speak in great favor of this project. It's amazing to me that We have two. neighbors with big buildings. And they're the ones who put high fences And big hedges up against in our face And Mr. Christensen is a neighbor who is friendly, who has an open screen type with very sophisticated planning, which is designed to do the job where it needs to do the job and let other people have sun where they need sun. and He also came to us and and looked at his project from our windows And I'm sure he did that with all the other neighbors. And so I think this is an example of a neighbor who's staying in the context of the tradition of this neighborhood, which was a working class neighborhood, has now become upscale and price but still we're trying to keep that character. And unlike the proposal that was made on Bonita. that down the road where we still have those damn uh, story polls to look at to remind us of what a horror that was. And, uh, Also, Even things like the storm drainage and subsurface drainage is being taken care of, the buildings uphill from us don't do. They dump their water on us. You know, here we have something that is really positive for all of us, and I hope you will pass it. And I also want to add that with the new laws now in California that are going to allow more of this kind of second unit. An infill It is going to be important for planning commissions or design review boards to, uh, Look at them carefully. and be considerate of what the people are trying to do but unfortunately, maybe not all the applicants will be as good about it as Mr. Christensen. And you will have to be the ones who go in the houses and look. But he did the work for you. Thank you. |
| 04:07:21.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, sir. Thank you so much for being here this evening and speaking on this particular project. I'm looking for any other hands or members of the public that would like to make comment this evening. Just a moment to find Uh, how to do that in the Zoom application. Okay, seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment at this time. Mr. Christensen, if you would like to add anything else at this time, you are welcome to do so. You have seven minutes and 38 seconds left. I think, If you would like to do that, with this. |
| 04:08:04.41 | Jerome Christensen | I'd just like to thank Jacques for his kind words And thank you all for staying up late to look at my project. I don't have anything else to add unless there's questions that you guys have. So I'll leave it. I'll give it back to you guys. |
| 04:08:17.99 | Kristina Feller | Right, thank you so much. Don't go far here, we're just going to bring this back up to our virtual dais and deliberate and Thank you very much. Um, Would anyone like to start us off this evening? |
| 04:08:34.71 | Andrew Junius | Sure, I don't think there's much to deliberate. I'm ready to make a motion. I see nothing wrong with this. It's a completely appropriate use of a non-conforming structure. I'm very happy for the Christiansen family that uh, be able to stay here with a little bit of extra room It makes total sense to me. All the questions have been answered. |
| 04:08:53.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:08:55.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:08:55.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:08:55.45 | Richard Graef | Well, I would echo those comments. |
| 04:08:55.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 04:08:59.55 | Richard Graef | I think it's a great project. Really well thought out. Very clever. and thank Jacques also for his comments and approval. That's very important. So yes, I'm ready to make the findings and vote for approval. |
| 04:09:18.55 | Kristina Feller | Great. So there is a motion on the floor. I just want to... add Mr. Christensen, thank you. I also think this is very clever But I also want to make note that this is an excellent example of what the commission likes to see in neighbors working with their neighbors and being considerate and thoughtful in what they're proposing and looking through the lenses of their neighbors in the larger community and not just at their own property so I want to commend you for that and I want to thank you for that. |
| 04:09:55.39 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:09:57.87 | Kristina Feller | And with that, encourage everybody else coming in front of the commission to take a page out of your book. So there is a motion on the floor from Commissioner Junius and a second from Commissioner Luxenberg. So Director Whelan, could you kindly take the role? |
| 04:10:20.23 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Junius. |
| 04:10:23.17 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 04:10:23.91 | Director Whalen | Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 04:10:25.16 | Andrew Junius | Yes. |
| 04:10:26.19 | Director Whalen | Vice Chair Graph. |
| 04:10:27.32 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 04:10:28.00 | Director Whalen | And Chair Feller. |
| 04:10:29.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:10:29.31 | Director Whalen | Yeah. |
| 04:10:29.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:10:29.97 | Director Whalen | And that carries 401 unanimous approval from the planning commission. Any action of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council within 10 days of the action. Please contact the planning division. If you have any questions or you'd like to file an appeal, you must file an application plus the appropriate appeal fee within the 10 days of the decision of the action for the appeal to be filed timely. Thank you. |
| 04:10:57.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:10:57.24 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 04:10:57.32 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. |
| 04:11:01.71 | Jerome Christensen | Thank you all. I really appreciate your kind words. |
| 04:11:06.07 | Kristina Feller | Okay, director Whelan, I think we're on to item six, communications on our agenda. |
| 04:11:12.56 | Director Whalen | We are, thank you, Chair Fowler. I provided a pretty comprehensive update to the planning commission at your last meeting on activities in the community development department. I do wanna give you kind of a preview of what we might be looking at for the 6th, your next meeting in October. So I have three items right now slated for that agenda. One is a design review permit at 11 Bonita. The other is the public hearing for 310 Harbor Drive. the Clipper Yacht Harbor. And then the other item is a study session for the 210 and 429 Locust Street project. |
| 04:12:00.37 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:12:03.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a question? Didn't we continue a hearing tonight to that meeting? |
| 04:12:10.41 | Director Whalen | Thank you very much. And the Woodward Project, thank you. Commissioner Luxembourg, that's 234 Woodward. Thank you. |
| 04:12:22.48 | Director Whalen | Okay. |
| 04:12:22.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What were those addresses on LOCUS, the study session again? |
| 04:12:26.61 | Director Whalen | Sure, yeah, so it's 210 Benita. Thank you. |
| 04:12:29.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 04:12:29.97 | Director Whalen | And 429 locust. |
| 04:12:30.49 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 04:12:34.69 | Director Whalen | and it's not hard to miss their story polls up. Thank you. |
| 04:12:39.55 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:12:39.64 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:12:39.65 | Director Whalen | Yeah. |
| 04:12:42.20 | Kristina Feller | That's a pretty full agenda, Director Whalen. I think we need to look at time constraints on this. |
| 04:12:53.05 | Director Whalen | If I may make a suggestion, Chair Feller, since there is a study session item here, the planning commission may entertain meeting a little bit earlier if that is acceptable to start the study session and then begin the public hearings. After that, that's just an idea. |
| 04:13:11.58 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Let me make a note of that. |
| 04:13:17.98 | Andrew Junius | I'm curious, really, and, Chair Feller, what happened to the EDAC? We're supposed to get an EDAC presentation at some point as that's coming down the road. |
| 04:13:27.86 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I was just going to ask that because we, we, We really do need to hear back from them. We were supposed to hear back from them tonight. Yeah. nothing's scheduled and then we're still waiting to hear about the joint city council planning commission hearing this calendar year. Any insight on either one of those? |
| 04:13:54.49 | Director Whalen | I still need to coordinate with the chair of the EDAC to align on a date for the presentation. I can work with the chair to determine if that date should be the 6th or if it should be your subsequent meeting in October and set that date and ensure that EDEC is prepared to give you a presentation on the date that's selected. |
| 04:14:17.78 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:14:18.73 | Director Whalen | And then I need to work with the city manager on the joint planning commission and city council meeting request as well. |
| 04:14:26.56 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Right. Any other communications or updates? |
| 04:14:37.20 | Kristina Feller | directly on from you. |
| 04:14:38.77 | Director Whalen | Not from me, thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 04:14:40.50 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Great. Um, Let's see, before we go into some of our subcommittees, I just want to report out that I did attend the Sausalito Marin City Sanitation District ribbon cutting Oh, yeah. Ceremony. yesterday. which was wonderful. And I think they should all be commended for, Um, the work that they've done. I mean, they run a tight ship and we are, We are all benefiting from their work and their innovation in terms of, of the sanitation district. So I just wanted to let you know that I did attend that, the ribbon cutting. Let's move on to subcommittees. And then if anyone else has anything to add, The objective design and development standards subcommittee Commissioner Junius, you and I- |
| 04:15:44.18 | Andrew Junius | Nice. Not a lot to report. Do we have a meeting scheduled yet? I mean, we're supposed to be meeting soon to start Wrapping this up. |
| 04:15:51.62 | Kristina Feller | I think it's Tuesday. Isn't it Tuesday? |
| 04:15:54.32 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 04:15:54.68 | Kristina Feller | The 28th. |
| 04:15:54.78 | Director Whalen | The 28th. Yes, Commissioner Junius, if you would like me to recirculate a meeting invite, I'm happy to do that to make sure that's on your calendar. That would be great. |
| 04:16:02.34 | Andrew Junius | That'd be great. |
| 04:16:03.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:16:03.81 | Andrew Junius | Yes, I can make that. Apologies, I missed that. Thank you. |
| 04:16:07.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:16:07.40 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:16:07.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a question regarding that? |
| 04:16:07.50 | Kristina Feller | I have a question. Just one second, Commissioner Luxembourg, if you don't mind. And Commissioner Junius, Bob did send out He sent an email, I think it came yesterday with information to prep us for for that meeting. If you didn't get that, definitely let me or or director, no as well. |
| 04:16:29.98 | Andrew Junius | I will do that, thank you. |
| 04:16:31.15 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:16:32.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:16:32.39 | Kristina Feller | Yes, the commissioner looks for it. |
| 04:16:33.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | In regard to that design standards, does SB 9, 1, is it applicable to Sausalito and 2, design standards and impact. Or is that not part of SB9? |
| 04:16:48.42 | Mary Wagner | I'm happy to address that Chair Feller if you'd like, and I can turn my camera back on too. But yes and yes are the answers to your questions, Commissioner Luxembourg. SB9 affects all jurisdictions, unlike SB35, which only affects certain designated jurisdictions. And we do need to look and talk with the committee about impacts of SB9 and the objective standards and if your community development director wanted to add something more to that too |
| 04:17:22.55 | Director Whalen | Thank you, Mary. I think that's pretty comprehensive that yes, we will need to talk about SB9 in the context of the work that we're doing with the odds. Definitely. |
| 04:17:36.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:17:37.82 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, so, there let's talk about the housing element advisory committee. There's a kickoff meeting scheduled for later in October. The date seems to keep moving. I don't think there's anything new to report in this hearing today. because nothing's been confirmed yet. So, So nothing really to report in that regard. The parklet, it was, actually the parklets were really a parklet benchmarking task force which is a a long name for vice chair graph and I tried to benchmark what other jurisdictions similar to Sausli though have done quite some time ago regarding parklets at the beginning of COVID. And we've sent that on to the city council, just for their reference we have not been engaged or asked to do anything as the commission regarding parklets. Vice Chair Graf, I don't know if you've got anything to add to that, but I think because we've done our done what you and I had sort of plan to do, we can probably disband our little benchmarking task force. What do you think? |
| 04:19:04.10 | Richard Graef | Well, I think you're right. It was educational. And I think, you know, clearly it's, it's, uh, Thank you. It's the new reality out there. Um, Um, It was interesting looking at various different And I think that's a great thing. Some of them are really quite well thought out and really nice little mini environments Some of them were really thrown together kind of sloppy and not too attractive, That doesn't seem to stop the people from going. So I think... Oh, I think we've got now in the last, this last month, we've got two projects that show how well Uh, What a great treatment. can be done for that condition for the park with some And so I'm glad to see that's happening and I'd like to be able to hold those up as good examples for our community. |
| 04:20:09.68 | Kristina Feller | Good. |
| 04:20:10.37 | Richard Graef | but I don't know that there's anything else we need to do. |
| 04:20:10.40 | Kristina Feller | But I... No, I think- |
| 04:20:13.94 | Richard Graef | Please. Unless there was ever some kind of a Um, separate commission or something to to review proposals for parklets, but I don't think we're there yet. |
| 04:20:29.77 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:20:29.98 | Monica Finnegan | . |
| 04:20:30.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I think at this time, let's go ahead and disband our benchmarking task force. if the city council comes back and engages the planning commission, to assist with any ordinance work or any templates or any standards that they'd like some assistance with. And then we will revisit that as a commission together and plan accordingly at that time. But I think no more work is needed there. So let's Director Whelan, note that that has been disbanded. |
| 04:21:05.63 | Director Whalen | Chair Fowler, if I could also just mention on that topic that the council will have on their, agenda for next week, an item of business regarding the temporary agreements that the city issued during COVID and policy direction regarding a parklet program, if that's what the city council would like to move forward with. So there will be a discussion at the council level next week about that. So stay tuned. |
| 04:21:32.90 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, well, they'll let us know when they wanna engage the planning commission. So we'll just stay tuned as you said. um the ombudsman work there's not I mean of course with Commissioner Saad out this week um We have briefed the mayor and at this point, we just have to paper a couple things for her. and then that and then the mayor will issue that to the city manager and they will they will take it from there with any further direction, but that's where we stand now. And then Commissioner Junius, what is the latest and greatest with your liaison role to EDAC's enforcement? task force. |
| 04:22:17.22 | Andrew Junius | There's not there has not been a lot of progress. I do think they've been collecting data and I do think there are lots of and lots of issues to deal with. and I hope to dig in there shortly. Right. |
| 04:22:30.23 | Kristina Feller | Um, Director Whalen, maybe when you are discussing with EDAC, the presentation that we'd love to get from them, it's so important. to the Planning Commission to sort of have that bigger strategic look at this, maybe you can get an update on the real commitment to enforcement by EDAC as well. And hopefully EDAC can present a little bit more and hopefully engage more proactively with our Liaison. |
| 04:23:09.85 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, and I would also just, maybe Lily, you and I can have an offline conversation at some point. I'd be curious as to like, to the extent there is much enforcement in Sausalito who's in charge because again, a lot of it, I think, It's a bit of a chicken and egg issue. If there isn't the political will and the resources to do it, All right. I mean, I think it's a great thing. |
| 04:23:33.95 | Andrew Junius | Ciao. |
| 04:23:34.93 | Monica Finnegan | Of course. |
| 04:23:35.15 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:23:36.70 | Monica Finnegan | Thank you. |
| 04:23:36.87 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:23:38.49 | Kristina Feller | Does anybody else have any other announcements they'd like to make? at this time. All right. How about a motion to adjourn? |
| 04:23:51.60 | Andrew Junius | move. Second. |
| 04:23:54.91 | Kristina Feller | All in favor. |
| 04:23:56.58 | Andrew Junius | Right. |
| 04:23:57.07 | Director Whalen | Bye. |
| 04:23:58.03 | Andrew Junius | Good evening. MR. Good to see you all. |
| 04:24:00.61 | Director Whalen | Good meeting, thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:24:02.28 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 04:24:02.30 | Director Whalen | Well, look. |
| 04:24:03.23 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:24:03.24 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 04:24:03.26 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:24:03.70 | Director Whalen | Yeah, Richard. Um, |
| 04:24:05.62 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:24:05.66 | Director Whalen | off the record Wait, wait. No, no, no. I can, do you want me to give you a call? I can give you a call, Richard. Whatever. |
| 04:24:13.18 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 04:24:13.40 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:24:13.55 | Richard Graef | I'm sorry. Yeah. |
| 04:24:14.41 | Director Whalen | Thank you. |
| 04:24:14.53 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:24:14.90 | Director Whalen | Bye. |
| 04:24:14.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:24:14.95 | Richard Graef | No. |
| 04:24:14.99 | Unknown | I'm kidding. |
| 04:24:15.29 | Director Whalen | THE FAMILY IS |
| 04:24:16.14 | Richard Graef | It's off the wall. Don't forget it. |
| 04:24:18.83 | Unknown | No, Richard. Bye. |
| 04:24:20.98 | Unknown | you |
| 04:24:21.03 | Unknown | Lonesome soldier . We are. Oh. you |
Robert Kahn — Against: Represented the uphill neighbor. Argued that the proposed slope stability conditions are vague and reduce city oversight. Asserted that the applicant's approach may not fully stabilize the hillside and that the negative declaration incorrectly states no geologic hazard. Suggested requiring a completion bond. ▶ 📄
Monica Finnegan — In Favor: Spoke personally and as a representative of EDAC in support of the project, emphasizing its importance for economic vitality and downtown revitalization. Noted that the project aligns with community values and would generate sales tax and restore housing units. ▶ 📄