| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:05.20 | Unknown | public. |
| 00:00:15.64 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | CHAIR FELLER, I HAND IT OVER TO YOU. |
| 00:00:18.51 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much, Maria, Good evening everybody and welcome to our regular planning commission hearing for Wednesday May 18th. I would like to call this meeting to order. and ask our interim director of community development department, Dan Hortonette, to please orientate the public to our Zoom protocols, as well as take the roll call. |
| 00:00:42.40 | Dan | Chair Feller. Good evening, Chair Feller and Planning Commissioners. This meeting is being held pursuant to government code section 54953 subsection E And in light of the declared state of emergency, the regular meeting of the planning commission on May 18. will be conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcast live on the city's website. |
| 00:01:05.76 | Kristina Feller | Can we take, please take a roll call? |
| 00:01:09.30 | Dan | Yes, Commissioner Graff. here. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:01:13.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Careful. |
| 00:01:15.01 | Dan | Commissioner Saad. HERE. Vice Chair Junius. Thank you. Chair Feller. |
| 00:01:20.98 | Kristina Feller | Here. |
| 00:01:21.91 | Dan | We have a quorum. |
| 00:01:23.07 | Kristina Feller | Terrific, thank you. The next item on our agenda is item number two, which is the approval of the agenda this evening. Do I have any comments from commissioners or a motion to approve? |
| 00:01:35.95 | Richard Graef | Move to approve. |
| 00:01:36.91 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 00:01:37.87 | Kristina Feller | That's good. Thank you. Dan, if we could do a roll call. |
| 00:01:42.29 | Dan | Commissioner Graff? Yeah. Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:01:46.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | else. |
| 00:01:47.39 | Dan | Commissioner Saad. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. IS. Chair Feller? |
| 00:01:52.99 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:01:53.26 | Dan | Thank you. Motion carries. Terrific. |
| 00:01:56.79 | Kristina Feller | Okay, the next item on our agenda is public comment on any items not on the agenda this evening. And Dan, if I could ask you again to orientate the public here on how to raise their hand in the Zoom application or if they're calling in. from a cell phone. |
| 00:02:12.03 | Dan | Sure, thank you, Chair Feller. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the planning commission from taking action on for engaging in discussion concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the planning commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct the subject to be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand in the Zoom application and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star 9. Each speaker will be notified when the time has allowed. |
| 00:03:02.70 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you so much for that instruction. So at this time, I'm just looking for any raised hands in the audience. Again, this is for public comment on any items not on the agenda this evening. Seeing none, I will go ahead and close public comment and we will move on to the next item on our agenda, which is item number four, communications. Dan, I'm gonna hand this over to you if you would like, or would you like commissioners to report out first? |
| 00:03:33.31 | Dan | So report out from the subcommittees includes housing element advisory committee, objective design and development standards and the SB9 working group, kind of a follow-up. |
| 00:03:44.33 | Kristina Feller | Okay. I'm gonna go ahead and ask Commissioner Saad if you could report out please on the housing elements. |
| 00:03:54.86 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sure Chair Feller. So we had the second town hall on May 9th. and the main objective from that town hall was to present to the public what the housing element process is an overview of the draft opportunities and to get some public feedback especially on the preferences for the types of housing so there was a voting tool that was enabled for all participants to be able to select multifamily, mixed use, single family, these types of uses in different areas as well as would you like to see housing in specific locations? Very few sites had a remove option, but for the rest of the locations, it was to select the type of housing that would be on that area that is in our current list of sites. um, There are, I believe from the town hall, there were about 650 units remaining that we are trying to achieve. That's gonna give us a buffer of around 25% in case the state has any, feedback or rejects any of our of our of what we present the town hall presentation is in our virtual binder which is on the city website if anyone wants to check it out there's other information in the virtual binder as well that's been uploaded that is useful and moving forward I believe we have our next HEAC meeting this Monday on May 23rd should be at 6 p.m and we're going to continue to address affirmatively never say affirmatively furthering fair housing And we're headed down the line to our draft environmental review. So we are on a quick pace to get there, but encourage everyone to continue to write in. We've had a lot of public feedback coming to our distro, HIAC at softlito.gov. So please continue to... write in and everything will be uploaded to the agenda. Of course, please attend the meeting, but it's been a lot of great feedback so far. Thank you, Chair Fowler. |
| 00:06:06.52 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you very much. And I'll just continue on that last comment. The comments that we have received so far have had direct substantive impact on our deliberations our discussions and ultimate decisions so please please continue to write in on to public comment for the housing element and please we encourage you to attend you can attend these meetings either by zoom or it is live streamed uh through the city website you can watch that way but um it it uh I'm so impressed by the amount of public participation input and the more the merrier. So thank you everybody very much for doing that. Um, Any other items Commissioner saw that you'd like to report out on? None from me, thank you. |
| 00:06:59.05 | Nastassya Saad | Chair Feller. |
| 00:07:00.02 | Kristina Feller | THANK YOU. Vice Chair Junius, would you like to update everybody on the objective design and development standards? |
| 00:07:07.64 | Andrew Junius | Sure. |
| 00:07:07.88 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 00:07:07.90 | Andrew Junius | thing, Chair Feller. So we met on May 9th and had a very productive conversation with our awesome consultant, Bob Brown. Sergio Rubin joined us as well. We're looking at a pretty robust document has been prepared by our consultant opticos is uh... there's i think some significant progress has been made they've made some recommendations regarding the types of form-based code that they'll be recommending that we use. We're looking at about three different districts. We had a pretty robust discussion on things like density and parking in a mixed use context, where retail might be appropriate and where it might not be required. Those are all things that are gonna continue to be worked out. You know, we have a couple of really interesting issues we continue to work on things like the idea of it's easy to get easy. It's easier to apply the objective standards to new construction. We're still working through how the objective standards might be applied in renovations and additions. That's a bit of a conundrum at the moment. And we also have, there's a bit of a gray area. It's pretty clear from the law that the objective standards have to be imposed in an SB 35 context. And we've already seen how there are going to be imposed, or at least we've recommended a certain collection of limited objective standards for SB 9 application. The Housing Accountability Act is a little bit of a different animal. And so we're continuing to work with the city attorney and trying to make sure we understand where and how the objective standards can be used in that context. We don't have another meeting set quite yet, but we're hoping to at some point in the weeks and months ahead kind of merge the discussion into the housing element issues as well, because they clearly there's there's certainly some overlap there. and at some point we will be making those connections. Thank you for the opportunity. |
| 00:08:59.76 | Kristina Feller | Amen. Thank you so much for the hard work on that. |
| 00:09:03.91 | Dan | I do believe that the odds are going to the Historic Preservation Commission coming up here too. Uh-huh. And it's... |
| 00:09:13.60 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:09:14.71 | Dan | Yeah. |
| 00:09:14.97 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you, Dan. |
| 00:09:17.41 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, and I think this is not the first time that this has gone to them, but it's an ongoing conversation. So it's very important. that Historic Preservation Commission be aware of what the impact is as well. So thank you for that report out. Do you have any other items to report out on? If not, we can move into SB9. with yourself and Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:09:42.27 | Andrew Junius | I don't think there's a lot else to say at the moment. The record, we obviously, we voted our recommendations out of the commission at our last meeting. And I think we're waiting for it to be agendized at the city council. I do think that, there may be, I don't think we should be disbanding the working group yet, and it may actually be a wise thing to kind of hold it together and begin to transform it into some other, almost like broaden it into a state legislative working group because SB 39 is still being tweaked all the time. the Housing Accountability Act as well. So we may want to have this to turn into a standing working group to monitor and give regular reports on state legislation. Jeffrey, do you have any other comments? |
| 00:10:27.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The only thing is my understanding was agendized for the May next Tuesday is city council meeting unless that's changed. Is that correct then? |
| 00:10:38.50 | Dan | No, Commissioner Luxenberg, Chair Feller, it's, they moved it to the June 14th meeting. |
| 00:10:44.86 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right, well we'll look for it on the June 14th. If that changes again if you don't mind keeping us updated on that, particularly the working group. And back to Vice Chair Junius's comments and thoughts about this. I would like to ask if Vice Chair Junius and Commissioner Luxembourg would be willing to continue to serve on this but expand this to actually it's more of a legislative working group for the planning commission just because there are so many new pieces of legislation coming down from the state and it's very directly impacting regarding housing, and zoning and ordinances and so on, I think we really have to step up a little bit and you have . done so much work and done it so well and worked so beautifully with our City Attorney Sergio Rudin, I would, If you are amenable to that, to both of you, I would ask if you would continue to serve in this new capacity. |
| 00:11:52.48 | Andrew Junius | I'm in, Jeffrey, you good? I'm good. Great. Happy to help. |
| 00:11:57.05 | Kristina Feller | Terrific, thank you. Thank you very much. And although it's not on the agenda this evening specifically, Commissioner Luxembourg and I were part of the Parklet Working Group, and I just wanted to report out that that will be heard finally by the city council on Tuesday evening, which is May 24th. I'm not sure where it is on the lineup on the agenda, so I apologize I can't be specific about a timer The item on the agenda has not been published yet. But that presentation will be led by the Department of Public Works and Commissioner Luxembourg and I will assist as needed as will President Pierce of Sausalito Beautiful. Uh, Commissioner Luxenberg, any more to add on that or any other items you'd like to bring to report out on? |
| 00:12:48.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, but if the date changes for that, if I could be informed, I'd appreciate it. |
| 00:12:54.95 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:12:56.08 | Richard Graef | Anyway. |
| 00:12:56.92 | Kristina Feller | Um, Commissioner Graff anything to report out on this evening. |
| 00:13:01.58 | Richard Graef | Nothing to report since I'm not on any committees right now. Thank you. |
| 00:13:06.30 | Kristina Feller | Well, you were, you were very much part of the- |
| 00:13:08.35 | Richard Graef | A buzz on the parklet. |
| 00:13:10.69 | Kristina Feller | And you will again. |
| 00:13:10.71 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:13:13.44 | Kristina Feller | So thank you, thank you for that. The only other thing I have to report out on at this time is as I reported at the last commission hearing, the city council had requested a brief update at their last city council meeting, which I provided Thank you everybody for your one-way communications and any input to issues there. I really broke it down into three major areas. You can see all of this on the, The video that you can still find online of this past city council meeting really focused on our priority list, getting back to basics. a report out on community development department and staffing and so on. So nothing new to report on that. unless any Commissioner has anything else to add I'd like to turn this over to staff. to our interim director as well as to the attorney, if either of you have anything to report out on at this time. |
| 00:14:18.23 | Dan | I do have a couple of things that are on the agenda. Chair Feller and members of the Commission. One of them is the code enforcement that we decided that we were going to agendize for on the June 1st meeting to have more programmatic I have a lot of feedback from Quentin Roland, our enforcement officer, And the second thing that's on the agenda would be community development staffing. So we did interview for assistant planner this past week and associate planner. We have two strong candidates. Wow. I'm going to sit down with Human Resources tomorrow morning and go over those results and more staffing MEANS MORE PROJECTS GET DONE AND, AND, AND, |
| 00:15:01.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:15:02.10 | Dan | the workload begins to lessen. |
| 00:15:06.79 | Kristina Feller | Good news, very good news. Thank you for that. |
| 00:15:10.30 | Sergio | Yeah, that means nothing from the state attorney's office. Thank you. |
| 00:15:10.32 | Kristina Feller | I am. Great. Thank you very much. Okay, with that, I'd like to go ahead then and open this up for public comment. Again, to do so, you can raise your hand in the Zoom application. or you can press star nine on your cell phone. So again, if you'd like to make any comment on item number four, communications, and the report out that you've just heard, from commissioners and from staff, now would be the time to do so. Okay, seeing no hands from the public, I will go ahead and close public comment and let's move on to item number five. which is approval of the planning commission minutes. We have two items this evening. 5A is April 20th minutes, and 5B is the May 4th minutes. I'll take these separately. Are there any comments on 5A from any commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:16:09.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | On page three, line 14, it indicated that I said the word that in that sentence, I'm sorry, I said that not any, cause I had noted in the previous hearing that I met with a Butters with no ex party communications, but by saying not at any time, that is not what I said and not correct. So change the word any to that. |
| 00:16:38.96 | Unknown | OK. |
| 00:16:39.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | line at page 3 line 14. line 14. on page 4 line 5 as as you all know our planning commission protocol per that we adopted last uh early last year was that on the meeting notes the resolutions would be noted for each approved project so on page 4 five, there should be a footnote to the vote that says resolution 2022 dash zero nine. |
| 00:16:42.17 | Kristina Feller | Line 14. |
| 00:16:42.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:17:13.94 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:17:15.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | on page five, line 50, there's a statement says the public hearing was closed after the vote, which that line makes no sense. I think that's an error. So I would recommend that we delete line 50 if it doesn't make any sense. And I don't think occurred. On page 5, line 48, for our protocol, there should be a footnote to the vote, noting Resolution 2022-08. And then on page six, line 35, that should read advisory note number 45, not advisory note number eight. Advisory note number eight is not related to what we're talking about. I believe the intent was advisory note number 45. Those are the changes that I would recommend for the minutes of 4-20, 2020. |
| 00:18:23.83 | Eric Gullickson | Thank you. |
| 00:18:24.70 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you for that. Are there any other comments from any commissioner? Okay, so I see there are five different comments that you've made from page three, line 14. the word should be that, the word should not be any. page four line five the footnote with the resolution 2022-09 page five. Line 50 is just an error. Page five, line 48, the footnote with the resolution 2022 08. And then page six, line 35, advisory note number 45. not number eight, is that correct? |
| 00:19:03.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's correct. |
| 00:19:05.18 | Kristina Feller | Okay, do I have a motion to approve? |
| 00:19:08.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I move that we approve the 4-20-22 minutes with these changes and the changes be incorporated into the actual minutes and the corrected version be posted on the website once it's approved. |
| 00:19:26.41 | Kristina Feller | Do I have a second? |
| 00:19:30.60 | Glenn Harris | Thank you. |
| 00:19:30.62 | Eric Gullickson | It's a fact that |
| 00:19:32.03 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Dan, can you take roll call? |
| 00:19:36.05 | Unknown | ground. |
| 00:19:37.28 | Dan | Yeah. Commissioner Luxembourg? Ciao. Commissioner Saad? YES. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:19:44.25 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:19:44.27 | Dan | Yes. Chair Feller. Thank you. |
| 00:19:46.09 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:19:47.04 | Dan | Motion carries unanimously. |
| 00:19:48.62 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And just to note, I have to sign these two when they're actually revised. So before anything gets posted, Commissioner Luxenberg, as would any chair. So I have notes here of what you've identified. Let's move on to 5B, the May 4th notes. Are there any comments from any commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:20:11.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | On page one line four, it has the word month X. I think the intent was that it should be May 4th. I'm not sure why it says month X. I don't know if anybody else saw that. Maybe that's not the latest version that I saw. |
| 00:20:30.91 | Kristina Feller | So you're saying it should say month four? I did- |
| 00:20:33.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, no, I'm saying it should be, say May 4th, because that was the date of the meeting. And instead, whoever drafted it put the word month X in. |
| 00:20:42.55 | Kristina Feller | Okay, got it. Okay. |
| 00:20:44.48 | Dan | I see that. |
| 00:20:45.81 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:20:46.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:46.52 | Dan | I looked right over it. |
| 00:20:49.47 | Kristina Feller | Okay, any other comments, Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 00:20:51.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's the only comment on those minutes. |
| 00:20:54.43 | Kristina Feller | Do any other, do any commissioners have any other comments? Do I have a motion to approve? As noted. |
| 00:21:04.41 | Nastassya Saad | motion. |
| 00:21:07.75 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Dan, can we take roll call? Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:21:12.34 | Dan | Yeah. Commissioner Luxenberg? Well, |
| 00:21:14.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:21:15.71 | Dan | Commissioner Saad. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:21:19.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:21:19.41 | Dan | Yes. Chair Feller. |
| 00:21:21.28 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:21:23.02 | Dan | and I'll get those corrected for you. |
| 00:21:24.66 | Kristina Feller | Terrific, thank you very much. Moving on to item number six, this is our public hearing and we have three items on our agenda this evening. Dan, could you get us orientated and we can move into 6A after you do? |
| 00:21:41.13 | Dan | The only comment I have is if there are any commissioners would like to declare any ex parte communications. |
| 00:21:49.08 | Kristina Feller | Let's see, Commissioner Graff, any ex parte? |
| 00:21:53.02 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:21:53.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No communications. |
| 00:21:54.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:21:55.98 | Unknown | TO BE ABLE TO |
| 00:21:57.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, no ex parte communications, but I did revisit 233 Glenn Drive, and the architect and the owner were present. I did visit 255 Glenn, and the owners of the property were present, but there were no ex parte communications. I did visit Varta Landing, both projects, and saw people on site, but there were no ex parte communications. |
| 00:22:26.13 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Saad. Nothing to declare. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:22:32.22 | Andrew Junius | of ex parte communications. |
| 00:22:34.22 | Kristina Feller | Great. I have no ex parte to declare either. Over to you, Dan. |
| 00:22:39.13 | Dan | Thank you. So with that, the first public hearing would be for 253 Glen Drive, changes to an approved project. Adam East, assistant planner will present. |
| 00:22:55.85 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 00:22:55.87 | Adam East | Thank you, Dan. |
| 00:22:55.88 | Unknown | Thank you, man. |
| 00:22:56.36 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 00:22:57.96 | Adam East | Thank you, Chair Feller. I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen. |
| 00:23:06.48 | Adam East | and let me know if you're able to see the screen. |
| 00:23:09.05 | Kristina Feller | We can see that, yep. |
| 00:23:10.43 | Adam East | Okay, great. Just waiting, okay. Again, thank you, Chair Feller, Planning Commissioners. This request is for a changes to an approved project for 253 Glen Drive. Thank you. For my presentation, I'm going to provide a brief background as well as the scope of the project, which was discussed at the last meeting. And then we'll have some graphics towards the end of the presentation that show the applicant's proposal. But again, this request is for a changes to an approved project. The project number is 2021-000348. And the applicant is Scott Couture, who was the architect for the project on behalf of the owners, Rich and Robin Levendorf. And this is a request for changes to the previously approved designer view permit, which was project number 2019-00063. And again, you can see here with the location photo at the bottom of the screen, this is the parcel view and the structure. The residence is located towards the rear of the lot. And for the site conditions, again, this property is located on an uphill sloping site. It is a single family residential dwelling located in the single family residential district. It's a larger lot size at 17,785 square feet. And the square footage for the residents is 2,592 square feet. And the residence is located towards the rear of the property on the uphill part of the lot. And it is not substantially visible from the street due to the steep grade, as well as the driveway and the retaining walls, which go down to Glenn Drive. |
| 00:24:44.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:44.53 | Adam East | The scope of the current request are changes to the low slopes shingle roof on the second floor to the flat deck with railing with the deck and railing to match the approved design of the lower deck. Removal of three east wall windows and replaced with two doors on the second floor. The addition of three double hung windows to the basement level of the east elevation with the windows to match the approved windows in the rest of the house. Adding a parapet along the roof line over the living and dining room areas, which would replace a railing, which was previously approved in that location. And this would result in a slight lowering of the height of that parapet. And then skylight revisions, which are removing one skylight, the addition of one skylight and the relocation of two skylights. And the overall net effect would be a slight reduction in area of skylights and the removal of one window from the North wall of the second floor. As for project history again this project was approved by the planning Commission on December 18th of 2019. And that is the design review permit number 2019 63. Changes to an approved project were approved in September of 21 and the request number is there 2020 and a summary of those changes are shown below and those were approved by the director at that time. And the request which was heard at the last meeting, May 4th, 22 was the request for the changes to an approved project. And at that meeting on May 4th, the planning commission moved to continue the agenda item date certain to tonight's meeting, May 18. And this would allow the applicant time to meet with the neighbors at 255 Glen, to provide a proposal to address the privacy concerns discussed at that meeting. So this slide shows two different images. The image at the top is an elevation view of that East section, which shows the front facade of the residence. It also shows the neighboring patio area, which was in discussion at the last meeting. And the bottom photo shows kind of an aerial view of that deck in question, as well as the applicant's proposal for screening. So you can see here that the applicant lists a six foot six setback. And they proposed to accomplish screening by a system of assorted planters, which would be located at the north end of that deck. So they'd be located right at the edge of the railing here. And as you can see on the aerial view or the plan view here, there would be other planters placed in front as well, which provide a natural setback that people cannot get close to the railing. And this setback, in addition to or in combination with the height of the planters and the plants does provide a screening to the patio area. The applicant did provide additional plans with additional detail on what those planters would look like as well as what this deck area would look like too. The applicant proposes to have an uneven raised stone surface here with some trim separating the usable portion of the deck with the area that's proposed to be kind of a garden area with these assorted planters. Thank you. These gray outline planters in the center here are in the area of the primary view corridor, which would have the view into the patio at 255 Glenn. And those would be the tallest. And then these other ones kind of also obstruct accessibility to the edge of the railing and make it more difficult for people to get back there. So there's not a easy view into the neighboring property at 255 Glenn. I did conduct a site visit last Wednesday, shortly after these mockups were installed and took some site photos for reference. The photo on the right shows the view out towards the bay. The residents at 255 Glen would be located more down the hill. And the photo on the left shows a mockup of the proposed screening method. Again, this is not the final proposal, just a conceptual that the applicant worked up to show what the planters would look like and the setback area with the six foot six setback. Again, this is another photo. This is from the edge of this railing, which is right here, which is that six foot six dimension that the applicant noted on the plans. And that is the screening that's proposed to the adjacent property, 255 Glen. Thank you. I left this slide in from the last meeting to more or less show what the overall proposed changes were to this facade. Again, just to summarize, there's three main areas. One were the proposed revisions to the skylights on the roof. The substitution or addition of the second story deck, whereas previously approved, it was that low slope pitch roof on the second story there off the master bedroom. And the changes to the windows or changes from windows to doors that would access this rooftop deck changes to the parapet instead of railing what you can see here and then the addition of windows at the lower floor elevation |
| 00:29:38.40 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 00:29:38.98 | Adam East | So to summarize staff does believe that the findings can be met for a design review permit and for the changes to the approved project. Again, the location and scale of the structure is not changing. The project is consistent with the overall general plan requirements and use and density requirements for this district. The applicant plans to incorporate features that were previously approved design features, as far as the scale of the windows, the glazing details and the railing details the proposal will not cause a view impact from adjacent properties due to the topography of the site or topography of the site and the arrangement of structures on the site and staff believes with the addition of the proposed vegetative screening and the setback that privacy is created and a reasonable level of privacy would be created to adjacent properties. So staff does recommend approval of a draft resolution to approve the request to changes subject to conditions. And that concludes the staff presentation. |
| 00:30:41.18 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Adam, for another outstanding presentation. And thank you for going over to the site and having photos taken and observing it yourself. Thank you for all the work you've done behind this. I appreciate that greatly. This is the time for |
| 00:30:57.46 | Robin Levendov | Sure. |
| 00:31:00.26 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner, staff, staff, any clarifying questions? Commissioner Graff, do you have any questions this evening? from staff. |
| 00:31:12.30 | Richard Graef | No, I think everything is pretty clear. Okay. |
| 00:31:18.00 | Unknown | Okay. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:31:20.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Fowler. And thank you, Adam, for, again, another excellent report. I'm going to save my questions for the applicant when they present. |
| 00:31:28.49 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. Commissioner Saad. Nothing for staff. Thank you, Chair Feller. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:31:35.58 | Andrew Junius | No questions. |
| 00:31:37.02 | Kristina Feller | THANK YOU. Adam, I just have two quick questions. First is, did you actually go visit and observe this from the neighbor's property, |
| 00:31:47.50 | Adam East | I did not share last week when the applicant had sent me the drawings. He let me know that they had installed a mock-up. And I volunteered to go over and visit at that time, but I did not request to go visit from the neighboring property |
| 00:31:59.63 | Kristina Feller | Okay, that's fine. And these planters, are they store-bought? Theoretically, they're store bought. They're not built for purpose for this deck. Is that correct? |
| 00:32:10.77 | Adam East | The planters that I observed, I believe were built for this purpose, but as far as what the final proposal will be, I would defer to the applicant. They did provide some detail on the follow-up proposal, but I believe Mr. Couture who was on the call might have better information on the |
| 00:32:26.51 | Kristina Feller | Sure. |
| 00:32:26.55 | Adam East | Sure. |
| 00:32:27.59 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Okay, thank you. Commissioners, if you do not have any further questions for staff at this time, I'm going to invite the applicant to come and present. And Mr. Couture, welcome this evening. I assume that you will lead the presentation on behalf of your client, but certainly staff, if we can make sure that Mr. and Mrs. Levadock also have the ability to unmute themselves if they would like to participate So you'll have 15 minutes to present. you're welcome to use all of that now, or if you'd like to reserve some for any future rebuttal, you're welcome to do that as well after public comment. Maria will get our timer up here. If you're looking at this child screen, so let's Maria. There we go, we've got 15 minutes. |
| 00:33:09.32 | Robin Levendov | All right. |
| 00:33:14.20 | Kristina Feller | The floor is yours. Welcome. |
| 00:33:14.50 | Scott Couture | Okay. All right, thank you Chair Feller. I do want to do a screen share. |
| 00:33:22.38 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, we should be able to do that. |
| 00:33:24.46 | Scott Couture | Okay. |
| 00:33:32.24 | Scott Couture | Okay, is that up on screen? |
| 00:33:33.69 | Kristina Feller | Yep, we see it. |
| 00:33:34.62 | Scott Couture | Okay, wonderful. I'm gonna kind of focus my presentation on, I think what will the, the out-seeing an item, which is the privacy between the proposed deck and the patio next door. Following here in the last planning question here, and we did meet with the neighbors on the rear patio at 235 Glen. It was here that we did learn that the vine in the hedge, the fence and that's there now, it's most going to be removed and moved over to the property line um i think the impact down there of trying to provide a screen would be too tall um and i think it would have a negative impact to the to the patio at 255 glenn drive i think from that we learned that the screen uh must be provided from the deck as we are now proposing i think the question really we wanted to kind of get into was you know what type of screen would it be and how high would need to be so we did some evaluation on site we put up these sort of hard on markers uh at three feet three three four feet four and five feet four inches high and uh this photo here is taken from about 10 feet back the patio area is outlined in yellow you can see you know from this angle you know from this distance away a screen of about 30 inches would be fully effective if If you move closer, this is about six feet away. Screen height again, this is the pad of your screen height would need to be about 42 inches high. Of course, the closer you get, the higher the screen you need to be. Here we're about two feet away and an effective height would need to be about five feet, 60 inches high. |
| 00:35:11.16 | Unknown | you. |
| 00:35:22.15 | Scott Couture | We sort of picked a dimension of about six feet back, six feet six was shown here. If you're six feet back, a screen height of about 42 inches is highly effective and you screen out the patio completely and will provide ample privacy between the deck and the neighbor and patio. Since the 42 inch is also the rail height, you can actually integrate this quite nicely with the architecture. Any line of sight item that you'll be able to see over the railing back at six feet six would be well over anyone standing in the rear part of that patio area. The other thing we wanted to do is kind of identify the view corridor. So if you're standing here on the deck at this sort of six foot six line back, where, you know, what's the view corridor back to the rear patio of 255 Glen. And it's really about an eight foot section of railing here. Set back from a corner of about three feet. So with this, we sort of set some parameters of how to develop a screen. If we section off the last six feet of deck, the screen only needs to be about 42 inches high. And at a minimum, the width of the screen would need to be eight feet to cover that view core that we have identified there. The goals for creating a solution, one obviously to take comments from the dias at the last hearing, find a solution that's other than along the property line, which we had suggested before. Also provide screening that does not rely on something that is not permanent like plants. We also wanna restrict access to the Northern portion of the deck, create something that is permanent and integral with the building something very difficult and impactful to remove from our end our goal is obviously to create something that is beautiful from both sides from the deck and from the house side something that is integrated into the architecture that we have there Something that doesn't really look like an afterthought or an architectural goiter to say. Something that I think is an added benefit to the experience of the house and the deck. If it is beautiful, if it is beneficial, it will remain in place. |
| 00:36:59.94 | Gina Lee | Amen. |
| 00:37:44.22 | Scott Couture | Our solution was really a couple of things. One, limit the deck area. We have EPEI deck in there. We're gonna hold the EPEI deck and surface back six feet six from the Northern edge. In this Northern area, we're gonna put down a fiberglass gradient that's gonna be raised up on a deck pedestal system to facilitate drainage. We wanna add three taller planters to fill this view corridor. These planters are custom made planters, both size and scale. These are the ones that we made on San Carlos Ave for projects. There's no drainage in there, there's a water system, drip irrigation system in there. Very clean looking design, of course very solid. We'd also infill the rest of the area in this northern section with lower planters and a sort of a rock surface, an uneven rock surface that could look something like this. This is something our landscape designer had done on another project. And then of course we would put plants in the planters. The planters are there for beauty. They are not needed for screening, but we'll certainly add to it. |
| 00:38:58.30 | Scott Couture | What are the results of this? So this is about 15 feet back from the edge of the deck. The patio is sort of outlined in yellow. You can see that the three planters in the middle certainly are an effective screen for that. If we move up much closer, we are now six feet, six inches away from the edge of the deck. We have removed the plants from the planter. We sort of highlighted the deck here, excuse me, the patio here in yellow. And as you can see that the planter we sort of highlighted the deck here excuse me the patio here in yellow and as you can see that the the planters themselves alone are an effective screen if we add some plants to them it just becomes more beautiful and the screen is actually a little bit taller and a little more impactful |
| 00:39:42.93 | Scott Couture | So I want to talk a little bit about, is this a permanent solution? I know this question will come up. This is a very layered installation with many components to it. There's an integral drainage systems, an integral irrigation system. These are heavy items. These are custom made planters. The stones are very artistically placed. It would be very difficult to remove this. If you did remove it, you'd be left with what's really just a beautiful wood deck that would just end at that six foot six line and would expose a roof enumbring. It would almost be impossible to patch in the wood deck and to fill this in and make it look good and make it match. If we look at another option, let's say if we looked at the option of adding the six foot wall at the round here, from the deck all the way to that, A six foot wall is fairly easy to install. Also fairly easy to remove and patch in the deck area. It's a very small footprint. A six foot wall is much easier to remove than the proposed deck on that we have here. Also, a six foot solid wall is really not a pleasant, nor a good architectural solution. There's a much higher likelihood that someone in the future would wanna remove it, particularly over a solution that could be quite beautiful. Now I wanna add a little bit of perspective on the privacy issue. This patio is over 50 feet away. The primary view of this deck was to the back. This is the view off of the proper side of the stack. To look back to the patio, it's literally it's 120 degree turn towards the side and the rear of the property. Now zoning is clear. This patio is not protected as a primary space. Zoning does not guarantee 100% privacy protection, not even for primary spaces. We want them to be able to enjoy the space. I think the screening would provide does that. Now precedents, having a deck off the upper level of this house is not a very unusual request. Other neighborhood examples of this. If you look directly behind both 255 and 253 Glen Drive, these are homes up on George Lane. All three of these homes have decks off their upper level overlooking both properties. This again is up on George Lane, overlooking 255 and 253 Glenn Drive. We go to the south, we have another house. This is overlooking 241 and 253 Glenn Drive. And even if we go down to Glenn Drive itself, this is the front of 255 Glenn Drive. They have a deck off the front of their service and the front of their house. And it does overlook the homes down below. We look across the valley. Yes, every one of these yellow boxes is a deck. This is Santa Rosa Avenue, Spencer Avenue, Glen, lots of decks right across the valley, very visible from the 253 Glen Drive property. I think we have heard the commissioners from the last hearing. I think we've listened to the comments and the discussions. I think the solution we have developed is, I think it's quite beautiful. I think it is a very effective screening solution. I think it's done in a way that makes the deck more enjoyable. And I think it's a solution that will remain in place. And I will take any comments or any questions. |
| 00:43:18.58 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you so much, Scott. I noticed there's five minutes left. Did your client want to comment or would you like to reserve that time? |
| 00:43:19.84 | Scott Couture | Yes. |
| 00:43:27.98 | Scott Couture | They would like to make a comment. We good? |
| 00:43:33.70 | Kristina Feller | Okay. They absolutely can. There we go. Start the clock there, Maria. Welcome Mr. Levandoff and Mrs. Levandoff. |
| 00:43:48.26 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:43:49.66 | Robin Levendov | Well, I'll be here. |
| 00:43:50.95 | Richard Graef | Yeah, our video is not coming on, so we'll just... |
| 00:43:50.96 | Robin Levendov | Yeah. |
| 00:43:54.45 | Robin Levendov | Okay. CHRISTIE WOODWARD- Hi. I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Robin Levendov. I was unable to meet you at the last meeting because I wasn't feeling well, but I just want to thank the commissioners on behalf of all the citizens of South Carolina |
| 00:44:10.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:11.01 | Robin Levendov | your dedication. Um, My first point that I wanted to emphasize is that privacy is just as paramount to Rich and myself as it is to our neighbors. And our goal here was to propose a win-win situation JUST, to create something that was a practical solution and a beautiful solution that would further the quiet enjoyment of both our property and Gina and Miguel's property Um, And we're investing a lot into our home and we're equally committed to maintaining every aspect of our investment in the property. committed, you know, I'd like to start off on a good foot with our neighbors and I'm sorry at how upset they are. Our primary goal is to really enjoy the deck at night and look at the stars and perhaps have a cup of coffee in the morning. But I don't live in my bedroom and nor would I be up there all day or any part of the day except what I just mentioned. Um, But we are committed to the permanence of this solution. And we're also very excited about being able to move in. Thank you. |
| 00:45:26.20 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. Thank you both very much. Let's stop the clock there. I'll note there's a little bit of time left here, three minutes, 43 seconds, if you'd like to reserve that. for after public comment, you're of course welcome to eat that. And I'll remind you that you have that time. So thank you both. |
| 00:45:41.21 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:45:43.99 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so this would be the time for commissioners to ask the applicant any questions for clarification before we move into public comment. MR. Commissioner Saad, I'm gonna start with you. Do you have any questions for the applicant at this time? |
| 00:45:58.64 | Nastassya Saad | It was answered during the presentation. I was wondering if the plants were required for the screening or if the planters were the main source. So I think Mr. Couture answered that. I don't think I have any other questions at this time. |
| 00:46:11.92 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great, thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 00:46:15.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Feller. It was a question for Scott. Have you calculated the structural load of the stones and the planters and the dirt just to verify that the roof structure as designed can support the solution? |
| 00:46:32.39 | Scott Couture | Yes, I have. So the planters themselves are, they range probably about 80 pounds to 140 pounds per square foot. The gravels and other 80 pounds per square foot, planters and the gravels would not be in the same area. And so they're fairly, they're heavy for deck loads, equivalent of like an inch thick mortar bed or an inch and a half thick mortar bed with stone tile on top of it. The deck structure underneath, we had reinforced back in October under a permit revision. Immediately underneath this deck, there are LVLs,'s inches three quarter by seven and a half inch lvl's immediately underneath the three planters there is a um a steel tube that runs between steel posts steel tube is three agents is thick it's seven inches by four inches there's a quarter inch thick four by four steel posts supporting that up there so immediately under this north side of the deck particularly on the north side of the deck the spans are very short and the the deck loads there can support the deck that we have or the planters that we are proposing here |
| 00:47:53.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. One other note, you noted a planner number nine in that new drawing, but there's only eight shown. Was that just, did you mean to have eight or is there a ninth one that's just not shown? |
| 00:48:08.30 | Richard Graef | Um, |
| 00:48:15.07 | Scott Couture | Yeah, there are eight planners in total. |
| 00:48:18.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, good to know. Chair Fowler, those are the questions I have. |
| 00:48:24.59 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:48:29.52 | Richard Graef | Um, Yeah, I was just kind of wondering about the practicality of the stone surface the uneven stone surface I understand that it's that it would be a disincentive to be hanging out over there, but... The further disincentive is that it's filled with plantar cell I just wonder if it's necessary, not that I don't like it. very nice. I was just curious about it. and that you know, one is going to want to go to these planners to weed them and service them and I understand they'll be drip irrigated, but they are going to take some attention. I was just wondering about that surface. |
| 00:49:23.08 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 00:49:23.25 | Richard Graef | Is it practical? |
| 00:49:24.97 | Scott Couture | Thank you. I think there is a practicality too. And I, you know, the planters will need some maintenance to it. There is a roof back behind all of this that will need some access to those roof drains in there. The roofs always need maintenance. So it is something that I think, you know, personally, from my standpoint, I think having the stones there with the planters and living space around it, create some white space, which I think is nice, architecturally speaking, more zen-ish Japanese garden-ish way approach to it. But there is a practicality behind it too, where it does allow access to the planters and to the roof that is beyond them. |
| 00:49:51.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:04.51 | Scott Couture | All right. |
| 00:50:04.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:06.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Graff. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:50:11.05 | Andrew Junius | No questions, thank you. |
| 00:50:13.01 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great, thank you. I have just a couple. I just want to reiterate there's really three major items as part of this request for the design review this evening. There is the basement, the skylights, and the deck that we're focusing our conversation on here. um, I do not have any issue with the basement. I do not have any issue with the skylights. So any of my comments are really focused on the deck area off the master bedroom. And Scott, if you could just... reconfirm that the railing the side railing that faces towards 255 blend is the same railing design as sort of what I'll call the front of, it's pretty much an open railing. It's not solid. Is that correct? |
| 00:51:13.85 | Scott Couture | That is correct. |
| 00:51:15.01 | Kristina Feller | Okay, would you be willing to entertain solid? |
| 00:51:19.09 | Scott Couture | we could um we would will be willing to entertain that what what we've set up there now is it's it's sort of that open rail it's got the x-brace in there what we'd like to do is to set the planters back slightly from that railing um we actually anticipate having some of the plants still down the back side so they would be between the planter and the railing that you would actually see that from you know the driveway side from the entry side of the house and I think you'd get a little bit of play of light between that space I think would be just a little bit architecturally a little bit more of a nicer way to handle it than having a solid panel back on there. But one of the options that we did look at was, you know, what if we put a black panel on the backside of those, would X rail and design on there, would that be effective also? And it would be effective. I don't think it'd be quite as visually nice or intriguing. |
| 00:52:20.54 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then these planners that you're talking about, even if they're custom built and not store-bought, like, from stores somewhere. are they movable? |
| 00:52:36.11 | Scott Couture | You'd have to empty them out to move them, but yes, they would be movable. |
| 00:52:41.24 | Kristina Feller | So they're not cast in place and they're, or they're not anchored in place or anything like that structurally. |
| 00:52:46.86 | Scott Couture | No, we could certainly anchor them in place if it gave more comfort. I'm also a contractor, so removing something that's cast in place and removing something that's not is not that much different of an effort to do it. The reason that we don't attach them to the house or the deck is because anytime you attach a planter to a structure, it will be rotten in five to ten years, and it will be removed. It's always the case. There's nothing like a built-in planter to promote construction industry business. So the way we have those set, they are freestanding. They do sit on top of the fiberglass gradient, which is suspended above the waterproof membrane to allow for drainage, allow for air to dry through there. So that's sort of our kind of a mentality behind that. It's not really to make them feasible to be moved or removed, but really it is to facilitate them staying because if it rots the deck out, then they will be removed. |
| 00:53:02.39 | Gina Lee | You're right. |
| 00:53:52.13 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:53:52.88 | Scott Couture | The customization of the planters, the size, the proportions of them, they're basically going to be composed as a group of eight planters as a composition. The height, the scale, the width. On this project, we do lots and lots of lockups to get the proportions right. |
| 00:54:03.20 | Matt Inens | Thank you. |
| 00:54:12.01 | Kristina Feller | Okay, okay. I appreciate that. Can you just confirm the railing height now that you've proposed? |
| 00:54:20.72 | Scott Couture | It's 42 inches above the walking surface, and it's going to be probably about 40, I'd say 45 to 46 inches above the roof membrane. |
| 00:54:33.83 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:54:34.39 | Scott Couture | which is said below. |
| 00:54:37.05 | Kristina Feller | And I also, I really, I appreciate you taking, making the effort to sort of make the study of other decks around the neighborhood or in the beach border. |
| 00:54:47.87 | Scott Couture | Thank you. a lot. |
| 00:54:48.92 | Kristina Feller | There are a lot, there are a lot. And, And I just I wanted to point out It's not. The issue isn't so much primary views. The issue is reasonable enjoyment of someone's property. And that doesn't mean just your client's property, that means the neighbors as well. And certainly you had an approved project before, which did allow for full reasonable of your client's property So I just wanted to point out that that distinction, you know, it isn't, you know, my opinion one way or the other. It's just that that was the issue from before. So I wanted to make sure that I sort of reaffirmed that specifically. So appreciate that. |
| 00:55:39.43 | Unknown | Under the section. |
| 00:55:41.65 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Commissioners, do you have any more questions for the applicant at this time? Yes, Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:55:49.79 | Richard Graef | Um, Yeah, to follow up on the irrigation, how would And I would that irrigation system work and in other words Are these planters plumbed in or are you going to run some flex line of some sort or How is that going to be done? And then the other question that I guess it's a question, It has to do with the findings, finding I, and I'm quoting the staff report. the fact that does not substantially increase viewing areas into adjacent properties beyond what was originally approved through the existing window locations on the second floor. Could you? address that or explain that. Those are two different questions, obviously. |
| 00:56:50.13 | Scott Couture | Yeah, the issue is, you know, what we have right now is it look more into, you know, the usable spaces of 255 Glen than what was there before. I think by section and off that northern portion of the deck and creating the screen. So the deck that's remaining effectively doesn't look into the patio, the outdoor patio at 255 Glen. And the deck itself, because of the existing screen in that's downhill, can't see the house at 255 Glen. So that portion of what we're proposing to change doesn't add any impact, viewing impact to the neighbor down below at 255 Glen. The window that we're removing actually reduces some of the visual impact between the two. So it's actually, in some sense of a bit of a reduction |
| 00:57:44.87 | Richard Graef | Okay, I was just, trying to visualize that and thank you for explaining |
| 00:57:52.25 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Any other questions from commissioners at this time? Can you let me? Yes, Commissioner Sott. |
| 00:58:00.18 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:58:00.20 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:58:00.23 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Final hour. Just one, since we had some discussion last meeting around reducing the deck size, did you explore that? as an option. |
| 00:58:13.97 | Scott Couture | We did reduce the deck size. So we took off that whole Northern section. We pulled it back six feet, six inches. The two reasons we picked that dimension. One is it's effective at, you know, the 42 inch high railing height for screen is effective at six feet back. That was the dimension that we wanted to sort of get to integrate our screen solution into the railing system and not have something that needed to be taller. The other is, you know, there is a doorway there that does swing open. So we wanted to be able to accommodate that door, swing it open just as a little more than 90 degrees for that. |
| 00:58:54.74 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:58:55.33 | Scott Couture | Yeah. |
| 00:58:57.27 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Fowler. |
| 00:58:58.31 | Kristina Feller | Yep. Okay. All right, if there are no other commissioner questions at this time, Could I just ask our planner Adam East to confirm public comment that we've received so far in writing before we open this up to public comment and then the hearing. |
| 00:59:15.58 | Adam East | Thank you, Chair. We did receive one additional public comment from the neighbors at 255 Glen that was uploaded to the agenda packet online. and is open to viewing of the public. |
| 00:59:25.41 | Kristina Feller | Right, thank you very much. |
| 00:59:27.12 | Adam East | Thanks. |
| 00:59:27.79 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so at this time, this would be the time for the public to comment on this item. To do so, you can raise your hand in the Zoom application. or you can press star nine, on your cell phone. Each speaker will have three minutes for their comments and we have a timer up here If you're looking at a piled screen, you can see that and help manage your time. So I see Gina Lee with her hand up. Welcome, Ms. Lee, if we could unmute and share your... Share your screen or share your camera, I should say. Welcome. |
| 01:00:05.91 | Gina Lee | HELLO. THANK YOU, CHAIR FELLER. Members of the planning commission to introduce myself again. I'm Gina Lee and my husband Miguel is also online tonight. We live at 255 Glenn Drive. We want to thank you again for the time you've taken to consider the privacy impact of this project on our property. We know your time is voluntary and really appreciate the attention you're paying to this matter. So thank you. At the last hearing, the commissioners universally acknowledged that there were privacy concerns created by the second story deck built by the applicant. As a follow up to the hearing, both parties were tasked with seeking out a solution that afforded the applicants an additional outdoor space and us with reasonable privacy on our patio. Following the applicant's submission of the modified plans to the city, we sent a letter to you last week outlining our concerns with the proposed modification to remediate the privacy issue. The proposed modification that adds the stones and planners to the deck is not acceptable to us for the following reasons. One, it's a temporary solution that relies on the voluntary compliance of the applicants and their successors. IN THE 16 YEARS WE'VE LIVED HERE, WE'VE SEEN NEIGHBORS COME AND GO. Two, the applicants have a poor track record of following the conditions imposed by the city. Three, there's no enforcement mechanism. We all know the city has limited municipal resources And it's totally impractical to think the condition is going to be enforced in memoriam. I think I would be laughed at for calling code enforcement and complaining that the plants and the planners died or the planners have been moved or that there was a group of people on the southern six feet of the deck. So what's a better solution? A PERMANENT ONE. FOR EXAMPLE, a wall or screening on the Southern deck or a deck that does not extend to the Southern side of the house as the commissioner suggested in the last meeting. All of that with the condition of approval that provides that it cannot be modified at the discretion of staff and any modification is subject to future approval by the planning commission after notice and a hearing. We tried in good faith to work with the applicant's architects The planner and stone solution was proposed by them when we met at our property within 36 hours of the hearing. Despite voicing our concerns that the solution wasn't permanent and couldn't be enforced, they submitted plans to the city without any further discussion with us. And as a result, we are where we are. Please consider the incredible liberty that the applicants took in modifying a project without design review approval and order them to mitigate the privacy impacts in a permanent and structural way to afford us reasonable privacy on our back patio. Thank you. |
| 01:02:49.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, Ms. Lee. I'm looking for any other comments from the public at this time. I'm looking for raised hands. I am not seeing any raised hands. So I'm gonna go ahead and close public comments. I will note to the applicant, you have three minutes and 43 seconds left. If you would like to use it now, now would be the time. Otherwise we will start deliberation. So if you could indicate if you are interested in using that time. |
| 01:03:22.68 | Scott Couture | Yes, that'd be great. |
| 01:03:24.58 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so Maria, that's three minutes and 40 seconds of the clock, thank you. |
| 01:03:31.81 | Scott Couture | So I think as Rich and Robin had sort of pointed out, they really want to be amenable to their neighbors. They don't want to create problems. This solution is something that Rich and Robin, I think truly think works really well. I think it does provide the privacy. The way we're going to build it, I think, outlines that it is a permanent solution and will not be removed down the road. we're going to build it i think outlines that it is a permanent solution will not be removed down the road um we are amenable to find ways to make this be more permanent or become more permanent whether it's written in the conditions of approval um but the solution that we propose is very effective at creating screen i think it's a beautiful. And you know, if whatever we need to do to make it, you know, more permanent, we're willing to do that. But the way it's done, I think it's really gonna be a permanent solution for this issue. Thank you. |
| 01:04:32.88 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Would your client like any final words in your time? Okay, if not, all right, thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 01:04:44.49 | Scott Couture | All right, thank you. |
| 01:04:44.96 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Don't, you know, as you know, don't go too far. We're gonna start our deliberations here. And if we have any clarifying questions, then we will certainly ask upon you, but thank you. Thank you very much. All right. |
| 01:04:55.66 | Scott Couture | All right, thank you for mentioning. |
| 01:04:59.18 | Kristina Feller | Okay, let's see. Commissioner Luxenberg, would you like to start us off |
| 01:05:04.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you, Chair Feller. I did have the opportunity to see the site from both the neighbor's property and from the deck, both before the planners were put up and after. I think from looking at it from the neighbor's patio up towards the house, I i think the issue that i heard both tonight is the issue of permanence uh when looking from my opinion and looking from 255 up the planters uh will block the view clearly the they will uh you it would be very difficult to see through the planters uh into the yard um especially if you're six foot six feet away i do think the stone addition is an important one because by putting the stone in you basically are nobody's going to walk out there Also, by putting the stone in, it's not going on top of the deck. It's going on the roof. If you were to remove the stone, you would have to build out the rest of the deck, which is a huge step to take. So going towards permanence, I think the stone is important, and I think we should condition, if we were to approve it, that that stone be there. I think the plan also need to be part of the condition and then and that the plants need to be maintained that would all be part of any approval uh i i'm a little dismayed by if we can't rely on our code enforcement to enforce the conditions we put on projects that i'm not sure what we're doing here. I mean, I understand that they did this without proper permits, and then they came back, and then they got proper permits, and then they changed it without that. But we have to rely on the fact that we had an approval. Code enforcement came in and told them to come back because it was a change, and that's why we're here. If we say code enforcement will never work, then nothing we do works. So I can support this change. I actually think it's a better solution than what I even suggested last time, which is moving it back to column line 7, because it moves it back farther than column line seven and once these plants grow up and hang down uh if if you see this from the neighbor's yard it will work better than a wall so and i don't think a wall is the is the best option uh uh and i think they're only i can't speak for them but i think the purpose for the wall is it seems more permanent but i i actually think this is a very heavy permanent solution and so therefore i can support uh the plan as recommended as been proposed the amended plan provided we condition maintenance of the plans uh requirements that the planners stay, and inclusion, and the stone has to be there. With those conditions, I can support this. Those are my thoughts at the moment. I would like to see what other commissioners think before making any final thoughts on it. |
| 01:08:28.25 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. And could you, a pine on your thoughts regarding the basement and the skylights? Because that's part of this as well. |
| 01:08:36.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | because that's part of this as well. Basements I think make the building look better, makes that more functional. I think that's not a problem other than it was done without approval. And I think the skylights are not a problem at all. |
| 01:08:51.01 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:08:57.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. Just to start, if we're going through all the items, I also don't have any issue with the skylights nor the basement windows as has been created. I'm not sure. I still take some issue with the deck I don't. Do you think that it's a an attractive design. I think it's an attractive solution, but I think it's not actually um, hitting my specific comment from the previous hearing. So in a, purely my point of view from the last hearing, I think to go from a roof to a deck is a pretty big change. I definitely think that the applicant has a right to enjoy that space. So with that in mind, I do think they deserve a deck. and it would give them beautiful views of the bay And I even think to the, Mr. Couture's point, they're most likely going to be looking straight. You want to look across at Tiburon, you want to look at the water, necessarily intending to look into your neighbor's yard. I'm That being said, it's a that looming feeling that I had mentioned that I think even that the, excuse me, The neighbors had mentioned I'm very familiar with it. So I understand the actual practical day-to-day feelings. of those types of changes. it's missing the bigger point that the applicant should have a right to have a deck. but the neighbors should not feel as though that there is a, you know, this presence hanging over their head. I'm a little disappointed that it's not reduced. especially given the fact that it was It's still technically a roof right now, so it's not that it's, gone against the previous plans it can stay a roof and not turn into a deck but those windows that are that are there as well that are supposed to operate as doors I mean the intent is to make it a deck and that was not the original approved plan and I think if |
| 01:11:13.81 | Gina Lee | as Doris. |
| 01:11:14.48 | Gina Lee | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:11:19.58 | Nastassya Saad | They had had that conversation with a neighbor prior, before their first hearing, they would have probably had some feedback and we could have potentially worked something a little bit more clear out, but we're sort of backpedaling now. And I just don't think it's, necessarily a fair solution. TO ALLOW THAT LARGE OF A DECK So I would be to note what Mr. Couture did as an attractive design on the record, yes, that is, it's a beautiful look. It does seem mostly permanent given its weight and what they're trying to achieve. But I just don't think that the deck should still remain that large. And I think everyone would win if there's some reduction in size. Again, not an architect. I had thrown out line five, so that might not even work architecturally, but I still think that there could be a solution to reduce it in size altogether. and then not need all of this planter and vegetation and maintenance and extra cost an onus on the client, on the, Levanadov, excuse me if I can't even pronounce your name, to maintain it. And then no worry for the neighbors about it being maintained or moved down the line. So definitely open to hearing the rest of the commissioners, but that's where I am right now, Chair Feller. |
| 01:12:43.13 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Thank you for that. Commissioner Graff. |
| 01:12:48.90 | Richard Graef | Thank you Chair Feller. Well, I, I, uh, have mixed feelings about it. I had kind of hoped that a solution would be presented that took the side of the deck off, probably would. kind of makes everybody happy. that didn't happen the solution that has been proposed I think in many ways is a very good one. I like it. As far as the looming goes, I cannot comment because I was not able to get to the property or to the neighbors to see what that really felt like. And so I just, I feel like Sorry that I can't comment on that part of it, but I do understand the, the feelings of the neighbors regarding that. Um, . I, As I said, I'm a little bit foreign However, I think I could make the findings. So, um... day because I do think the solution is as a good one. So I'll leave it at that. |
| 01:14:12.36 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Graff, can you comment on the redesign the proposed redesign of the basement and skylights as well. |
| 01:14:20.60 | Richard Graef | Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I forgot. I don't have any problems. with that. I like the windows down below. They really make a lot of sense. And I think they add to the Um, of the architecture. Skylines, I don't think that's a problem. |
| 01:14:37.36 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 01:14:44.21 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. Let me start off by saying I also have no problem with the skylights or the basement changes. Those seem to be fine, and I think we're going to be okay there. Yeah, this is an interesting one. Let me first off, just I think the applicant and the owners here in the architect have a fantastic job to solve the problem that was put to them, which was to deal with the privacy issue for the next door neighbor. I think it's an elegant solution, I think it, uh, very much so, you know, provides a buffer that's both attractive to look at from the deck, from the new deck, which I hope they get to build, and from below. Um, Uh, you know the detail that Mr. Couture has put into the explanation is you know, top-notch. view lines it's very clear that this once it's completed will will absolutely screen and protect the privacy of the neighbor. and be, you know, the demonstration that You know, half of Sausalito is on a hillside and everybody has got these decks. So, you know, everybody looms over everybody else. So I'm, you know, a little... unsure as to where that, you know, how we're supposed to account for that because the folks, Ms. Lee, who had 255, they loom over the folks directly across the street. Um, You know, and so I'm very supportive of the current design. I think the applicant and the architect have done their job. They've answered our questions. I can easily make the findings to approve this. as is. And I'm really disheartened by the comment regarding enforcement. I absolutely share Commissioner Luxembourg's Um, concerned that if people in the city don't believe that the rules are being followed, then we shouldn't be approving anything. Let's just disband the Planning Commission. Let's not give out any permits because everybody's going to cheat anyway. That can't be the way the city is run. We cannot assume that people are gonna cheat all the time everywhere. We do our best to deal with obvious situations, but I think the architect has gone out of his way to create a situation where once it's built, and once it's inspected and once it's approved, will be extremely difficult to undo And I think it's, you know, his point about putting a screen up that would be a whole lot easier to undo. So I'm, you know, That's an unfortunate opinion and I'm sorry to hear that. And I'm sorry that the neighbor feels that way about the lack of city enforcement. I would point out that almost at almost every meeting, emphasizes the need for planning code enforcement that we are going to be getting regular reports about planning code enforcement. We take enforcement very seriously. and the rules are enforced. in this city. Maybe not everyone, and maybe people do slip by and we do make mistakes but we have rules and we expect people to follow them and properly conditioned, I think this, this deck. is the right size with the right screening and makes perfect sense to me. And I really applaud the applicant and the architect for a great job. |
| 01:17:50.96 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. um, So I have a couple different thoughts and questions. The first is, as I stated before, and I will do so again, now that we're in deliberations, I have no issue with the basement, no issue with the skylights. my comments are solely focused on the deck area. Um, And as of even last hearing, I wasn't hugely supportive of this deck at all. YOU KNOW, when this project was originally approved, there was quite a lot of time and effort and discussion and continuations of those hearings to get the architecture and the design in a manner that was thoughtful responsive to the site and all that. That doesn't mean that it's the only design ever that will ever work there. So I understand that. And again, have no issues with two of the three that are before us this evening. And I really do appreciate the neighbors at 255 trying to work with this applicant, I appreciate the architects. really studying this and coming up with what I think is a beautiful design I don't think It fully addresses what we're looking for though. And I'd like to throw out some ideas and perhaps where we get there. Because again, I go back to reasonable enjoyment of, you know, of, of your property. And I think everybody deserves that. Yes, everyone has decks and all those sorts of things, but I certainly can, appreciate and be sensitive to, the feeling of not being able to enjoy your property and your primary outdoor space, let's call it, even if it's not a primary view, That's not what somebody's arguing here. The argument is reasonable enjoyment of their property and that is the neighbor at 255. I do think we're close. I'd like to propose some ideas, see how you guys feel about this because I don't think I could, what I see in front of me now, because that's a condition I cannot make. Um, I like the stones. I like the setback of 6'6". I like, you know, some of these things are moving in the right direction. I would feel a whole lot better with a more solid railing that perhaps mimicked the siding of the building or something. Again, I'm not trying to design something from the dais here. That is what the architect is for. and offer it perhaps slightly higher. I'm looking at these elevations and maybe you align it with one of the mullions on the door onto the deck, where architecturally it starts to make some sense And if these have to be planners and not more permanent because I am concerned about the potential temporary nature of what we're talking about here. I know you can still rip out things and all that kind of stuff and demolition, but it would be a deterrent certainly and a solid wall or railing, hip wall, whatever you want to call it. does have a sense of permanence as it is part of an integral part of the architecture where a railing isn't necessarily. certainly it would be for safety, but if it's impervious as it is, I don't feel it has the same sense of permanence. So I don't think I could make the finding here, but if... if we could find some sort of a compromise that everyone, at least on the commission, is comfortable with, then we could certainly ask the applicant that. This is why I asked the architect when we were clarifying questions if they would entertain a solid one, and the answer was yes. A solid railing, solid hip wall, whatever you want to call it. Again, I don't know what anyone's thoughts are about that here. I'm just, I'm not, I'm not exactly comfortable where we are. And I also don't want this to look like a Frankenstein sort of response to something, but I don't think what we need to have addressed is addressed, so. Does anyone have any thoughts about that? Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:22:17.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I thought about that when I was standing out there today. I actually don't agree. One of the other changes was the removal of the railings and replacing it with a parapet on that side of the building. We haven't talked about that. I do not think that looks particularly well. I know the architect believes that was a good solution and cleaned up the facade, but I actually think it closes the building in and it doesn't look particularly well. What this would be doing is basically putting that similar wall with the siding on this edge at that height. And I think that over time, from an architectural point of view, it would look better with plants hanging down and some visual landscape. And I understand your point about the wall would be permanent and from that point of view, I believe that this solution is also permanent. So I think from an aesthetic point of view, closing the in more of that side, architecturally, I don't think is the best option. It would solve the permanency thing a little bit and it would close it and it would definitely block the view. But I think it's just gonna look too massive from an architectural point of view. |
| 01:23:41.03 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:23:41.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But again, I understand why you're suggesting it, but I don't, or contextually, I don't feel it's the best solution. |
| 01:23:49.17 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I'm trying to resolve the reasonable enjoyment of the property. And I don't think the solution that we see here really fully offers that. So I'm trying to get to the findings. the architect will certainly have a better finesse than I can attempt to articulate from our virtual dais here. My point is that, I don't think I could make that finding now. So I'm trying to work towards a compromise in the interest of, of time both this evening and for the applicant. and conditioning this that any future changes certainly I'm not sure. minor or major to this applicant would come to this commission and not be handled ministerially. You know, hopefully to, you know, thwart any more of these changes on this project that needs to get built. |
| 01:24:45.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask you this? Are you thinking that from the neighbor's property that the planters will not provide the privacy? Or are you thinking that the planters would be removed and not provide the place? |
| 01:25:03.25 | Kristina Feller | I don't think there's a sense of permanence to it. I don't think it's a permanent solution. I think, I don't want a temporary band-aid just to get through planning commission. I want something thoughtful. and more substantive. that can address it and i would would actually like it to be a little bit taller We didn't get into species and landscape in these planters and anything. We certainly can, but again, in the interest of time, this evening, I'm trying to see if there's an appetite by this commission you've got three people who aren't too comfortable with this and I'm just trying to get to comfort and the finding of reasonable enjoyment of the property by both the neighbor or neighbors and the applicant. |
| 01:25:50.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | From what I saw from the neighbor's property, the plants go above the height of the wall that's being what you were suggesting. So this actually is higher, it will be higher than a wall would be. Thank you. |
| 01:26:04.62 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, but plants aren't permanent. Plants aren't permanent. I understand. |
| 01:26:04.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But plans are. I understand. |
| 01:26:08.61 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:26:09.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand, but at least we talk about saving trees all the time. So I actually appreciate the fact that we're adding greenery to this project. So I would hope that we want to encourage landscapes, not discouraging. I know you support encouraging landscapes. I'm not suggesting you do. |
| 01:26:20.50 | Gina Lee | get a lot of money. |
| 01:26:30.27 | Kristina Feller | Definitely, definitely. Um, anybody else's thoughts on this? Commissioner Saad, you were uncomfortable with what |
| 01:26:38.98 | Nastassya Saad | I understand what you're trying to achieve and I am not sure as well that the wall I I can't think of another solution besides a reduction of |
| 01:26:39.64 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:26:49.66 | Nastassya Saad | that would make me most comfortable would be a reduction in size if the wall I did not have the opportunity to go back and visit this this time so I think the photos from Adam's report and I think it does the trick in terms of the view impact but I think it's I'm having less of an issue about the permanence and more of an issue just in the scope of the deck. I could potentially be behind a wall of sorts if if that's where we're headed. But I'm not sure, I'm just not sure yet. I can't visualize it without seeing potentially a plan. |
| 01:27:34.70 | Kristina Feller | Sure. Well, we're at a point now where... three of the five of us have expressed that we're not comfortable. I'm trying to get to. Sure. |
| 01:27:44.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:27:44.66 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:27:45.03 | Kristina Feller | something that is more substantive that we can either, you know, the architect and the applicant can either continue to take on the thoughts that we have and we can continue this. or we can try to come up with some ideas that we can then through our deliberations here. And I see the Appleton has its hands up. We're in the middle of deliberations now. So this is not the time for We will come back to you once we have something clear here, Mr. Levendorf. So, um, Commissioner Graff, what are your thoughts? Your hands up. |
| 01:28:22.70 | Richard Graef | Just to be clear, uh, I'll take... again, my overall preference might have been to cut the deck back so that it lined up with the house and this roof down there. other section over somehow. Um... And that would be the simple solution However, I think... Um, This is a design and architectural solution. And I think that that's a better solution than cutting the debt back. And I think they, and I do think it's, it solves the privacy issue. I think if If it becomes more solid, it's going to be more looming and more present. And I think the lighter it remains, the more open and the more vegetation I think it's going to be a much nicer solution. So, I'm... I'm favoring the solution that's been proposed. |
| 01:29:27.23 | Kristina Feller | Okay, okay. Your last comments, you were not, so it could be. |
| 01:29:34.62 | Richard Graef | Well, maybe I wasn't clear. I just said I think I would have. |
| 01:29:35.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:29:38.35 | Richard Graef | you know, I think it's a good thing. had they cut the back off and and kind of come up with a solution like that. I could have called it a day. I think they came up with Another solution that I'm I'm happy with. |
| 01:29:54.60 | Kristina Feller | Would you have any conditions on this approval? |
| 01:29:58.73 | Richard Graef | Um, Well, I have been thinking about that a little bit because of the... nervousness about the permanence of this. and I don't know if if there's a way to condition this design that assures that it will be maintained. And Cap. I would be all for that. I'm just not quite sure how one words or condition like that. I think it would be appropriate. I think if somebody can come up with good language Before that, I would support such a condition, certainly. |
| 01:30:51.72 | Kristina Feller | would you support higher planters? taller planters. Um, |
| 01:30:58.42 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:30:58.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:30:58.52 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:31:01.61 | Richard Graef | I don't know. That's a kind of a design sculptural solution, I think. Um... Mr. Couture, my response of that maybe Maybe some more elevation changes in the planters might be interesting and might might give a little bit more Um, but I think that the plants themselves are going to do a lot. And the As has been pointed out, the view angle, really if you fill in that with the planters a solid panel or whatever. it pretty much solves the problem. Um... I would be interested in hearing from Scott whether that's something that he would like to play with. |
| 01:31:53.78 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Vice Chair Junius, any thoughts on this? |
| 01:31:57.43 | Andrew Junius | I think to the extent there's a concern that that there might be some, you know, quick building permit that could be issued that would allow the removal of those. We could take care of that simply saying you can't do that at any. any changes to this deck would have to come back to the planning commission for approval notwithstanding any other provision of the planning code you know or whatever i mean that maybe let's hear just i've been on that but but yeah there's i don't think there's any question we can condition this to say it's it's got to get built this way I know maintaining the vegetation is a little bit difficult, but what I saw from Scott's presentation is that planters themselves were high enough to screen you know unless you're a seven foot tall person to screen much of it and you know i think somebody would want to maintain their foliage out there i design, I think as Commissioner Luxembourg has already pointed out, the design with the kind of the bumpy rocks, you know, makes it so you don't really want to go out there. It's not comfortable to stand on. The whole idea here is to keep people on the deck and keep them away from this part. And I think this does a fantastic job of doing that. And I do think we can craft a condition that would make us all feel like this is going to happen and it's going to stay this way unless we say otherwise. |
| 01:33:09.96 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Any thoughts from anybody else before we just confer with the applicant to make sure that hopefully they've been hearing our comments here and that some of these issues would be acceptable to them? Yes, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:33:27.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If we could bring Adam back, if I could take a stab at some language so that when we talk to the applicant, we know what language we're talking about. If that could work, Adam, if you could take some notes. I think we would, if we were to go ahead with approval, we would have a condition, maybe something like this, that the upper deck needs to be built as shown on the revised plan. And can take the plan that you got that the construction of which shall be verified prior to the building commissioner issuing a certificate of occupancy period that the um that the stones planter and landscape shall be maintained uh or must be maintained must be maintained and then any change uh to the plan would require further approval by the planning something like that and you can also check with sergio and see if there's any any cleanup on the legal side of that link. But that's I think what I would recommend as part of an unapproval condition. And we can, you know, if you want to bring the applicant back at some point, at least that we put that on the table for a conversation. |
| 01:34:50.03 | Andrew Junius | support all those conditions. I agree completely with Jeffrey. |
| 01:34:55.02 | Richard Graef | Me too. |
| 01:34:56.36 | Kristina Feller | OK. I think we need to confirm though with the architect what the species are that he proposed in there and Adam if you can... I think they have to be Evergreen? We don't want anything losing its leaves in the winter or anything like that. |
| 01:35:17.60 | Adam East | I believe the applicant had indicated to me that they plan to install succulents in this area, which would be a perennial species. And that would not be an evergreen, or it would not be, |
| 01:35:17.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Bye. |
| 01:35:29.58 | Adam East | going away annually, rather. |
| 01:35:33.92 | Kristina Feller | Well, I think we need to get to the bottom of that or need to get that, landscape plan before anything because succulents are stunning beautiful water you know uh resistant fire resistant I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. or have low water needs, but they don't grow very tall, most of them, except maybe jade or something like that. So I really wanna understand that, cause that's a little different of what this mockup is. |
| 01:36:05.93 | Adam East | Is Scott on the call here? |
| 01:36:08.58 | Kristina Feller | I'm here. He's on the call, but from you, Adam, we don't want to bring in the architect quite yet, I want to understand if there was a planting plan |
| 01:36:16.41 | Robin Levendov | No one... |
| 01:36:19.79 | Kristina Feller | I don't recall seeing one, but I could have missed that. Like specifically calling out the species. |
| 01:36:26.50 | Adam East | No, I do not believe so, Chair. |
| 01:36:28.14 | Kristina Feller | All right. All right, well, I think we would need to understand that whatever is being planted there, will certainly add to the height and the buffering and the foliage to block view and sound where necessary. But... I think that's a condition that we might have to see that come back. that could be on consent, I believe, Dan, but, or Sergio, if you can weigh in on that. Can that be a consent issue? and not a full hearing. |
| 01:37:09.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:37:09.31 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 01:37:09.35 | Kristina Feller | DAN, I THINK HE'S A |
| 01:37:09.97 | Dan | I'm muted. Yeah, I'm muted. I was going to defer to Sergio on that one. |
| 01:37:13.99 | Sergio | Yeah, so is the idea there that basically you would be deferring adoption of like a resolution with written findings without reopening the public hearing without okay uh, |
| 01:37:27.93 | Kristina Feller | For the landscape, this is not included here, unfortunately. |
| 01:37:33.68 | Sergio | Okay. you guys would still be then considering and deliberating on what you are what you would like the landscape conditions to be. Am I understanding that correctly? |
| 01:37:47.13 | Kristina Feller | We could, unless I assigned a working group to work on that and propose to the planning commission what those findings are. |
| 01:38:00.36 | Sergio | Yeah, I don't, I think if you're going to be seeing language for the first time that are conditions of approval, I think it would be prudent not to have that on the consent calendar because ultimately someone is going to want to. discuss that. make sure it meets their expectations, et cetera. So. |
| 01:38:15.45 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:38:16.34 | Sergio | Additionally, you know, the applicant may, if the applicant's also seeing it for the first time, I assume that they're also gonna want the opportunity to comment if they've not been consulted on that. |
| 01:38:16.68 | Unknown | only. |
| 01:38:24.86 | Sergio | And it's been something proposed to them for the first time. |
| 01:38:27.88 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so thank you for that clarification. In just a moment, we'll ask the applicant to confirm what that might be. And that can be part of the condition of approval as well. but I'm... Fortunately, that piece is missing from the ability to approve here. Yes, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:38:47.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I suggest we could do what we did on a similar project on 110 Forest Tree where we did approve the project, but we suggested a working group that would review that landscape plan. In that case, it was to review the design elements of the carport. And so in this case, I think we could go ahead and approve this subject to the submittal of that landscape plan removed, reviewed by a subcommittee, not a subcommittee, but a working group of two members of the commission. That's what we did in that case. And I think that might make sense here as well. |
| 01:39:25.09 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um. All right. Any other items from commissioners? Are there any thoughts on that before I ask the applicant to weigh in on some of what we've been talking about here? Yes, Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:39:38.47 | Nastassya Saad | Just as a point of clarification, if we do make a motion for a vote, that will be for all items, the deck with the... the windows and the skylights, is that correct? They won't be separate from each other. |
| 01:39:52.06 | Kristina Feller | I don't know that there's a need to bifurcate them, but... We can if that is required. |
| 01:40:01.27 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. THANK YOU. |
| 01:40:03.77 | Sergio | And Chair Feller, I would like to address an earlier question that was posed about conditions of approval and potentially requiring this to come back to the commission for further changes. With respect to changes to an approved project, municipal code provides that the community development director may authorize minor changes to an approved site plan, architecture, nature, and improved use, provided the changes and requirements do not involve a feature of the project that was specifically addressed or was a basis for a project's condition of approval or was a specific consideration by the granting authority in the approval of the permit. In your conditions of approval, you can indicate that this is something that you are specifically considering in making a condition of approval, and that would require any changes you know, the deck. or the landscaping or whatever it is that you are particularly concerned about to have to come back to you for modification rather than be handled at the staff level. |
| 01:40:58.36 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you for that as well, Sergio. That's helpful. Okay, good. Let's ask the applicant if they could come back up here. Thank you, Scott, for being here. you've heard some of the comments from the commission and some of the proposed conditions. Do you have any comment to that or do you disagree with any of those conditions? |
| 01:41:29.09 | Scott Couture | One of the conditions was any changes to the deck and the planters, the stone that would be proposed down the road would need to come back to the planning commission. So we're very comfortable with that condition of approval on here. With, in regards to the planter, you know, the actual plants that we have in there, I think part of the success of this, the solution to provide the screen is that the plantains are not needed to provide that screening, that they are extra. One of the reasons we didn't come up with a landscape plan is we didn't want to have to rely on the plants being alive to provide that extra screening. we did submit in in a document called 253 Glen Drive, deck garden detail, 514-22, it's a PDF. There's a planter description in there, and item number four talks about the plantings. And the description that we have in there is a general description. It says plantings will be 18 to 30 inches tall, succulent type, plants with smaller ground covers and cascading plants that will spill down on all sides, including the round side. And we have a seed design image on there for a visual indication of that. Well, that does not specify the species of the plants. It does specify some of the heights that they would grow to the minimum heights 18 to 30 inches. Succulent types, we could include evergreens in there. So I'd rather not have to go back and put a specific plan together for this area. I would like to have a general description of what plants could be put in there. I think having them be evergreens, succulent types would work and a minimum size of 18 to 30 inches, as we described in there, I think would work. And I think that that's the middle item four in the plan to description would be included in the conditions of approval. It's also something that staff can certainly review on the application whether we've succeeded with that. in the actual plants and when they come out through their final inspections. |
| 01:43:50.62 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:43:54.13 | Kristina Feller | Okay, any other... Comments or? Scott. on any of the conditions we've mentioned? Are you amenable to these conditions? |
| 01:44:07.95 | Scott Couture | Yeah, I mean, I think having taller planters is not necessarily needed. We certainly don't want to bring up all of the deck. I think how we have the design set is very effective. The talk about kind of removing that portion of the deck, I think is detrimental. I think having the railing out that far, six feet away from the edge, actually increases the ability for the screening to be provided in there. |
| 01:44:08.39 | Kristina Feller | I think, |
| 01:44:12.74 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 01:44:12.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:13.08 | Sergio | Thank you. |
| 01:44:40.11 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:44:45.28 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:44:47.32 | Kristina Feller | All right, so back to the commission here. I would, offer that we should add a condition regarding the plants. And at time of planting, they need to be a minimum of 18 inches is what I would require from my standpoint. they certainly hopefully will grow bigger, but that is just the planting size. Is everyone comfortable with that or have an alternate idea? Everyone's good, okay. All right. Does anyone have any thoughts or comments about this or any additional conditions that they would like to consider? |
| 01:45:18.60 | Gina Lee | Thank you. |
| 01:45:18.69 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:45:27.38 | Kristina Feller | And Adam, I'd like to ask you to come back here to make sure that you're clear as well on this additional condition and certainly the clarification that Sergio made to us as well. |
| 01:45:40.71 | Adam East | Yes, I am clear. |
| 01:45:42.25 | Kristina Feller | OK. Okay. Any other discussion or is there a motion that, yes, Commissioner Graff. |
| 01:45:51.49 | Richard Graef | Yeah, regarding their conditions for the planting, I think it might be good to to require that the plannings are you know relatively dense and that they provide you know screening and they aren't Lacey but there's substantial plantings. Um, I really do think that the applicant will take this . They will probably lovingly put in a lovely garden up there. So I'm not really worried about it. but to be safe I would support a condition that somehow describes the intent of the planting to, to, uh, to be not transparent, but to really be a true screen. |
| 01:46:54.05 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So how about |
| 01:46:55.64 | Richard Graef | but I think that's a good question. |
| 01:46:58.35 | Kristina Feller | So let me try. How about at planting, they have to be a minimum of 18 inches tall at planting. They need to be evergreen in nature and they need to be dense. of dense planting. Are you comfortable with that? |
| 01:47:17.81 | Richard Graef | I think that gets the idea across. |
| 01:47:21.12 | Kristina Feller | Okay, any other comments from any other commissioner? Okay. So anyone interested in making a motion? Yes, Commissioner Graff. |
| 01:47:32.26 | Richard Graef | Yes, I would move that. What's the number of your project. project number. 2 0 2 1 dash 0 0 3 4 8 be approved That is the basement windows, the skylights and the DACA, the proposed deck solution with landscape and planting. subject to the additional conditions. that we just discussed. I don't know what else ought to go in there. All right. |
| 01:48:17.65 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:48:17.92 | Richard Graef | If you can, I can certainly consider any amendment that would clarify it. |
| 01:48:18.56 | Kristina Feller | I'm not. |
| 01:48:23.40 | Kristina Feller | If you can just itemize those conditions that have already been stated, Commissioner Graff, just for clarification. |
| 01:48:29.04 | Richard Graef | I didn't write them down. There wasn't a planting. density and size. Um, where we're What were the other ones? |
| 01:48:41.27 | Kristina Feller | Any changes to this? |
| 01:48:44.80 | Richard Graef | Oh. |
| 01:48:45.36 | Kristina Feller | approval must come back to the planning commission |
| 01:48:48.94 | Richard Graef | Right. That one should be in there. Um, |
| 01:48:53.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | is also that the stones, the planters, and the landscape be maintained. Thank you. |
| 01:49:00.31 | Adam East | Okay. |
| 01:49:00.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:49:01.02 | Adam East | Adam has the word. I do, and I'd be happy to read my list if you'd like. Thank you. |
| 01:49:06.05 | Kristina Feller | Please. |
| 01:49:06.37 | Adam East | The first condition was upper deck must be built as shown on the revised plans. Construction of which shall be verified by the building inspector prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Stones, planter and landscape must be maintained. Any change to the plan would require further approval by the planning commission. And at time of planting, plants must be a minimum of 18 inches to 30 inches in height, must be evergreen in nature and must be dense. |
| 01:49:34.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Perfect. |
| 01:49:34.84 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:49:35.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. Good job. |
| 01:49:37.42 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Adam. Thank you. |
| 01:49:38.65 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Adam. |
| 01:49:40.18 | Kristina Feller | All right, there's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? |
| 01:49:41.06 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:49:41.08 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:49:43.63 | Andrew Junius | I'll be right back. |
| 01:49:45.41 | Kristina Feller | Okay, any other motions to entertain? Okay, Dan, could you please take roll call? |
| 01:49:54.75 | Andrew Junius | Bermuda, Dan. |
| 01:49:59.40 | Dan | I can never figure out how to get that microphone to work. Commissioner Graff? |
| 01:50:03.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:50:04.89 | Dan | Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 01:50:06.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:50:07.02 | Dan | Commissioner Saad. Yeah. Vice Chair Junius, please. Chair Feller. |
| 01:50:13.85 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:50:15.52 | Dan | Motion passes 5-0. |
| 01:50:17.44 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. And thank you, Adam, for great work. Thank you, Scott and your applicant for working on this as well. Best of luck. |
| 01:50:27.69 | Scott Couture | All right, thank you, commissioners. Have a good night. |
| 01:50:28.18 | Kristina Feller | Your commissioners. All right, let's move on to six speed, 52 Varda Landing. Dan, over to you. |
| 01:50:43.60 | Kristina Feller | Okay, you're on mute again. So I'm just gonna ask Cecilia, I'm gonna welcome Cecilia this evening as the contract planner for this particular project, 52 Varda Landing. I'm assuming you're gonna wanna share screen and take us through a presentation. |
| 01:50:46.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:59.99 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yes, thank you, Chair. Vice Chair and Commissioner Cecilia Jaroslavsky, contract planner presenting this item before you today. With your permission, I will be sharing my screen. |
| 01:51:18.04 | Kristina Feller | Okay, we can see that. |
| 01:51:29.50 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Great, can everybody see that? |
| 01:51:31.12 | Kristina Feller | We can see that. Great. |
| 01:51:33.82 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | So you have before you project located at 52 Varda Landing Road. |
| 01:51:42.53 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | approximately 2000 feet east of highway 101, three miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge. The area is dominated with houseboats along the shoreline, large industrial commercial uses along Gate 5 Road and several residential structures The immediate surrounding area also contains a variety of residential and retail uses. The area also includes several boat harbor access roads from Gate Five Road. This is the view from the project site along Varda Landing Road, to the west. The level site is approximately 550 feet deep and ranges in width between zero feet at the front and 65.5 feet. at the widest location and comes to a point to the west of the site. The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the project in January of 2021. in August of 2021. wherein it was determined property does not qualify as a historic resource. |
| 01:52:48.19 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The project includes the demolition of the existing 551 square foot single family resident structure. located approximately 40 feet from the front of the property. new construction of a replacement residential structure The renovation and slight rotation of the existing 125 square foot A-frame. studio structure and the demolition of the existing 315 square foot shed. All existing structures are one story. Due to the landlocked status of the parcel, access to the site is from an existing easement located on the adjacent parcel to the west. at 40 Bargo Landing Road. which will be relocated to 60 Varda Landing Road for project parking. |
| 01:53:37.01 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The new detached single family structure would be located approximately 60 feet from the front of the property and would be 21 feet wide by 50 feet wide. and five inches long. outdoor tandem parking. would be located in the front of the proposed structure on a 15 foot wide by 60 foot deep gravel driveway and requires the approval of a conditional use permit tandem parking and offsite parking. The main pedestrian entrance would be located along the southeast wall facing the easterly side property line. and would incorporate a seven foot six inch wide 49 square foot entry deck area. would be approximately three feet, six inches above grade. the existing 125 square foot, a frame studio structure would be remodeled and enlarged to 133 square feet including the exterior deck areas and relocated to be parallel and 10 feet, two inches from the side property line. Landscape installations would occur 43 feet from the shoreline houseboat area. Renovations would occur approximately 159 feet from the Shoreline household area. and construction staging would occur at the front of the project site. The residential structure would include a foyer, full bathroom, kitchen, dining, living room with a bedroom area. The southern portion of the structure would include a 227 square foot Artist Studio Room. The rear of the structure would include a 98 square foot deck with stairs down to grade. The detached studio structure would maintain the existing footprint and only entry into the structure would be along the South Wall from a 115 square foot deck. I apologize for this slide. It's not as clear as I would have liked. The site contains a substantial amount of debris to be removed. And the project includes the new landscaping and installation of new plant and would improve pedestrian access to the houseboat and the adjacent parcel at 60 Bar to Landing Road. landscape installations to the site would occur approximately 43 feet from the straw line elsewhere. |
| 01:55:51.47 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The maximum height of the residential structure would be 16 feet above grade and would have a flat roof. The maximum height of the A-frame structure would be 20 feet, five inches. above grade and would retain the roof pitch of 33 to 12 or 70%. The project design includes mitigation measures to address current flooding and future sea level rise. including concrete encased foam foundations, with integrated pilings that allow the buildings to float in place during floods and I would defer to the applicant to address specific questions on the design of that. |
| 01:56:31.97 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | This slide demonstrates story pole installation facing both 52 and 60 BARDA landings. 52 Varda landings on the left side, demonstrating the resident's location. The second photo is facing west, taken from 60 bar to landing. showing the replacement residents and the A-frame structure. This slide was also taken from 60 Vardo Landing Road and shows the same replacement residence structure as well as the replacement A-frame structure. The applicant submitted. renderings of the proposed structures from the front of the site left with you the front structure And the second would be facing the rear of both structures. |
| 01:57:19.42 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | construction materials include concrete base, double glazed clear performance glass windows, bronze anodized aluminum window frames, Sho, Suji, Bang, Siding and Screen, Red Western Cedar Board and Batten Siding, in stairs and roof shingles. The owners and designers of the proposed construction have had semi-regular tours, one-on-one and as well as community dinners with the tenants of Maroonship Studios are the landing residents and neighbors in the maroon ship. The site plan, physical model and renders have often been included in the discussions and meetings. The applicant also conducted a neighborhood outreach on July 16th, 2020. of contacting civil residents within the area. |
| 01:58:06.03 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Since the publication of the staff report, staff has received two communications from residents concerned about project density on the site. as well as several letters in support of the project, including from the Sausalito Working Waterfront Coalition, I believe all of those were voted to the commission earlier today. The site is located within the Marinship specific plan, Zone 3, Parcel 10B. |
| 01:58:30.68 | Gina Lee | Thank you. |
| 01:58:33.33 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | which allows for one land-based residence. The project is replacing an existing single family residence and complies with the zoning and specific plans. The maximum density and FAR on the site is one dwelling unit for 10,000 square feet. The maximum FAR is 25%. The site contains almost 28,000 square feet and the proposed FAR would be 11%. therefore the project would comply with all the criteria. |
| 01:59:03.49 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Staff received concerns from the commission regarding compliance with the fair traffic ordinance 1022 adopted in 1985. which is the initiative that applies only to commercial and waterfront districts and does not apply to any residential zoning districts. Therefore, this ordinance does not apply to the project and there would be no increase in density. General policy LU 4.1, Marineship water for new uses. is to promote marine industrial oriented uses that require waterfront locations, and strongly encourage the success of the existing general industrial uses found in the Maroon Ship waterfront area. No industrial use is allowed on this property and none is proposed. General plan LEU 4.2. 1.2. deals with the Marinship Specific Plan, which continues to apply to the site. and BCDC jurisdiction includes the bay itself and a shoreline band of land. extending inland for 100 feet from the shoreline of the bay. Applicants for both 52 and 60 bar to landing projects are currently in discussion with BCDC, to address the project review. |
| 02:00:16.78 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The project requires approval of the design review permit for new construction, a conditional use permit, to allow for the tandem and offsite parking. and a variance to allow for the reduced side yard setback. The project is also categorically exempt under CEQA section 15303A. as this new construction or conversion of small . |
| 02:00:43.24 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | The project meets required findings for design review permit, conditional use permit, and variance. in that the site is unusually configured and without a front property line. The project is consistent with the zoning district and meets the intent of the general plan by maintaining the character and scale of the area enhancing and maintaining the housing stock and would substantially improve the condition of the site. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft resolution approving the design review permit, conditional use permit, and variance subject to conditions of approval. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may continue the hearing for additional information and or project revisions. or deny the permits and direct staff. to return with a resolution of denial. Thank you, commissioners. That concludes my presentations. I'm available for questions and I believe the applicant is in attendance as well. |
| 02:01:39.41 | Kristina Feller | Terrific Cecilia, thank you so much for a very clear and succinct presentation here. Let's go ahead and stop share screen for just a moment. because this would be the time for commissioners to ask you and staff any clarifying Thank you. questions. And before we start there, Um, I just wanna be very clear that this is item 6B. This is just for 52 Varta landings. There is 60 VARTA landing after this, but these are two separate hearing items. Any discussion is specific to 52 Varta Landing here, just to help orientate the discussion here. So Commissioner Luxembourg, do you wanna start us off? |
| 02:02:26.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure, I just have a couple of quick questions. On page two of the staff report, you indicate that the new replacement residential structure would be a one level 909 square foot building without an enclosed garage. And I don't understand why there isn't currently an enclosed garage on the property. Why are you mentioning that it has It doesn't have one. I don't get why that language is used. |
| 02:02:54.19 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | THE PROPOSED PROJECT would not have an enclosed garage. AND WOULD REQUIRE exterior parking in front. And that's due to the unusual narrow configuration of the lot. |
| 02:03:08.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, So if it didn't have a narrow configuration, it would be required to have a garage. I don't understand why that was phrased that way. You didn't tie the two together and said because there's no garage, the parking is handled. I'll leave that going. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Let me go to the tandem parking. So my understanding is the variances for the side yard setback. Is that correct? |
| 02:03:39.88 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | That's correct. portion of the corner of the residential building encroaches into the side yard along the along the East part of the property. |
| 02:03:53.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so going back to this tandem parking. Section 10.20.140.3H requires that all Wall Street parking be paid. So are they asking for a variance for this tandem parking? I mean, we haven't used gravel parking forever. Why don't they need a variance for that? And I'm not sure we could support a variance for that. But why is that? Why do you think that's allowed by the code? |
| 02:04:23.59 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I'm not familiar with it being required to be paved. It could be compacted as well. but I think I would defer to the applicants as to what material they would like to use for the driveway. |
| 02:04:34.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, if you go to that section, it can't be gravel because it specifically says any loose gravel. So it can't be gravel. So are you, is that just an error in the staff report or? |
| 02:04:48.31 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | It could be an error, but I also believe that in the ordinance, it states that it could gravel or some type of other compacted material. So it could be compacted gravel. I wouldn't be able to speak to that. That would be public works. |
| 02:05:04.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, you can look up the code. You have the code there, don't you? If you could look up that up while we're just continuing here. |
| 02:05:08.43 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yeah. |
| 02:05:12.78 | Sergio | Can you restate that code section that you were referencing? |
| 02:05:17.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 10.20.140.3.8. at least in the version that I was provided with by CDB, which I understand may not be the most current, but I don't think that section has changed. |
| 02:05:35.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:05:35.65 | Kristina Feller | Well, these things can get updated as well. |
| 02:05:36.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And What's that? |
| 02:05:39.49 | Kristina Feller | Well, there are always amendments to these things too, but let's just hold on. |
| 02:05:42.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. uh i looked at the version got sent when i got the planning package but uh also uh on page seven uh of the report you indicate that the easement plan is attachment five if you could correct that because you it's it's actually attachment six so if you could just update your record on that And also, I appreciated that you outlined the site plan in the in your presentation and showing where the site was on the landscape on the ancestors map I wish you would have done that in the staff report so if you can also do that in the corrected staff report because it was hard it, it took a long time to figure out which was which, because you use the same one for both projects and it wasn't absolutely clear. So that'd be helpful. |
| 02:05:48.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:05:48.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:05:48.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:05:48.98 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 02:06:34.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, so. |
| 02:06:34.78 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | So Commissioner Luxembourg, just to be clear, you wanted to see the graphic within the staff report of the site plan |
| 02:06:36.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to see. |
| 02:06:43.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You showed on your presentation, you said, this is the project site and you outlined in red that. You did not do that in the staff report. So it took a while to figure out what was the site. You put up an attachment in there, which had a bunch of parcels and it wasn't clear which parcel this was because you didn't bother to label it. Understood, okay. uh uh with that i i don't know if uh i mean i can pull up the and read this section if it's helpful chair fellow of what uh 10 20 140.3 h says but it basically says you have to pay parking and it can't be loose rocks or whatever but i can get the actual wording if it's |
| 02:07:30.45 | Kristina Feller | Well. |
| 02:07:30.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, |
| 02:07:31.12 | Kristina Feller | I'd like to propose we wait for our city attorney, Sergio Rudin, to catch up and have a chance to read that. And we can come back to that. |
| 02:07:38.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 02:07:41.64 | Kristina Feller | when he has a chance to do that here. So any... |
| 02:07:45.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Those are the questions I have right now, Chair Fowler. I think this is a good project, but obviously I think we should have paid for it. We can talk about that later. |
| 02:07:54.29 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so I have note of the driveway and gravel and that section, we'll come back to that. |
| 02:07:54.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:08:00.65 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Saad, do you have any questions or clarifications you need from staff at this time? |
| 02:08:05.70 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, Chair Feller, two quick questions. Cecilia, just for confirmation, just from looking at the story polls, they're around some trees. So there's no requirement for a tree removal permit for this application, is that correct? they're not gonna be removing any trees, no. Okay, great, thank you. And then in the resolution, Um, on Page four, I believe I am in the design review permit findings. It says that there would be a minimum of 15 feet of open space between the two structures. This is referring to the proposed residential replacement and the A-frame structure that is moving slightly. Do we know currently what the distance between what the open space between them. is right now. I don't, I would defer to the applicants on that. Okay, I will do that. I think the rest of my questions are for the applicant. Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 02:09:09.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:09:12.37 | Richard Graef | I have one question in regards to the BCDC the process where does BCDC fit in this if they are if they are considering this project It could take them a long time to reach a decision. And how does that impact our role and our approval or just approval of the project. |
| 02:09:42.12 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Well, you can certainly condition it that they obtain approval through BCDC, but they are in conversations with them currently. to review the project. So they're looking to get the applications and the permits needed. from BCDC. |
| 02:09:56.97 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:09:56.99 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you. |
| 02:09:57.01 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Yes, I realize that. Okay, so I was just wondering. because those two activities may or may not mesh. very well. Annoying BCDC. |
| 02:10:09.88 | Unknown | No. |
| 02:10:10.73 | Richard Graef | So on so far. Okay, that's it. I was just curious. |
| 02:10:15.50 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, we do deal with this quite a bit and, you know, the permits have to be pulled through BCDC as well. And I think- You know, obviously, you know, even if we approve something it would be contingent on whatever they approved and we'd have to confirm that's what we approved. If we denied it, then they'd have to start a conversation over. So it just, it goes back and forth that way. Okay, Vice Chair Junius. |
| 02:10:46.81 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. Um, Cecilia, really quick question. What's the height limit down here? |
| 02:10:51.18 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | 32. |
| 02:10:52.37 | Andrew Junius | 32 feet. And the height of the proposed residential structure looks pretty tall. What's the type proposed? |
| 02:10:58.60 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I believe it's 19 feet. |
| 02:11:00.73 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:11:03.31 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Any other items, Vice Chair? Let me just check in really quickly with Sergio here. if he's had a chance to look into the issue with 10.20.140.3H and the driveway. |
| 02:11:26.60 | Kristina Feller | So I think he must be looking at that right now. Thank you. |
| 02:11:32.54 | Sergio | Yes, yes. So I am just pulling up that language now. It's 1040 120H surface and slope. off-street parking areas shall be paved or otherwise surfaced and maintained to avoid scattering of gravel, rocks, dust, mud, and other debris. So I don't think there's an express prohibition on Gravel. if you are maintaining it. now certainly, um, You know, if there are issues, I think you can probably address this via conditions of approval. Additionally, there's a requirement that off street parking areas shall be graded and drained to dispose of surface water. Um, But that is all that. specific provision requires. Obviously, you know, THE REPUBLICAN PEOPLE ARE The code does require that they maintain it and they surface it so as to avoid the scattering of gravel. And as we're all aware, that a gravel road is likely to... you know, have some concerns about scattering of gravel. you know, we'll leave this to the discretion of the planning commission to decide whether compaction is sufficient to meet the requirements of the code in that instance. I think you have some room to think about that. |
| 02:12:46.26 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Sergio. Thank you. Um, I just, I had a couple questions and Sergio, I need you to stay here because one of them I think is, I want to ask you to help clarify again for the purposes of the hearing and the public record here. by the issue of the MarinShip specific plan Um, I, you know, there was a general plan update that was, voted on and approved by city council it did require an ordinance amendment regarding the marinship specific plan but i just want everyone, not just the commission, but the public to be very clear about the Marineship specific plan. And when we talk about the general plan, If you can clarify, are we talking about the 1995 general plan or are we talking about the the general plan update of 2021. |
| 02:13:46.61 | Sergio | I am not sure I'm quite following your question. I see a couple of questions with that and I'll try to answer them. First, does the membership specific plan apply? Yes, the general plan update included some mention about you know, phasing out the marineship specific plan following updates to the zoning ordinance. It's my understanding after conferring with the city attorney that those have not been implemented yet. So that still applies. Additionally, the project is supposed to comply with applicable provisions of the general plan, which would be the currently adopted general plan. now you would be prohibited from You know, if this was a Housing Accountability Act project, which I think in this instance, I don't think it is. You'd be prohibited from denying the project if it complied with all objective zoning standards and all I'm not sure. applicable objective standards in the general plan. That was in place at the time the application was deemed complete. That being said, I don't think this project is the Housing Accountability Act project, because it's only constructing one unit. And so it needs to comply with the applicable general plan that exists now. So. |
| 02:14:58.66 | Kristina Feller | Perfect. I appreciate you clarifying that. I wanted to be clear on the record So there's absolutely no confusion in terms of what we're talking about and Marineship specific plan, general plan. So thank you for making it really, really clear to everybody. I appreciate that. The next question I had is actually back to Cecilia. and Um, I just wanted you to reconfirm a question that Commissioner Saad asked about the tree removal. Specific to 52 VARDA, there are no trees being removed. Is that correct? I think you're on mute, Cecilia. |
| 02:15:41.46 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I apologize. Yes, to the best of my knowledge, there are no trees being removed. |
| 02:15:45.61 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Great, thank you. And the other question I have, can you confirm Back to the driveway issue, what I'm also interested in, because I really appreciate this applicant looking at newer technologies that are used on a regular basis in other parts of the world with their foundations and such. that I know the Sea Level Rise Task Force has looked at and certainly endorses and that sort of thing. But it was unclear to me from what I was looking at with the attached drawings, if the driveway was actually built up as well. to a similar height. |
| 02:16:29.23 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Thank you. Let's sit. Yeah, I do not believe it is, but I would defer to the applicant because they know about the design. |
| 02:16:37.82 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And did the applicant model this with the city's GIS? model. for sea level rise? |
| 02:16:48.13 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I believe that they did because they took all of that into consideration, but again, I defer to the applicant. |
| 02:16:53.36 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and I'm assuming the same regarding Bay Wave. You might not know, but I want to get the question out there on the record. was it modeled with Bay Wave? |
| 02:17:02.75 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | That I don't know. |
| 02:17:04.18 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great, all right, thank you. Commissioners, any additional questions for staff at this time just from a show of hands here? Yes, Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:17:15.07 | Nastassya Saad | Cecilia, I'm not going from a drawing. I'm actually just, I took a few pictures when I went down to the site. So in lieu of not being able to show you that, And of course it might not be a tree that needs a permit, I think you said that no trees are being removed. I have a photo when I was looking that there are story poles that are actually going, like a tree is going up and through the story poles. unless they're working around it, I think that's where I was asking, originally, and excuse me, that should be the 52. That shouldn't be confusing that with, |
| 02:17:54.52 | Kristina Feller | That's for Stacey Vardel. |
| 02:17:54.81 | Nastassya Saad | for seeing. Is that my problem? Okay, that's okay. Then there it is. |
| 02:17:59.28 | Kristina Feller | then we've |
| 02:17:59.90 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I figured it out. |
| 02:18:00.24 | Nastassya Saad | out. |
| 02:18:00.80 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | my first question is that 60 bar delay? |
| 02:18:02.96 | Nastassya Saad | That might be my confusion. Okay, nope, nevermind. We're good then, thank you. |
| 02:18:03.24 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | It might be. |
| 02:18:03.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:18:04.04 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | I'm sorry. |
| 02:18:07.17 | Kristina Feller | Bye. Yeah, but you're not hallucinating though. Okay. |
| 02:18:10.06 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I saw it. I know I saw it. Thank you. |
| 02:18:13.37 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, no, good eyes. And thank you for getting it clarified here. So if there are no additional questions from the commission for staff at this time, I would like to invite the applicant up here for their presentation. And I'm not sure, Cecilia, maybe you can help me identify who that is from the applicant so we can make sure that they have full share screen capability. |
| 02:18:39.42 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yeah, there are several, Mr. Matt Innes, Mr. Bryn Garrett, Mr. Max Houtsager. And Marcel. |
| 02:18:50.46 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and I will, ask Maria the brains behind this operation, if she can help us give them screen share capability and the ability to unmute themselves and share their cameras as well. I want to welcome each of you gentlemen this evening to give a presentation on 52 BARDA landings. We will also put a timer clock up on one of these tiled screens here for 15 minutes. That 15 minutes is yours. You can use it however you would like. if you would like to reserve any time for any rebuttal after public comment you are welcome to do that but that time is yours to manage and otherwise i would like to welcome you this evening and the floor is yours. |
| 02:19:45.64 | Max Hotsager | Hi everyone, I'm Max Hotsager. Thanks for taking the time to review our application. It's been a long time coming and we're really excited about hopefully being able to realize our plans for our property at our landing and. Just to be clear, there's another application if you haven't looked at the agenda for 60 Varda, which is just next to 52. And we also own a parcel just across Varda Landing Road at 265 Gate 5 Road. which contains a collective of art studios So just a little bit about myself. I grew up in Marin County and I've been living on Varroa Landings since we first bought the property five years ago. Originally, I wasn't going to move back to Marin after college. I didn't find that, I didn't think there was a community of artists or creative people that I wanted to live near and work with. And then I found the marineship Um, As many of you probably know, Gate 5 Road and the Marine Ship in general is filled with art studios, music studios, ceramic studios, and lots of interesting like industrial creative work happening Um, so Since we first got the property five years ago, done our absolute best to make do with what's already there. Um, IMPROVING RESIDENCES, CLEANING UP junk. uh, DOING OUR VEST TO MITIGATE FLOODING WITHOUT THE doing any super heavy lifting that requires permanent work. Like we're asking you to, do now. Um, And by doing so, we have a thriving community of over 20 artists living and working on our property. um, But as you saw in the staff report, There's still a lot of spaces that are completely defunct and even potentially dangerous in their current state. um, And so... we would like to proceed to clean things up and make them usable. Most importantly for the long run, which includes raising the buildings out of the flood zone as per FEMA regulation. um, AND I JUST WANTED TO ALSO SAY THAT Um, the more throughout the past five years, it wasn't like, oh, he came in immediately, said, oh, we're going to build a bunch of super nice buildings and we want to make two-story condos and multifamily housing. |
| 02:22:01.10 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:22:01.20 | Max Hotsager | IT WAS A LONG PROCESS OF getting embedded into the community and inviting more artists and then really learning about how the place is a magnet for an art driven community. And so we simply just want to improve the facilities that we already have and make them THE FUTURE. Thank you. |
| 02:22:24.65 | Matt Inens | All right, with that, I'd like to take over from Max and share screen here. My name is Matt Inens. I'm an architect with EYRC, working out of our San Francisco office. I'm just trying to get into presentation mode. Is everyone able to see that? |
| 02:22:44.70 | Kristina Feller | Yes, we are, thank you. |
| 02:22:46.39 | Matt Inens | Great, so really echoing Max's sentiment, we as an architect were drawn to this site for its beauty, its history, and its large community of artists living both on site and nearby. And really echo Max's sentiment as well in wanting to enhance the artist community that's already present in the Marin ship while honoring the site's history and also its nature as a title zone. So with that being said, we're focusing on Varda Landing during this presentation. 52 Varda Landing Road is in the Marin Shift towards the north end of Sal Salido. And as Cecilia presented earlier, we have this slender lot with kind of an irregular pointy end that touches Varda Landing Road as it hits Gate 5 Road. As most of you already know, the site's history, the site began as, like much of the Marine ship, as natural tidal marshes that were then filled in during World War II and the U.S. Navy shipbuilding efforts at the Marine ship. After World War II, those sites were vacated by the Navy, and in came artists and creatives living both on land and on houseboats. And this kind of creative houseboat lifestyle has continued to define Solstito to this day and is what makes this site special. Looking at the existing site, we have four structures currently, the gazebo houseboat, which is not affected. It will remain intact during this proposal. The A-frame, which we're proposing to keep, but tweak slightly to meet setback requirements and refurbish with new materials. The summer house, which is a tool shed that will be demolished or is proposed to be removed. And the workshop residence, which is also proposed to be removed. Both the summer house and workshop residents sit directly on the property line currently. Looking from above, we have the gazebo houseboat and the three structures on land. on land again the a frame is a small 125 square foot shed essentially the summer house tool shed which we're proposing to remove and the residence workshop that we're proposing to remove you can also see our easement which currently crosses 40 Bar to Landing Road our Walking quickly on site we have Vardal Landing Road which just to point out is gravel currently and our easement across our neighbor at Fort Vardal Landing Road onto the property. Here we have the existing workshop residence which you can see is significantly below the existing grade and floods frequently rendering it entirely usable as is. We have the summer house, which, you know, putting its name aside is a tool shed and the A-frame, which is this, you know, strong character kind of iconic form that we want to preserve and continue to use. Also, the gazebo houseboat, which I mentioned earlier is not being touched in this proposal. It will remain as is and no changes to access. Expanding out our inspiration for design is really coming from Sausalito's story history of houseboats. They're immediately on our site and next door and we're drawn to them. We love the wood pallets, we love the simple and sometimes whimsical volumes, and we love the big decks and windows and doors that are really open to the amazing sights and water they sit on. Talking just briefly of our kind of ethos, we're trying to create a community that can ride up a storm, that storm being either water currently or rising sea levels, but also the storm that has kind of moved artists out of Sausalito and really want to bring them back and stronger than ever. We're embracing flood water as it comes onto our site and strategically guiding it back towards the bay. our material choices and also creations of space are really trying to relate to this unique side of houseboats and water. And really our buildings are trying to remain resilient to climate change. We're trying to really take what the Sausalito General Plan says to heart and propose something that's both innovative and sustainable for the future. Again, just jumping back to the existing site plan, gazebo will stay in place. A-frame will be rotated and refurbished with new materials. Summer house will be removed and the workshop will be replaced with a new residence. That new residence sits at a setback that meets setback requirements instead of our along our neighbor's property lines. It will require a variance just at this one pinch point along our client's other site, 60 bar landing room. We are also proposing a shift of our easement. The easement currently crosses our neighbor's property here at 40 Barter Landing Road. And we're trying to move that across our own property here at 60 Barter Landing Road. And both the shifts, of the residents off 40 bar to landing and the easement shift. were requests from our neighbors that we're honoring. Looking in closer, you can see that we're meeting the required set back here, but hitting this pinch point, here along our own property. The new proposed easement would have the same tandem parking that the current property has. And I just wanna note that the tandem spaces actually do fit on our site and will not require offsite parking. Zooming in further. The residence is really efficient, but we think also effective in a small space. It's essentially a studio with a large living space that opens out to this amazing view of the bay. That view is screened from both adjacent neighbors and other tenants on our client's property with these screened portions. And this all connects to this artist studio workspace that the resident of this house will use. We're also looking here at the A-frame just in plan. It's currently an accessory structure. It's really just used for small work activities and storage, and it will continue to be just that. In terms of landscaping, we're offering drought tolerant and flood friendly planting and placing that strategically along property lines to provide more privacy and block views in the neighbor's properties that have requested that. We're also honoring the existing tidal marsh and providing a new rain garden. And the idea is that with our grading and site manipulation, we can guide water into these spaces, allow it to naturally sit and slowly filter back out into the bay. In terms of material palette, we're really trying to speak to the houseboats on site and nearby with a really extensively wooden palette. The one thing we're proposing to add is this charred wood siding, screen, and shingle. And the idea with that char is that actually naturally provides added durability to the wood and protecting it from water and sun damage and anything else that may come at it. These are some quick elevations of the residents. You can see that it's a relatively straightforward shape that we feel speaks to houseboats wrapped in this charred wood with a concrete base where water is more frequently going to be touched for added durability. The structure really provides privacy on three sides while opening up to this awesome view towards the bay. And one significant thing to note is that the current existing grade and existing residents is down at a seven foot elevation. Our FEMA floodplain is a 10 foot elevation. So we're required to have an 11 foot finished floor. That is what we are providing. And I think that is our explanation for, you know, how these buildings have grown and maybe why the story poles appear high currently. Here, looking at the A-frame, we're going to keep the existing shape, character. This really speaks to the site. We're just refurbishing it with needed new materials and keeping it as this accessory structure for work and storage. As said earlier, the site currently, frequently floods during during king tides and rain events. and really renders the existing residents completely unusable, severely water-diamish. Again, we're in this FEMA floodplain that requires an 11 foot finished floor level. And just some numbers to note, the mean high tide water, our high tide waterline is 5.3 feet. The King tides rise up to 7.9 and the 100 year mark is 9.63. And that will, you know, we can only guess, continue to get worse with sea level rise. And what we propose to do about that is that the grading and landscaping onsite, like tactically and strategically raise certain portions. So during an event where waters rise two feet above normal levels, maybe a king tide perhaps, the pathways, parking and areas immediately adjacent to the buildings will remain above water and completely usable. Whereas now they flood out entirely. More significant rises three feet above that mean high tide water line, getting closer to above a king tide and pushing towards these hundred year floods. The entire site will likely flood, but because of the raised finished floor elevations and because of the concrete base, the sites, sorry, structures will remain entirely usable, dry and productive. Looking forward to possible sea level rise or you know significant hundred year flooding. We're proposing to utilize a technology that is already in use in the Netherlands and in New Orleans. Where we encase foam within a concrete foundation. And that foundation can actually literally float in place much like a houseboat would. And we couple that with pilings that will be inside the exterior walls of the building that attach to the ground, much like a houseboat piling where keeping it in place when we lift during water floods and coming back down and being usable once the water is safe and gone. Looking at some quick renderings, we have the existing condition of the neighboring site at 60 Barter Landing here with this new proposed residence and A-frame in the background surrounded by our landscaping with this new proposed easement across 60 Barter Landing Road. Zooming it a little closer, we see the attached art studio and entrance into the residence. And then this A-frame in the background And moving towards the backyard, we can see, again, this residence is really all about this view out over our landscaping out onto the bay while providing privacy from our other tenants on site at 60 and privacy from the neighbors with this screening element. Zooming out even further, you know, our goal is to allow the natural process of flooding and water entering the site, but strategically prepare for it. And so we are grading the site to allow the paths and buildings to still be usable, while allowing water to collect and naturally filter back out into the site. So thank you for your attention. And I'd love to throw it back to the Planning Commission for questions. |
| 02:34:11.65 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you very much for the presentation. orientating us to this and a little bit of the background. So thank you both for for the presentation with 39 seconds remaining. So you must have practiced your timing, so well done. Um, So this would be the time for commissioners to ask the applicant and his team any questions for clarification. Um, I'm gonna go back to Commissioner Luxembourg to start because maybe you can assist with answering some questions regarding driveway and so on. Thank you. |
| 02:34:49.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, thank you for your presentation. I applaud your efforts. I think this greatly improved the location. My only question was, typically we would pave parking. I would recommend strongly that you pave the two tandem spaces just because, you know, that way you don't have to maintain rocks moving around or whatever. Is there any reason you can't put in paved parking here? |
| 02:34:49.89 | Kristina Feller | Oh, yeah. |
| 02:35:19.45 | Matt Inens | I think the compacted gravel, we were thinking would tie to Varda Landing Road and also make up for the expansive soils on site. But I think if it's a strong wish and recommendation to pave that, I think that's something we could certainly do. |
| 02:35:36.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I appreciate that. That was the only question I had to your fellow |
| 02:35:40.55 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:35:44.76 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:35:44.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:35:44.82 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Um, Let's see. It has to do with some of the materials. The shingles, that's on the A-frame only. Is that correct? |
| 02:35:59.18 | Matt Inens | That is correct. |
| 02:36:00.81 | Richard Graef | And the screening issue, Sujiban screen. What It's not clear to me what that is or how that works. It's just a graphic on your materials board. |
| 02:36:19.97 | Matt Inens | Yeah, if I'm permitted to show screen again, I can clarify with an image Thank you. |
| 02:36:25.06 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 02:36:25.10 | Matt Inens | Thank you. Thank you. But essentially we are using our same charred wood siding material and just creating a screen material out of it. So it would be, it's about half solid, half open. And the hope is just that that is helping screen and give privacy to both our neighbors and the other residents on site at 60. |
| 02:36:31.75 | Richard Graef | I just... |
| 02:36:48.00 | Richard Graef | Okay. All right. I wasn't quite sure how that was achieved. Thank you. Um... |
| 02:37:00.68 | Richard Graef | Can you give us a little bit more on... the floating foundation concept and how that really works. It's pretty intriguing. I know about it, but I don't know much about it. And, uh, I think it might be instructional to for a real quick explanation of how it actually works. |
| 02:37:28.53 | Matt Inens | Mm-hmm. Thank you. I can share again. So this is something that we're currently working with, with structural engineers and with a naval engineer, but it is an already utilized technology and we feel confident about executing it. But essentially we have a concrete foundation slab on grade and then this high density foam and the high density foam is wrapped on all sides with waterproofing. You know, it's gonna be concrete on the exterior and base and then I guess our flooring above. And that foam is enough flotation that when the building is inundated to a certain level, it begins to lift and lift in place with these pilings that will be in the exterior wall. So that's a sleeve? |
| 02:38:22.19 | Richard Graef | The ballings are in sleeves there. Is that what I'm looking at? Thank you. |
| 02:38:28.20 | Matt Inens | Exactly. |
| 02:38:28.32 | Richard Graef | But slides up and down in the sleeve. Thank you. |
| 02:38:31.44 | Matt Inens | Yeah. |
| 02:38:31.74 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Do you anticipate that this kind of movement would be frequent given the tides that we have here? |
| 02:38:44.03 | Matt Inens | To be honest, we haven't gotten a calculation from the Naval engineer about what water level would cause them to rise. Our 100 year floodplain is at 9.63 feet. I think it's likely that that might cause a slight lift. I think this is really, |
| 02:38:59.32 | Gina Lee | Thank you. |
| 02:38:59.50 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 02:38:59.57 | Gina Lee | I'm not sure. |
| 02:39:08.93 | Matt Inens | like significant flood event that is causing this. It's not a king tide, it's not a winter storm. It would be significant flooding or sea level rise. |
| 02:39:14.15 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:39:14.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:14.20 | Richard Graef | Uh-huh. |
| 02:39:18.64 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Thank you for that. |
| 02:39:21.91 | Matt Inens | Thank you. |
| 02:39:21.96 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:39:22.01 | Matt Inens | Thank you. |
| 02:39:22.03 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:39:22.17 | Matt Inens | Thank you. |
| 02:39:22.23 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:39:24.51 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Barra Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:39:29.86 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for an excellent and thorough presentation. I definitely had the same question as Commissioner Graff. I wasn't comprehending this. Um... foam encased situation. It sounds really interesting. I am not sure because this public comment is actually attached to both 52 and 60. So I'll just throw it out at this time, unless it's applicable to both. It's from Christina Clark, and there were some concerns around potential view impacts. And I saw from the staff presentation that the team has made a lot of efforts to talk to the community And I was just wondering if you had any feedback regarding the you know, the proposed height, um, for view blockage. Have you had those conversations or that type of feedback or anything directly with that? if you had a chance to see that public comment. |
| 02:40:35.33 | Matt Inens | I did see the public comment and I was not aware before the comment came in of that neighbor's specific concern. Max could jump in if he has spoke with them. I think that from looking at the project and our site, I would assume that the view blockage is fairly minimal, but I think that this increase in height is really necessitated by this FEMA floodplain and that we're raising the finished floor elevation four feet. And so I think it's going to be very difficult to keep the project at the height of the existing building. |
| 02:41:15.11 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Did you want to comment? Thank you. Max, at all. |
| 02:41:23.18 | Max Hotsager | No, it's yeah, our building heights are determined by FEMA flood regulations and I reached out. for feedback and discussions to Christie. Dennis, but did not get any response. |
| 02:41:38.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:41:38.28 | Max Hotsager | I was just forwarded the comment from the city. |
| 02:41:40.52 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. |
| 02:41:46.08 | Nastassya Saad | I think that might be, I might have more questions around the foam and casing and pilings later. I just need to understand it, but that's all for now Chair Fowler, thank you. |
| 02:41:56.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 02:41:59.54 | Andrew Junius | Sure, Feller. I'm not sure. Wow, really interesting project, fascinating presentation. Can't wait to hear the discussion as it moves forward. I'm going to push back a little bit on on Commissioner Luxembourg's questions about gravel versus paving Um, there's no question that gravel is a bit messy, can be a bit messy, but it's also, I think. a little more environmentally sensitive, I think we all know, we're all starting to hear stories about how concrete and cement are You know? Uh, the creation of those two things, create environmental issues. They're also impermeable. And the entire presentation and design here seems to be cognizant of the fact that it's on a floodplain and water is going to be coming in and coming structure there I don't think I think it's going to have you know survivability problems it's going to be difficult to maintain You know, so that's where I think, and I think Matt might want to eventually respond to that. I totally understand that if this was a place where gravel was being proposed in a different situation as an expense issue, you know, in a neighborhood where floodplain was not the issue, then I probably would be with you, Commissioner Luxenberg. But here, I think, It was intended to be consistent with what's there now and be workable with the flooding issues and the sea level rise issues that are going to be coming down the pipe here. Um, Possibly, I've seen compromises where instead of full on paving, you kind of put a cinder block on its side and you put, you know, maybe gravel in the middle of it, or you put some kind of a planting so that it's a It doesn't turn into a marsh. It does have some structure. um i don't know what that's actually called but i've seen it a few times where you really can get a little bit of both. You know, you don't get, you get much more permeability than a paved surface, but you also get some structure that you don't get with a you know, long-term gravel. road that obviously can turn into potholes and I know Matt's probably thought about that as well, That's my only comment. A fascinating project. I look forward to the conversation. |
| 02:44:16.16 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Junietas. I had a couple questions for you as well. These are in no particular order. of, And first of all, I'll start with saying, I love this technology. I've known of this, I've seen it, I've seen it built, I've seen it in place. And I really, really want to applaud you for being innovative, for thinking ahead and looking at creative and resilient solutions, particularly to this part of town. I really do applaud you and it's great to see you. But with that, I want to understand, and you probably heard me ask Cecilia this, if you actually have modeled this with the city's GIS mapping, it does address both sea level rise and the subsidence issues that we deal with which happens in a lot of places, but Sausalito is a little unique just because of all the infill. So I'm curious if you've modeled it with that or with Bay Wave. |
| 02:45:20.66 | Matt Inens | you I admittedly have not personally done that. Our civil engineer, I feel confident has, and has plugged in all sorts of studies of existing grades and how to manipulate them to guide water offsite. But I have not directly worked with BayWave. |
| 02:45:41.03 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. Or what about the city's GIS? Have you modeled it with that? |
| 02:45:46.76 | Glenn Harris | I have not. |
| 02:45:47.81 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. And then I wanted to ask you, this is probably better depicted in some of your renderings, you have fencing between 52 and I want to say it's 40 Varta Landing. Is that your fence? is that fencing that you're installing? Because it looked... brand new, like in the model, in your rendering. |
| 02:46:14.39 | Matt Inens | Mm-hmm. Let me, I can share screen again if that's helpful. |
| 02:46:18.42 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:46:19.60 | Matt Inens | So I'm assuming you're referring to this little portion of fencing here. Currently, the project has an easement across that neighbor's property. So that fencing more or less follows this dashed line and then jogs over onto the property line. I think with this shift in easement, we would be proposing to continue that fencing the length of the property line. Forgive me for flipping through these slides, but I think as opposed to ending where the existing easement crosses onto our property line, I think that fencing would continue to and then meet with, I believe this Fortivarte Landing Road has a fence here as well. So it can probably connect and steal off this little portion that we currently steal from them. |
| 02:47:12.34 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So the fencing would match what's existing but not necessarily match the materials you're talking about for your project? |
| 02:47:20.81 | Matt Inens | Exactly, I think the goal would be to match the existing. |
| 02:47:23.88 | Kristina Feller | Okay, okay. And then you might wanna go back to share screen again because maybe, you know, sometimes I know, |
| 02:47:28.27 | Matt Inens | Yeah. |
| 02:47:28.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:47:31.32 | Kristina Feller | with rendering it's always easy to you know make something look a lot and prettier and you look like you might have the beginning of some planting coming down from the roof. So are you proposing a living roof? |
| 02:47:45.90 | Matt Inens | We are not. And that is just some, flourishing ivy running up the side. |
| 02:47:52.60 | Kristina Feller | Okay, okay. |
| 02:47:53.31 | Matt Inens | Okay. |
| 02:47:54.46 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Um, You know regarding the driveway I mean I see Commissioner Luxembourg's point and I also see Vice Chair Junius, but there's so many different solutions, like interlocking these large, chunky interlocking tiles It looks, you know, that could be used at that that are impervious and not necessarily just an asphalt driveway. I think you might want to look at something a little bit more conducive to your design and not just mimic what is not the nicest just gravel area that generates quite a lot of dust which would it would be unfortunate So I would really, strongly recommend that you look at something like that. But while we're on the whole topic, I did wanna understand it again. You probably heard me ask Cecilia this question. Um, how much is that driveway built up? Because it looks like when you get that flood, The driveway is still dry. that water line. |
| 02:49:08.12 | Matt Inens | Thank you. |
| 02:49:08.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:08.18 | Matt Inens | Mm-hmm. That is correct. And so the intention is to strategically raise both the paths and driveway to stay above flood lines, essentially. So we're looking here in this diagram at a flood that's two feet above the mean high tide waterline. And showing that driveway pathways and the areas immediately adjacent to the buildings as dry. |
| 02:49:32.33 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:49:39.01 | Matt Inens | So we would manipulate that grading to keep that above water. |
| 02:49:39.25 | Kristina Feller | So we were. |
| 02:49:42.98 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and would you be willing to look at some kind of interlocking CMU of some kind? |
| 02:49:49.06 | Matt Inens | I think that that would be our preferred solution to a paved driveway. I think that we are looking for something that is impervious and that does allow some level of flexibility as the soils are frequently flooded and expansive. |
| 02:50:04.44 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, the problem with gravel is, you know, it does get kicked around. You know, you've got little sinkholes. It's just, it's messy and unsightly. |
| 02:50:12.43 | Unknown | Indeed. |
| 02:50:14.75 | Kristina Feller | you've clearly spent a lot of effort with your client to develop a certain, architectural vernacular here. And I would hope that the driveway and paths are... in line with that and not just mimicking what is a very unsightly area outside of your property line. would be my preference. So that would definitely be something I would be interested in. Those I think were the main questions that I had, except, Can you just clarify a little bit this existing title marsh there. I'm aware of it there. But is there any kind of environmental Um, review or report that you're aware of that Is that the original title marsh there or is it just part of the subsidence? |
| 02:51:20.42 | Matt Inens | So I guess I should clarify when I say tidal marsh that this is just currently the lowest portion of our dry site that floods first and most frequently. So it's kind of the natural place that water gathers currently. And we wanna continue to utilize that in our strategy. |
| 02:51:32.09 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:51:40.06 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then finally, sort of what is the status of your discussions with BCDC? Have you just had an initial conversation with them? Have you issued them the same? presentation and plans that we see. Can you just give us some insight on that? Just for informational purposes only, it is not necessarily, are any approval or discussion we have is not contingent on that. I'm just curious. |
| 02:52:07.57 | Matt Inens | Yeah, so we have been in multiple discussions with BCDC as has our client, Max and Marcel Haltiger and their lawyer that is handling that. I think there's been multiple iterations of that conversation. And I believe that we are close to submitting, but have not yet submitted our application, but they're aware of the proposal. They're aware of the scope. of actually all three proposals. And so they are informed and we hope to apply soon. |
| 02:52:37.67 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you for that. Commissioners, do you have any further questions? At this time I see Commissioner Graff your hand up and then Commissioner Luxembourg after him. |
| 02:52:52.47 | Richard Graef | Yeah, a couple of things. I forgot initially and one is the roof decks. There are roof decks, I think, on this project and I guess on the other one, but I don't see any guardrails. which are usually required. So I would kind of like to get an explanation of that. And then also I'm not familiar with this charred wood uh, product. I'm not sure. and it's good like really black, black, like the renderings are, still distinguishable as wood. I'm just a little curious about it. |
| 02:53:37.56 | Matt Inens | Thank you. |
| 02:53:37.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:37.59 | Matt Inens | Thank you. |
| 02:53:37.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:37.88 | Matt Inens | Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So there are not any proposed roof decks on 52 Varda Landing. The proposal for roof decks is at 60 Varda. So this residence does not contain a roof deck. So that's where it's- Okay, so I'm gonna- Yeah, no problem. As for the charred wood, yeah, again, the idea is that the char naturally provides added durability and protection for the wood. The char is then typically sealed with kind of a clear natural sealant. It's definitely dark and it's the color of burnt wood, but I think that it still has the sheen and texture and graining of wood that makes it easily identifiable as wood. |
| 02:53:53.02 | Richard Graef | environment. |
| 02:54:04.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:23.88 | Unknown | you |
| 02:54:26.11 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:54:26.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. you |
| 02:54:28.08 | Unknown | Okay. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 02:54:30.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Fowler. I mean, I don't have an issue with pervious pavers. I just have an issue with grouse. So if somebody, again, this location, given the soils and the water and whatever, but some solution that's solid and it's not gravel, it can just move and create dust and all that. I do have a question though. At the Varda landing at the property line, what is the elevation of the property? Coral. |
| 02:54:57.82 | Matt Inens | Thank you. Currently, I believe that it's roughly seven feet or slightly above. |
| 02:55:05.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So this parking rate you're creating is going to be sloped from seven feet to Because if you're going to get it up to 10 feet to get it out of the FEMA floodplain, then you have to get to that. So somehow you have to ramp up to that. It can't totally be at 10 feet unless you're using a lift of some sort. |
| 02:55:29.31 | Matt Inens | So the, These planes that we're showing above water are not 10 feet high. The ground surface is above the 7.3 elevation shown in the drawing. So I, And without pulling up the civil plan, I believe that this point where the easement and driveway enters Vardalining Road is the area that we're lifting up the least. |
| 02:55:57.35 | Kristina Feller | Forgive my interruption, but we're not. |
| 02:55:59.46 | Matt Inens | I'm sorry, I'm not sharing screen, my apologies. Let me reiterate that. So here in this diagram, the level of water that we're showing is 7.3 feet, not 10. And so at 10 feet, all of our landing road is underwater. But at more frequent flood events and king tides, we are raising our elevations of driveway and walkways to be above this 7.3, which is much closer in elevation to Varda Landing Road. We're not proposing some significant ramp up three feet above Varda Landing. I believe that this will be the area that we increase elevation the least right where we hit the road. |
| 02:56:49.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so is that flatter, is it gonna slope up to the building? Now you can do it. |
| 02:56:54.96 | Matt Inens | I believe it's almost entirely flat. |
| 02:56:58.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So whatever the current elevation of the road is, if it floods right now in King Tides, the parking will flood if it floods now. |
| 02:57:09.32 | Matt Inens | Yes, I believe so. I don't think we have the space or ability to ramp up significantly from farther landing road |
| 02:57:17.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, because that's a little counter to what you said a minute ago, unless I misunderstood. Because I think you said that like the unit, it was going to be raised out of the flood. So the parking will flood is what you're saying. |
| 02:57:34.69 | Matt Inens | So the parking will flood eventually. What we're trying to do is raise our parking and paths above frequent floods. So in this image, the waterline is at 7.3 feet. So two feet above the mean high tide waterline. The parking will still be above water level. When things shift out above a king tide, for example, to 8.3 feet, the parking will be inundated. but the buildings remain above that level. So the buildings are at 11 feet per FEMA requirements. The parking is raised, but not at that level. |
| 02:58:12.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, but if the existing road is at 7.3 and you're building it flat, you're not raising it, you're just paving it if you use pavers of some sort. As the current, it's not being raised at all if that's what the road is, unless currently it's 7.3. |
| 02:58:29.02 | Matt Inens | it may slope slightly downward where we're really raising things strategically is out closer to the water line. |
| 02:58:39.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so the parking might not be being raised, or parking might just be as it is now. |
| 02:58:40.23 | Matt Inens | Yeah. |
| 02:58:46.76 | Matt Inens | Exactly, I mean, you can see it now, it's fairly flat from here onto that easement. |
| 02:58:52.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so the sidewalks are being raised, but the parking is at the current level of the room. Exactly. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair Follin. |
| 02:58:59.38 | Matt Inens | Thank you. |
| 02:59:00.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Great, thank you, thank you very much. Unless there are no other for the applicant from the commissioner as I'd like to. open this up for public comment. in the interest of time, it being 9.30 at the moment and the fact that we have 12 public commenters or pieces of public comment, some people have commented twice, already on the public record. I'd like to limit our time, Maria, tonight to two minutes per speaker. Um, I think we can get that done. I already see a couple hands here. Just for those of you who have not raised your hand yet, you can raise your hand in the Zoom application or press star nine on your cell phones. So I will call on you in the order I see you. The firsthand I see is Eric Gulishan. If I am not pronouncing your name correctly, I do apologize, but welcome. Thank you. you |
| 02:59:56.60 | Eric Gullickson | Thank you. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chair. |
| 02:59:59.19 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 03:00:00.40 | Eric Gullickson | Yes, thank you, Chair Keller. My name is Eric Gullickson. Since the 1990s, I've owned the SS Vallejo ferry boat and the tidal land on which it's moored. This is on parcel 10C in the houseboat zone immediately adjacent to proposed development. I oppose this project and I note so do the other landowners in the houseboat zone in the Marinship specific plan. The land is subsiding in addition to the water rising due to climate change. I consider it utter madness to build new homes on chunks of foam. This would be like bringing a boat to a desert and expecting it to float. The style of these buildings seems more suited to the Roppongi district of Tokyo. It speaks not at all to the vernacular, you know, waterfront. Based on economics and precedent, we have every expectation there are going to be further illegal commercial activities on these properties. But most specifically, since my time is limited, I'd like to confine my objection to a very specific point of law and share my screen. Could you please enable my screen sharing? The host has disabled screen sharing. |
| 03:01:06.87 | Kristina Feller | You have the ability to share your screen, sir. |
| 03:01:10.25 | Eric Gullickson | it says hostess disabled. Can you see that? |
| 03:01:12.90 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, you've just been, no, I can't, but you've just been made a co-host, so you should be able to share your screen. Thank you. |
| 03:01:18.68 | Eric Gullickson | Thank you. |
| 03:01:18.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:01:18.72 | Eric Gullickson | Okay. |
| 03:01:18.99 | Kristina Feller | I know. |
| 03:01:21.22 | Eric Gullickson | Is it visible now? |
| 03:01:22.67 | Kristina Feller | No, it is not. |
| 03:01:25.59 | Eric Gullickson | Well, it makes it rather difficult to make my point. if you consider page 14 of the marine ship specific plan These parcels, in fact, all parcels in the friendship specific plan have a limitation of one land based residence and because this is a specific plan it's provisions trump density code in general plan code. So is this artist studio a residential use? I would say, yes, it is the A-frame. If it is a residential use, there are gonna be two residences on this property, which is strictly not permissible under the terms of the Marinship specific plan. This is also gonna be relevant for the next property. If the artist studio, the A-frame is not a residence, then the project is not exempt under section 15303A of the CEQA requirements and requires CEQA review. So can't be both ways. If the artist studio has people in there, it's a residential use, there would be two residences, which is one more than would be permitted under the terms of the MarinShip specific plan. And if it's not, then the project requires CEQA review. I hope I haven't gone over to. Thank you. |
| 03:02:37.91 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much, sir. Thank you for your comments this evening and for your written comments as well. The next hand I see is Glenn. Welcome Glenn, if you could unmute and share your screen. You have two minutes for public comment. Maria, you can get the clock back to 2. |
| 03:02:58.67 | Unknown | There we go. |
| 03:02:59.48 | Kristina Feller | Welcome, Glenn. |
| 03:03:07.12 | Kristina Feller | Glenn, if you can hear me. Can you hear me now? There we go. Thank you. |
| 03:03:09.23 | Glenn Harris | Can you hear me now? OK. Thank you. Yeah, hey, I'm Glenn Harris. I live at 58 BARDA. And in some of the pictures the architect showed, Houseboat. I've been here since 2010, and I used to have to swim out of my boat because the gravel, as everybody's talking about, wasn't enough. Max and Marcel put enough gravel in so they don't have to swim out of my boat anymore. However, From Varda Landing up to Gate 5 Road, that area still floods. And I would estimate, I've been in the construction business most of my career, they're going to have to put in feet of gravel to stop that. And that's going to create a problem when they're trying to do the elevation changes for both 52 and 60. So they'll probably have to elevate 60 at the same time they're elevating 52. again. And just if we're having standing water, I saw something in Matt's presentation, there might be some standing water. I frequently have the vector control guys down here because there's a huge amount of mosquitoes that like to live here. So it would be good if we didn't have any as far as the structures, I agree with Eric. I think they're not in keeping at all with the historical look and feel of the waterfront here and if it was me Matt I would be repositioning that new residence. I'd wipe out the A-frame. The rumor is that Timothy Leary slept there so we could move that and then move the building back down toward Ted Rose's boat. Ted Rose's boat has sunk on its mooring more or less. They should do something to fix that. But there's been a huge amount of unpermitted work done here. Respectfully to the commissioners who think everything is fine. There's a couple of years of construction I lived through that was very unpleasant, including calling the police down on Thanksgiving to tell them to stop construction. |
| 03:05:18.50 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:05:18.70 | Glenn Harris | So a little more rule enforcement would be better there. |
| 03:05:22.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, sir. Thank you for your public comment and for being here this evening. Thank you very much. I'm looking for any additional hands from the public. This would be the time again to make public comment on 52 Varda landing. Seeing no additional hands, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment and bring the discussion back up to our commissioners here. Let's see, Commissioner Saad, do you wanna start the discussion off? |
| 03:05:56.94 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, thank you, Chair Feller. So, um, Do you think it's a really interesting project? I do think that there's a lot of thoughtfulness that's gone into this DESIGN. I don't disagree with the public comment purely from an aesthetic look. it's not necessarily my style. I do think it's super interesting. I don't think it fits in with the surrounding area. PERSONALLY. but as a design concept, it's innovative and it's cool. It's a cool design. But I do have to note that I just don't think it's necessarily an appropriate look for the entire area. Um, I think this concept of these foam encased foundation and these pilings I'd love actually Chair Feller, if you are more familiar with them, I mean, they seem, if someone could expand and maybe we end up going back to the applicant for it. I just wanna make sure I'm really understanding it it does seem like a solution to what is happening in you know, with the flooding, I think we're all very familiar that we have from the sea level rise and the flooding in that area. AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD I am not sure I can comment necessarily on the elevations of the PATH LEADING UP TO THE property in terms of the gravel, but I'd be interested if we also continue to have some of that scope just to make sure we're understanding and really doing a wholehearted look at this, PROJECT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. So I know I don't sound conclusive in any ways because I'm not, but I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks. I definitely would love to hear more about any guidance on the encasing. But otherwise I think we do need to from listening to the public comment take an applicant for their proposal. And it sounds like the A-frame is intended to be a workspace. And if that's what they say it is, then I'm going to assume that that is what they mean IT IS. And. just in light of our last project, I mean, there is code enforcement for a reason. and given that we're putting some resources there, That's always a resource moving forward, but I would look at, I'm looking at this project as one residential mainland use. and an A-frame structure that is intended as designed for a studio. So I just wanted to put that out there. I don't have confusion around that. That's all for now, Chair Feller. |
| 03:08:44.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. I will note that part of what we are hearing this evening is a conditional use permit that this commission does grant or deny obviously, but it is within the remit of this commission to apply that conditional use permit. Um, I see another hand raised. We've already closed public comment on this item and we're in the middle of deliberations now. So we're not going to be taking any more public comment at this time. Commissioner Graff, do you have, what are your thoughts here as we deliberate? |
| 03:09:19.94 | Richard Graef | and well, I share other people's Uh, understanding that this is a pretty interesting project. I think there's a lot to contend with in developing this. given the flooding and sea level rise and all that. Um... Um... I'm of several different feelings about the architecture. I like it very much. I think I like that style of architecture. Um, uh, in looking around the neighborhood, I kind of looked around, specifically with that in mind. You know, there are other buildings around there that are just, dark. Blah. So it's not that unusual. It certainly... doesn't. reflect the what you might call vernacular of the waterfront, That vernacular is just pretty funky. for the most part. So I don't know if, you know. Thank you. these buildings ought to be funky I like them. Generally speaking, I think, I can't find any real objections. to the architectural style. Actually, I think the whole project is really quite interesting. And I don't know if we're table walls. getting to a resolution about this this evening, but But I think we should keep up the discussion. |
| 03:11:15.88 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 03:11:19.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Follower. I appreciate Commissioner Saad's concerns about it sort of being out of a character. I think the architecture is unique, and I guess in some respects, since it's unique, and a lot of the waterfront and the houseboats are unique. Maybe it is a character. I don't know, but I understand her concern on that, and I don't know where I am on this architecture visit is somewhat different. I have a little concern which I would like to get some clarity from Sergio about this issue if that's an artist studio which I'll take the applicant into words it's an artist studio that if it if it affects CEQA so whether we need a notice of negative declaration kind of thing, I don't know the answer to that. Sergio just popped on. Sergio, do you know if this triggers CEQA? |
| 03:12:17.96 | Sergio | I'm not sure. I think that it's likely to still fit into the claimed exception with respect to the issue raised under the Marinership specific plan. I think that it's important to supplement the zoning table that has been referenced in the Marinship Specific Plan about the allowed uses with the definitions. of what resolution of residential uses mean in the Marinership specific plan. Page 83 of that document says, no land-based residential use shall be permitted in the Marinership except as follows, that currently permitted in a houseboat H zone. Now the marineship specific plan, Clearly, references the existing zoning code that was in place in 1989. but doesn't actually describe or detail what that means. So we actually looked back up what the zoning code in 1989 allowed. And it does allow, single family dwellings, house poster land-based uses as principal uses in that H zone. but it says that the provisions governing accessory buildings in the zoning code shall apply. a single family residential use is intended to will still allow accessory buildings and structures that are typically associated with the single family use. So I don't think the studio is necessarily problematic given its size, provided that it can't, unless it's developed in such a way that it is in fact a dwelling unit, I think that it's still an accessory structure So... |
| 03:13:49.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Congratulations. |
| 03:13:49.98 | Sergio | but also I think that that's fine. |
| 03:13:52.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So it's an accessory structure, which is where I thought it was, but I didn't know if it triggered Sequel. As far as the parking, as I said previously, I think that we need, whether it's concrete paving or whether it's permeable pavers, it's got to be some sort of solid surface so we don't have gravel here. I think that the gravel is problematic. I think it creates dust, it creates moves. We need something that doesn't move, doesn't mean that water can't go through it. There are a lot of parking lots that are designed with permeable favors. So I think, I don't know if we can do this tonight, but I think we need to see a proposal with permeable pavers. It's a, I do agree that this is a single family use on this property that's allowed by the Morianship plan. I think this will be an improvement to the property, whether they, are we allowed for unique architecture. So I'm still on the fence about that. So anyways, that's where I'm at at the moment, Chair Fowler. |
| 03:14:57.78 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:14:58.10 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 03:15:00.67 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. I'm generally very supportive of the project. I'm not going to comment about the architecture. I do want to clarify for the record on the CEQA issue. I mean, let's be very clear, CEQA does apply, and what's happening here is the city has decided that the project is exempt under what's called Class 3 the class three exemption. Mr. Gullison, I think, raised an interesting issue, but I think he's probably reading the language of that. exemption a little too narrowly. Um, it. I don't think there's any question and I hope that the city attorney will agree with me that While the examples listed in class three or, you know, um, Probably not specifically applicable here. they're just examples and they're not limitations. It's a relatively broad, exemption. and speaks to the construction and location of a limited number of new small facilities or structures, plural. So I think, the narrow reading that the that the fact that there's two structures here and possibly somebody thinks that Class 3 only applies to a single structure, a single family home or something, is not the correct reading of this exemption. So I'm very satisfied that Class three works here. and otherwise am pretty happy with the project. Thank you. |
| 03:16:18.73 | Sergio | Yes, I agree with the vice chair's observation and note that the exception of the The language of the exception states, examples of this exception include, but are not limited to. It's important to note that courts have upheld the use of this exact exception for a wide variety of things. I think that there was one case that upheld in San Francisco the use of this exception for like 500 small structures. So it can be a very flexible exception. So. Thank you. |
| 03:16:51.03 | Andrew Junius | That's all I have. Thank you, Sergio. And that was my only comment. Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 03:16:55.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for your comment and your review of that. Thank you very much. I'm Also very supportive of the project. I think that we need, there's a little more detail and information we need and I would move to probably continue this, but I wanna be really clear about some of the things I'm looking for. Some of them you've heard from, fellow commissioners here, I think the fact that this hasn't been modeled yet through the city GIS is a risk and something that needs to be completed. our interim director Dan Horter can help facilitate that information. I believe that model is now on the city website. So that should be very simple to do. And that's based on you know, uh, no information and all those sorts of things. So it's not going to be a different set of metrics that FEMA might require, but it's just a more robust modeling to ensure that your design is actually responding. You have some wonderful... technology and some innovative ideas, but let's make sure that we're modeling this correctly to be able to respond in the manner that you think. and what you're proposing here to this commission. I'd like for you to look at some options or alternative design to the gravel driveways and paths and all that kind of stuff. And you've heard a number of us weigh in on that. So I don't want to repeat any of that, but I think you get, get the idea, CMU or some kind of prefab interlocking, And then, I would... like to get better specificity on what this landscape, what you're really proposing for the landscape. you know, renderings are great and nice, but you know, we don't just, we're not really here to approve renderings. We're here to actually approve the, technical solution of what it is you're proposing. I can appreciate the support the commissioner's comments about the architecture I happen to love these materials and know that that the treatment of those materials make it really robust and it will weather well, it's easier to maintain and so on. But the actual architecture, Um, is beautiful in many ways. I'm not sure how appropriate it is for the area. I know that's always very subjective. So I wanna be sensitive to that. But I love it. I just think you're in an area that it can also easily be mistaken for you know, high industrial, not artist studio, but this is also a home. And it just appears to me a little bit like maybe a storage container Um, That's zhuzhed up a little bit. And I know that's not totally fair and I don't want to minimize the architecture because, you know, depending on the view, I mean, it's really beautiful. Yeah. But this is a really, really eclectic area. but you know, this is surrounded also by houseboats that are clearly homes. And so I'm not going to fuss over it too much, but I, you know, wanted to, at least articulate that a little bit to you? And maybe with a little bit more detail of the landscape in combination with that, that wouldn't be a reason for me not to approve it, but I did wanna put that out there. um So those are the things that I'm looking at. Otherwise I'm highly supportive of this. I'm highly supportive of the artists, the A-frame reusing that or, putting that back to its intention of being a studio and I too will take you and your client at face value, that that's what it's gonna be used for. And that's what that conditional use permit is and violation of that. would certainly be a problem. So, I would sort of make a motion to continue this, pending a little bit more information. I hope I also captured everybody else's thoughts on the additional information you were looking for. If not, please, you know, definitely let me know if you wanna add to that. Any of the commissioners just by a show of hands |
| 03:21:49.51 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um... So I would, yes, vice chair. |
| 03:21:54.56 | Andrew Junius | Thank you Chair Feller. So could you, one more time, could you run through your list of, if we're gonna continue this, I wanna hear you, it's getting a little late. What are the things we're directing the applicant here to come back with next time? |
| 03:22:02.20 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:22:07.42 | Kristina Feller | So I'd like to see the applicant come back with this actually being modeled through the city's GIS model because it does address both sea level rise and subsidence. So I'd like to make sure that the design of the technology that they, have proposed which I'm enthusiastically behind a thousand percent is the right solution for what they're looking for based on that model. I'd like for the applicant to come back with a new proposed solution or a design of some kind for to replace gravel with some sort of impervious interlocking CMU or payway of some kind I'm with you, Vice Chair, I don't think it needs to be asphalt or a bitumen topping, but it needs to be maybe thought through a little bit more Um, And then I would just like a little bit more on the landscaping plan. So that's what, those are the three major things I'm looking for. There's been comments about the architecture as well. I've made some comments on that, but again, from my standpoint, it's not, the deal breaker. Um, but if I have missed something that one of the other commissioners wanted to add to that, did not articulate some of that properly, then please let me know. |
| 03:23:35.34 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Bear, if you don't mind, I would like to go down the list just to be sure that I didn't miss anything. that was being requested So you wanna be sure that it's modeled through the city's GIS. You wanna be sure that there's an alternate driveway material design. you want to make sure that the landscape materials are specified. you want to, want the design to speak more to the area and perhaps the houseboat design style You'd like to see a draft condition of approval to keep the A-frame structure as an accessory structure. IS THAT I will. |
| 03:24:18.35 | Kristina Feller | yeah if any yeah if anybody has any amendments to that |
| 03:24:24.41 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Okay. |
| 03:24:24.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. just by show of hand. Okay. I wanna make sure, and I wanna give the applicant the opportunity to respond to any of that, or certainly this is a time to make sure anything we're asking for is first of all clear and you have a chance to comment on it. Because I think overall there's a lot of support for the project. I just think there's some details lacking here. |
| 03:24:56.10 | Matt Inens | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:24:56.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:24:56.76 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:24:56.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:24:57.03 | Kristina Feller | in a comment. |
| 03:24:57.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:24:57.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:24:58.65 | Matt Inens | Yeah, I'd love to comment briefly. I think that these points are clear and something that we can provide if the project is indeed continued on to a later hearing. The only comment I'd love to add is that, while I agree our architecture is simple and minimal, the intent is to provide something that can indeed float and remain balanced when floating. And so that's where this really straightforward rectangular shape is coming from. |
| 03:25:30.00 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Fair point, fair comment. Um... Okay. So, Let's see, Dan. Let me ask you, Um, about upcoming commission dates, because back to the applicant, we can continue this to a date certain. meaning we lock into what that date is for a future hearing. or it's a date uncertain. And that is up to you depending on how much time you might need to address what we've talked about. So we wanna give that option to you. And Dan will help us understand sort of counting back and Cecilia will weigh in on this as well, how much time they need ahead of the next hearing to actually receive your information to develop the staff report and then analyze it and so on and so forth. So Dan, what are our upcoming meetings that might have some room on our, agenda. |
| 03:26:32.10 | Dan | The next meeting is June 1st. THAT'S NOT A GOOD We only have a conditional use permit on there. It's a rather lengthy one. But, Um... the time crunch on that is becoming an issue in terms of getting it in. because we're already gonna have agenda review next week. So. Ah. and then advertise. We wouldn't have to advertise because it would be moved to a date certain. So June 1st, and then the next one is June 15th, which is a joint meeting between the the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Committee. to hear 12 El Portel among others. |
| 03:27:16.43 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So Yes, but I mean, we can start it as a joint and then HPC can be dismissed and move into a regular hearing. Okay. |
| 03:27:23.49 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 03:27:26.00 | Kristina Feller | So just real quick. For the June 15th meeting, when would the applicant need to get the information to you? Because that's probably the date that they're gonna be more driven by. |
| 03:27:36.70 | Dan | Let me look at my calendar. |
| 03:27:37.71 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:27:40.13 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Dan, when is the meeting after the June 15th hearing? |
| 03:27:44.50 | Dan | It looks like July 6th. |
| 03:27:51.64 | Dan | The first and the 15th and then not the 29th, just the sixth. Okay. |
| 03:27:55.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so when do you need the material for the June 15th? |
| 03:28:00.33 | Dan | Yeah, that's what I'm looking at now. Really at the latest, probably June 1st. Okay. |
| 03:28:09.30 | Kristina Feller | So I wanna go back to the applicant and give you the option of these dates and so on. Thank you. Do you have a strong feeling about |
| 03:28:17.47 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 03:28:17.89 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:28:17.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:28:22.45 | Kristina Feller | these |
| 03:28:23.73 | Matt Inens | Yeah, we would love to set an exact date for our continuance, but I think just to ensure that we have enough time to make all the modifications, we would be happy to push to that July 6th date if possible. |
| 03:28:35.85 | Kristina Feller | Absolutely, absolutely. We can continue this to a date certain of July 6th. We're happy to do that. |
| 03:28:43.63 | Dan | So June 22nd would be kind of the deadline to get everything in for review and agenda and everything. |
| 03:28:52.54 | Kristina Feller | Will that work for you? |
| 03:28:55.39 | Matt Inens | That will, that should be more than enough time. |
| 03:28:57.87 | Kristina Feller | Okay, okay. And obviously if anything changes, I know you'll be working with Cecilia and Dan |
| 03:28:58.70 | Matt Inens | I'm sorry. |
| 03:29:03.07 | Kristina Feller | But, but, but, um, July 6th it is. So with that, I would like to make a motion to continue to continue this design review hearing to a date certain of July 6th. with the additional information as requested that Cecilia has outlined. I'm not gonna go through it again, but because that's already on the public record here. Do I have a second for that motion? |
| 03:29:35.15 | Andrew Junius | Just a clarification, Chair Feller, we're continuing everything, the design review, the conditional use and the variance, the whole package, right? |
| 03:29:41.81 | Kristina Feller | Good question. Thank you for clarifying that. Yes, yes, the entire application. Thank you for clarifying that, yes. |
| 03:29:48.66 | Andrew Junius | Okay, I'll second that. |
| 03:29:50.62 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Dan, can you take roll call? |
| 03:29:53.93 | Dan | your graph. Yeah. Mr. Lutz, it might be. |
| 03:29:57.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | See you. |
| 03:29:58.97 | Dan | Ms. Persaud. THE END OF THE END OF THE Vice Chair Junius? |
| 03:30:02.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:30:02.99 | Dan | Yes. Chair Feller. Yes. |
| 03:30:05.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:30:07.24 | Dan | Motion goes unanimously. |
| 03:30:09.20 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. And thank you, applicant, again. With that, we're moving on to 6C, which is 60 VARTA landing. Dan, over to you. |
| 03:30:21.08 | Dan | So the next item 6C is 60 VARTA landing design review permit. Cecilia Jarosowski, The contract planner will present. |
| 03:30:31.51 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | So Dan, I was under the impression this was going to go to another date. |
| 03:30:35.22 | Dan | Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah, so due to some new research new information that we received Staff is recommending that this item be moved to a data and search while the applicant prepares more information for review by the Planning Commission. |
| 03:30:58.20 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so because this is publicly noticed, do we still need to take public comment on this now? |
| 03:31:04.90 | Sergio | I would recommend that you take public comment and then take up the staff recommendation on this item. |
| 03:31:10.59 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and Sergio, does Cecilia need to make an amended presentation? We just take public comment. |
| 03:31:17.42 | Sergio | Um... I don't think that there's a requirement for staff to make a full presentation on this item. I think it just needs to be introduced open for public comment and then the commission can decide whether or not to entertain the staff recommendation. |
| 03:31:24.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:31:30.76 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great, thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Okay, regarding item 6C, the 6E VARTA landing project, this will be continued to a date uncertain. However, because this was publicly noticed, We will take public comment at this time. To do so, please raise your hand in the Zoom application or press star nine on your cell phone. And we'll go ahead and Maria, we'll do three minutes per on this since we are not listening to the entire presentation. I see three hands raised. I will call on you in the order I see you. Christy Clark. Welcome this evening. you could unmute yourself and share your Camera, you have three minutes for public comment. |
| 03:32:21.74 | Christy Clark | Hi, thank you. Hang on one second. THERE. Thank you and I apologize. My husband and I were talking and I had my hand raised for the previous project, though this one is also of concern and, but I'm not, and I apologize once again, I wasn't paying attention. What is it that we're addressing for this project right now? What, where are you seeking comment? |
| 03:32:50.95 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. You're welcome to make public comment on 60 Barta landing. |
| 03:32:55.82 | Christy Clark | Uh-huh. okay um i my primary concern is again a view blockage for us and some concerns about the height the overall height of the project i i don't understand why it has to be as tall as it's being indicated i don't understand why if these buildings are designed to float on these novel pilings why they have to be built four feet to appease FEMA when in fact they're going to supposedly rise And I just have a lot of questions. I think that maybe speaking with Max, he did say he tried to reach Dennis and me. We never did have a chance, I guess, to speak with him. But Dennis did go and speak with Julian, who works for Max, and got some information. But again, our view will be impacted. The neighborhood will be. if they've got people standing up on parapet decks overlooking the area. This is a problem that we face on a daily basis with Looky-loos, for lack of a better term, this is a tourist zone. Their Varda Landing is on the map for tourists. We get untold number of people wandering down here, and we want to minimize that. |
| 03:34:33.56 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Is that your public comment or you've got a little time left so. |
| 03:34:39.69 | Christy Clark | OH, OKAY. Yeah, I mean, that's it for now. I have a lot of, you know, questions and things, but I think that we can maybe handle some of that off line with Max, you know, and I'd be very happy to speak with him. But that's it for my public comment at this time. Thank you. |
| 03:34:59.05 | Kristina Feller | Appreciate you being here this evening. Thank you for your public comment, both written and oral here. Thank you very much. The next hand I see raised is Glenn. Welcome, Glenn, if you could unmute yourself and share your camera. Thank you. |
| 03:35:16.27 | Glenn Harris | Yeah, I don't have a camera on this computer, sorry. So the story polls for me, I'm on 58 BARDA and the project is 60 BARDA. And when I stand on my deck in the front, I'm not sure. That's a massive structure volumetrically. And I can imagine every one of the houseboats speaking for the community here We all have windows facing the coastal range. and we have windows facing the bay, we'll be able to look right into those folks' windows in the new building, and they'll be able to look down into our and I don't quite know how you control the sight lines to avoid that and telling people to just keep their blinds down all the time or something could be annoying. I think the... So, Thank you. Thank you. For me, Christie, the view wouldn't be impeded very much. but the volume of the structures are quite a lot. So that's my... first concern. Um, I'd like to make one more comment saying everybody's hung up on the gravel. You could ask them to put pavers on or anything else, but the land is subsiding. Every year they'd probably have to put six inches of something on top of those pavers. because the ground is subsiding and it will just start flooding again. So Max and Marcel have mitigated the problem at least for 60 BARDA, 58 my house. The next door neighbor is getting flooded because a lot of the water is coming out of 58 BARDA or 60 BARDA and going over there. And then the next one is, having lived here for so long, I keep wondering, what the traffic impact will be on gate 5 The city doesn't seem to be able to muster any money to maintain that road and it floods routinely. So should we make the developer responsible for maintaining some section, if not all of gate five road? if the traffic is going to go up. That's a great idea. very poorly. maintained street with a huge amount of potholes, axle breakers if you're not careful. And then the last thing is, I didn't get to really touch on it, but these guys played pretty fast and loose with permitting and unlicensed contractors doing the work down here. And if I were to walk around with some of you quasi-engineers or engineers, point out some of the deficiencies in the work that was done I'm very concerned that that work should be brought back to code CURRENT CODE. done the code originally. structural, plumbing, electrical, mechanical. And I'm very concerned when they go to do this new project, if they're not highly supervised, that we'll end up with something that isn't a current code. |
| 03:38:20.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, thank you very much, Glenn. Thank you for your comments this evening on 60 Varta Landing. The next hand I see raised is Eric Gulishan. Welcome again. I again apologize if I mispronounce your name. Maria, let's put the timer back at three minutes. There you go. The floor is yours. |
| 03:38:40.95 | Eric Gullickson | Yeah, thank you very much. The comments that I made about 52, I will echo for 60. I note that 60 apparently has two land-based residences proposed, if I'm not mistaken. And I'd like the attorney, Sergei, to comment on his interpretation of page 14 of the Marinership specific plan, table B. As I mentioned in my previous comment, all four properties in the houseboat zone, including six to guard a landing, have an explicit remark saying one land-based residence permitted And unless I'm mistaken, it seems quite clear that what's being proposed for 60 Varda landing, as is reflected by the story polls, is two land-based residences, which is one more than permitted under the very specific terms of the Rinship specific plan, which as I mentioned, being a specific plan, takes precedence over both density zoning code and general plan. So if Sergey could please consult remark eight. on table B, page 14 of the Mirrorship Specific Plan, and verify that indeed one land-based residence is permitted on 60 Varda landing, whereas two are proposed and comment on the legality of that. |
| 03:40:00.25 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments this evening. I'm looking for any additional hands in the public for public comment on this item, 60 VARTA landing. Give you just a moment, everybody, to find the raise hand function or star nine on your cell phone. Okay, seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment. and I'd like to make a motion to continue this item to a date uncertain. |
| 03:40:33.25 | Andrew Junius | I've been... |
| 03:40:34.82 | Kristina Feller | Dan, could you call the roll? your graph. |
| 03:40:39.46 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:40:39.48 | Dan | Yes. Commissioner Luxembourg? Yes. Commissioner Saad? |
| 03:40:45.29 | Cecilia Jaroslavsky | Yes. |
| 03:40:46.21 | Dan | Vice Chair Junius? Yes. Chair Fowler? |
| 03:40:49.83 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 03:40:50.58 | Dan | Motion carried. |
| 03:40:51.83 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you very much. Thank you everybody for your public comments tonight. Really appreciate that and for being here. With that, we are done with... section six and we're on to section seven adjournment. I would like to make a motion to adjourn this evening. |
| 03:41:12.59 | Andrew Junius | Second. |
| 03:41:14.02 | Kristina Feller | Right. All in favor. |
| 03:41:16.54 | Andrew Junius | Uh, |
| 03:41:16.98 | Richard Graef | Bye. Bye. |
| 03:41:18.28 | Kristina Feller | Thank you everybody. |
| 03:41:18.38 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:41:19.63 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, commissioners. Hard work, thank you. Thank you. Good night. |
| 03:41:23.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:41:23.10 | Dan | Good night, everybody. Good night. |
| 03:41:24.32 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:41:24.50 | Dan | I don't know. |
| 03:41:24.81 | Kristina Feller | I know. |
| 03:41:24.88 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 03:41:24.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:41:25.03 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 03:41:25.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:41:25.92 | Dan | you |