| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:02:19.79 | Unknown | Hello, hello, hello. Okay, I hear you. I see you there. Okay, perfect. |
| 00:02:23.32 | Sebastian Bursz | Thank you. |
| 00:02:23.35 | Kristina Feller | I'll see you there. Okay, perfect. |
| 00:02:25.04 | Kristina Feller | Bye. possible. |
| 00:02:31.82 | Kristina Feller | free to launch recording and whatever else at your pace. |
| 00:02:38.49 | Kristina Feller | Did you, it's a play now? |
| 00:02:43.94 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:02:44.04 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Thank you. |
| 00:02:46.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:02:46.15 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Yeah, just impossible. Thank you. |
| 00:02:51.08 | Cece Muela | Thank you. |
| 00:02:51.09 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Okay. |
| 00:02:52.07 | Cece Muela | Thank you. |
| 00:02:52.09 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Thank you. |
| 00:02:52.38 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 00:02:52.80 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Thank you. |
| 00:02:52.81 | Cece Muela | Bye. |
| 00:02:52.87 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Thank you. |
| 00:02:52.97 | Cece Muela | Let me let the public answer, Chair Feller. |
| 00:02:58.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:58.11 | Kristina Feller | Right? |
| 00:02:58.43 | Unknown | Recording in progress. |
| 00:03:06.62 | Unknown | Chair Peller of Publixen, I hand it over to you. |
| 00:03:12.10 | Kristina Feller | Terrific, thank you so much Maria and the Zoom team. Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the regular Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, September 21st. I'd like to call this meeting to order. and ask our interim director of development, Dan Hortert, to please provide an orientation to our virtual platform here as well as calling the roll. |
| 00:03:39.52 | Dan | Thank you and good evening Chair Fowler 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 September 21st, 2022, will be conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcast live on the city's website. With that, I'll call to order. Commissioner Sachs. here. Commissioner Graham. Thank you. |
| 00:04:07.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | care. |
| 00:04:08.18 | Dan | Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:04:09.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | there. |
| 00:04:10.64 | Dan | Vice Chair Juniors. |
| 00:04:12.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | present. |
| 00:04:13.14 | Dan | Chair Feller. |
| 00:04:16.83 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 00:04:16.85 | Kristina Feller | here. |
| 00:04:17.73 | Dan | We have a quorum. |
| 00:04:22.34 | Kristina Feller | Terrific, thank you so much. Moving on to item number two is the approval of the agenda this evening. I will entertain a motion to approve by any commissioner. I have a question. Or if there are any comments, please. |
| 00:04:33.78 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:04:33.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | by any commissioner or is there Thank you. I have a question before we do that, Chair Fellick. |
| 00:04:37.66 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:04:41.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Dan, on August 1st, you met with the Planning Commission Working Group regarding the CDD process, along with City Manager Zapata and our City Attorney and our Assistant City Attorney. At that meeting, we discussed that getting complex items the Friday before a Wednesday meeting was not sufficient time for review to get any questions back to staff and to be better prepared. We discussed at that meeting, posting 10 items 10 days before the meeting, which is when the notices go out to the abutters. Uh, And we discussed if you were not able to do that, that you would put it on the following agenda. The two public hearings tonight, one was filed in March of 2022. The other was originally submitted in 2019. And the latest planned date of October 25th, 2021, which is almost a year ago. So clearly there was lots of time and I don't see any reason why we could not have had these 10 days before our meeting so that we could have questions sent back and be prepared and not get something like two minutes before this meeting, summarizing comments, which we did this evening. So given that I cannot support the approval of this agenda. Thank you, Chair Gullman. |
| 00:06:02.56 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Are there any other comments on the agenda this evening? by any commissioner just by a show of hands. If not, I will entertain a motion to approve or a motion to deny. |
| 00:06:18.57 | Richard Graef | I move to approve. The agenda for this evening. |
| 00:06:22.10 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:06:22.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:06:22.45 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:06:22.54 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Do I have a second? |
| 00:06:28.75 | Dan | I'll second. |
| 00:06:29.96 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Dan, could you call the roll please? |
| 00:06:34.21 | Dan | Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:06:35.53 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:06:35.55 | Dan | Yeah. |
| 00:06:35.63 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:06:35.68 | Dan | Yes. Commissioner Graff? Yeah. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:06:39.90 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:06:40.91 | Dan | Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:06:42.62 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:06:44.14 | Dan | Chair Feller. Yes. |
| 00:06:45.82 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:06:47.21 | Dan | Motion carries, 3-2. |
| 00:06:49.42 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Moving on to item three, public comments on items, not on the agenda. This would be the time for the public to make any comments that they would like on any item or subject matter that is not agendized this evening. Dan, if you could please, possibly provide some orientation to the public on how they can raise their hand to make public comments. |
| 00:07:11.61 | Dan | I can, thank you, Chair Feller. This is a 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 or engaging in discussions 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 be agendized at a future meeting. video or public. 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's your turn to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed. |
| 00:08:00.34 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you so much, Dan. At this time, I'm just looking for raised hands in the audience. This would be the time to make any public comment on any item, not on the agenda this evening. Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close public comment and I would like to move on to item number four, which is the approval of planning commission meeting minutes. And 4A is the September 7th minutes. So this would be the time for commissioners to comment on the meeting notes. Commissioner Luxenberg, do you have any comments on the notes? |
| 00:08:33.82 | Richard Graef | No, thank you, Chair Pellar. |
| 00:08:35.95 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:08:38.14 | Richard Graef | No comment. |
| 00:08:39.46 | Kristina Feller | Mr. Saad. No comments? Vice Chair Juniors. |
| 00:08:46.87 | Kristina Feller | No comment? Okay. I just had one comment and that is at the September 7th meeting, Commissioner Luxembourg properly noted that the June 29th meeting minutes had already been approved. and it asks them to be removed. And I would ask that that note be included in these meeting minutes so that should the public go back to comb through any of this or if staff did then they would be able to understand that those meeting minutes had already previously been approved. and not missing off of these meeting minutes. |
| 00:09:25.24 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:09:25.60 | Unknown | you |
| 00:09:27.77 | Kristina Feller | Are there any other comments from any commissioners? |
| 00:09:31.06 | Dan | would, Madam Chair. |
| 00:09:33.33 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:09:33.97 | Dan | Would you like me to, once I get those revised by Vicki Landon that does our minutes, would you like me to bring them back to commission? |
| 00:09:45.10 | Kristina Feller | I'm okay. Well, I'd like to hear from the other commissioners, but if they're okay with that amendment, I would be willing to prove with that edit. So you, we don't have to bring them back to the commission. Are there any other comments from any commissioners to that effect? Yes, Commissioner Loves. |
| 00:09:55.48 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:09:55.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:09:59.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to ask, so I don't see a need to have a comeback, but I do want to post it online. What is the status of getting the recent minutes posted online? |
| 00:10:11.88 | Dan | We're working on that still internally. We still need to get a lot of minutes caught up They were not posted for years. very sporadically. |
| 00:10:25.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But they've been approved and they were written and approved. It's just a matter of physically putting them on the website. I don't understand the problem. |
| 00:10:25.81 | Dan | but they're... |
| 00:10:35.49 | Dan | We're working on that internally. |
| 00:10:38.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's what we said a couple months ago. |
| 00:10:38.14 | Dan | That's what we started. |
| 00:10:39.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and |
| 00:10:40.08 | Dan | because we found a lot that weren't approved. So we're trying to sort out- |
| 00:10:44.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Why can't you get up the ones that have been approved? |
| 00:10:48.38 | Dan | we're working because we're trying to discern which ones we have to go through all the old minutes |
| 00:10:53.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | At least the ones that you've been here, you know which those are. |
| 00:10:54.00 | Kristina Feller | one. |
| 00:10:57.02 | Dan | That takes a lot. |
| 00:10:57.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:10:57.55 | Dan | a lot of staff time. |
| 00:10:59.03 | Kristina Feller | So can I make a suggestion because Commissioner Luxenberg, it is really frustrating to the rest of the commission as well as I'm sure the public who wants to look at these. documents. Can we focus on what the item is at hand here, which is 4A and approving those meeting minutes under communications, we can certainly direct staff as a one-way communication for any other items. But can we get through item 4A here and put this item to rest and address the rest of your concerns as well as others under communications? |
| 00:11:35.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, that's fine. My comment was related to the question of whether we should see this again. And I don't need to see it again, but I would like to know that it got done. And there's no way for me to know that something gets done. Because when we had those three sets of minutes before this, where we made changes like we're doing tonight, Joe Feller, and none of those have been posted yet. So I don't know. We make decisions and then we can't see it. So I guess we can move ahead and improve this, and then we don't know that the change you're suggesting actually gets incorporated. |
| 00:12:12.76 | Kristina Feller | I share your frustration, Commissioner Luxenberg. I don't make light of it at all. um, But in the interest of this being the public hearing and not an internal meeting, I want to be able to move this item forward, but still have the opportunity to address your concerns and hopefully find some way, some path forward that is... going to work for everybody here, perhaps under communications. but your point is well taken. |
| 00:12:43.79 | Unknown | That was my only point. I'm happy to move on. We move to approve a minute. |
| 00:12:47.49 | Kristina Feller | of the job of the Thank you. Is there a second? |
| 00:12:52.38 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 00:12:53.26 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. Dan, could you please call the roll? |
| 00:12:57.12 | Dan | Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Graff. Yeah. Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 00:13:02.66 | Unknown | Thank you guys. |
| 00:13:04.40 | Dan | Maestro Junius? |
| 00:13:05.82 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:13:07.16 | Dan | Chair Feller? Yes. Motion carries. I'll make those changes. |
| 00:13:11.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Those were as amended, I assume. I assume the motion was as amended. |
| 00:13:13.97 | Dan | soon. |
| 00:13:14.35 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Yes, as amended. |
| 00:13:17.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Correct. |
| 00:13:19.87 | Kristina Feller | very well. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Let's move on to item number five, which is communication. So Dan, let's start with you and certainly our city attorney, Sergio Rudin, if he has any. anything to add with that, but let's start with CDD. |
| 00:13:34.76 | Dan | I have a couple of things tonight. They have made an offer to community development director who has accepted, now they're just going through the background and the formalities. Not sure how long that's going to take. But it's progress. It's moving forward. And With that, the next item I have on there is code enforcement update. and CeCe Moela is on She's somewhere out there. If you could unmute and show yourself, Cece. Oh, you're right in the middle. |
| 00:14:07.56 | Cece Muela | That's OK. Good evening, everyone. My name is Cece Muela and I'm the Code Enforcement Director with 4LEAF currently overseeing the COUD program in Sausalito. So when we started up, I think we reported back earlier in the month that we had About 59 cases currently open. 29 were closed since we started up in Sausalito. There was total of 88 when we first came on board. Currently, as of today, we are Um, with only 59 open still. The majority of those cases are work without permits with a highest amount of STRs and then all the others are, intermingling between planning, fencing issues, ADUs, some erosion control issues that are out there. But for the most part, we are making segue We are working with our constituents to ensure that they're submitting plans for approval. ramping up our enforcement to ensure that we're keeping them up to date with the requirements and give them directive action so that they can come in and comply and get their property into compliance. |
| 00:15:21.86 | Cece Muela | Thank you. |
| 00:15:21.88 | Kristina Feller | And that's all I thought. Thank you, Cece. Could you please circulate to the Planning Commission the full list of enforcement items you have? There are quite a number that are open that we've discussed at this commission. that we've asked to be readdressed and that hasn't happened. So Perhaps at the next meeting you could be specific about some of those items and in the meantime if you don't mind circulating that list. |
| 00:15:46.23 | Cece Muela | Absolutely, I can do I actually did pull a report so I can go ahead and send that out with the highlights and we can definitely I can definitely elaborate on where we're at with specific cases that are interest to this Commission. Thank you Chair Peller. |
| 00:16:00.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you so much. And Dan, before we move on to our subcommittees, I requested that you have the city manager here to report out on the status of CDD and more detailed update on the new CDD director Is he joining us this evening? |
| 00:16:17.57 | Dan | No, he is not. |
| 00:16:19.25 | Kristina Feller | Okay, could you please have him join us at the next meeting? |
| 00:16:22.24 | Dan | I will bring that up to him again. |
| 00:16:25.11 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. All right, let's move on to our subcommittees. The first is the Objective Design and Development Standards Subcommittee, otherwise referred to as ODDS, that Vice Chair Junius and I are sitting on Vice Chair, I don't know that there's much to report out at this time. |
| 00:16:42.14 | Andrew Junius | I think we're still waiting on Bob Brown's contract extension. We are in a holding pattern and so Bob can come on back and help us finish the work. |
| 00:16:52.95 | Kristina Feller | Yes, and that information has been forwarded to the city manager and the mayor, and we are waiting to hear back from them. So. um that's the status of that at the moment. Um, How about, let's move on to the California Housing Legislation Working Group, which is yourself and Commissioner Luxembourg. I'll leave it to the two of you to report out on that. |
| 00:17:14.91 | Andrew Junius | I don't have a lot to report last meeting we talked about. AB 2011, which was the big news. I think a lot of jurisdictions are moving to filter through that and understand how that is going to apply to non-residentially zoned properties. Eventually, I think there'll be some impacts on Sausalito, but it's too early to tell. And again, just a reminder for the community, It's been passed, but it doesn't take effect until next summer. So we do have some time. We won't be getting any AB 2011. Applications immediately will be waiting until 2023. |
| 00:17:50.28 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg, anything to add to that? |
| 00:17:54.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I'm just waiting to get more details from the state on this. |
| 00:17:59.53 | Kristina Feller | OK. Well, then let's move on to the standard conditions of approval for resolutions. Commissioner Luxeberg, yourself and Vice Chair Junius also sit on that. So do you want to report out on that? |
| 00:18:10.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, yes, we haven't, uh, we will need to sit down once the new director gets on board and, uh, work out how we're going to work that out with staff and, and legal. So. |
| 00:18:23.05 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you, thank you both. Sergio, I know that you've been copied on some of the existing materials as well, so I assume you can help help the subcommittee and work with them to to craft something moving forward. |
| 00:18:44.80 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I'm certainly available to answer any legal questions that the subcommittee may have. Thanks. |
| 00:18:51.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Moving on to the Ferry Landside Working Group. This is a subcommittee that Vice Chair Junius and I sit on. This is the Department of Public Works initiative for the grant money for the land side area where the ferry terminal is here in Sausalito. But since our last meeting, we've had a meeting last Friday with the working group and DPW's consultant team. The Historic Preservation Commission is also involved in that as there are a couple small historic pieces and parts as part of the puzzle to addressing this landside area. So we have provided their comments. The bottom line is that Kevin is going to take that back with his consultant team. and come back with a proposed memo and some proposed designs. We asked, we're still not sure if he will come directly back to the planning commission as we requested before. or if he's going to still work with the working group and then provide a memo to the city council Either way, there will still be opportunities for the public to comment on this. either with or in addition to planning commission and city council. And we've also requested that the consultant team reach out to the yacht club because so much of this has rather significant impact to public safety circulation, ingress, egress issues. So I'm hoping to, by our next hearing, we'll have a little bit more information of what the status is and what that redesign is. Uh, And Vice President, is there anything to add to that? |
| 00:20:44.01 | Andrew Junius | I appreciate you covering while I've been unavailable. So thank you for that. |
| 00:20:48.41 | Kristina Feller | No problem. Okay, let's move on to the Housing Element Advisory Committee, otherwise known as HIAC. Commissioner Saad is sitting on that with me. Commissioner Saad, would you like to report out |
| 00:21:00.53 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, Chair Feller. We had a town hall back in September. And since then, we were in a public review period for the housing element and all of its sections. The public... comment period just recently closed on September 16th. And I believe we have scheduled our next meeting on Thursday, October 13th. That was the last I saw that there was a quorum and I believe that's already posted on on the website for anyone to check the date for 6pm. We should be, if my understanding is correct, going through any edits to the housing element section for the general plan at that time. Otherwise, I want to call out a great resource that came out in The Currents this past Friday, I believe, on the 16th. Mayor Kelman had posted a 20-minute video, and it is available in The Currents and online to go over some general questions about the RHNA and our housing units and density bonuses and a lot of, that have been asked by members of the community. And so I just wanted to call that out as well as our our virtual binder that is on the City's website as a great resource. Otherwise, a lot of public comment continues to come in and we're definitely looking for more, especially going into our next meeting, we are almost at the point. A few more months for submitting to the state we definitely need to submit by our deadline in January so getting down to the wire. um, outside of that, just to keep encouraging that public comment. But Chair Fowler, I don't know. If you have anything to add, I know we had a hiccup with scheduling. So Maybe I'll let you confirm for me if we are for October. 13th. |
| 00:22:58.53 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think we're going to wait to confirm that. But I also want to point out that the city council has in the mirror has signed a letter declining participation in the class action suit against HCD that is circulating around the state. that was covered in the city council meeting. And I just wanna make sure that that's reiterated here for the benefit of the public and those listening in at home. So that's just something to note. As it relates to comments, I would just really First of all, commend the public for hanging in and following along a very detailed complex and large amount of, of the work that we have work and effort and documents and so on to filter through. and providing some stunningly excellent comments to the HEAC that definitely does impact the perspectives and ideas in how this draft plan was put together and it will continue to shape how the final plan is put together. So I would really lean on the public again and ask you to remain involved the EIR is being developed now and will be also circulated and comments on that are going to be vital. Um, the draft plan is still a draft. We still want to hear your comments in our public, public hearing. If you want to write in. before any hearing and again that will be confirmed. on the city schedule and confirmed again here at the commission hearing. We really just appreciate everybody taking the time and the effort. to provide such great comments, so thank you for that. Okay, moving on. There are three working groups here. that both Commissioner Saad and Commissioner Graff are assigned to. There's 110 4th Street. 12L Portal and the 52 Varda Landing. So Commissioner Saad and Commissioner Graff, would you like to report out on each of those, please? |
| 00:25:13.25 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Um, Commissioner Graff and I aligned earlier, so I'll speak on behalf of both of us. But we actually are at a slight impasse with 110 fourth. Commissioner Graff and I are both looking for an actual sample. I think we have some potential alignment as a concept, but we have not yet moved forward with potentially even getting a sample. So we do owe a response back to the applicant and we will take that action by tomorrow. But we're going to re-ask for some type of sample so we can actually visualize what they're proposing. Otherwise, we have received images as attachments online if we cannot move forward I will lean on our interim director, maybe for some guidance there. but that's 110 fourth at this point. Um, Let me go in order. Let me just go back to the agenda. 12L Portal, we are set from the last meeting. We have aligned on all of the color schemes. They have been decided and communicated both via myself to CDD, but the applicant had already communicated everything we had agreed upon when we met with Michael Rex. So we are all set there unless, interim director. Hortert, if you need anything further from us, just let us know. But we should be able to check that one off and take that off for. Yep. Great. And then- For 52 VARTA landing, we are meeting with the applicant, Matt, who I believe is on the line tonight. On Friday at 52 VARTA, Commissioner Graff and I will join him on site to discuss So we should be able to have a final path forward and report out at, we'll communicate via email to CDD director, but we will be able to report out on a final color for our next meeting. |
| 00:27:22.42 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. Kusher Graff, anything to add to that? |
| 00:27:26.46 | Richard Graef | Not really, only regarding 4th Street, the applicant did submit some photos of a surface that they liked. But there were a couple of different photos and they were slightly different. And then they said that, well, we want it to be something like this. they have tried to communicate their intent, but it really wasn't clear. So we're, we're trying to push them to do like a mock-up. which would not be an actual sample of the material. It would be a simulation, but that would give us certainly something to respond to. But that's it. Thank you. |
| 00:28:14.05 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:28:14.42 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:28:14.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that. If I could just ask that you please keep city attorney Sergio Rudin copied on all correspondence, even to CDD on one 10 fourth. And my understanding just to confirm that 12 L portal is closed out so that can come off our subcommittee list and we can dissolve the subcommittee. Is that correct? |
| 00:28:34.58 | Richard Graef | I think so, yeah. Right. |
| 00:28:35.54 | Kristina Feller | Right. Okay, Dan, you're You got that. Good. Then the final subcommittee at this point is Parklet's. Commissioner Luxenberg and I sit on that. Commissioner Luxenberg, would you like to report out on that? |
| 00:28:52.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Fowler. The working group met on September 12th. Kaylee Ford from CDD is now taking lead on the project. The working group will be working also with legal to draft the mechanisms to remove the emergency order that was put in place by the city council and replaced with either ordinance changes or a statute or however they're going to do it. The city attorney sat in for Sergio and Sergio will now pick up the ball and we'll talk about mechanisms. The mechanisms along with the revised report and a application and details will all be going back to the city council once the whole package is ready. But in the interim, a status update was sent to the city council as a one-way communication. So they're aware of the status of the project. |
| 00:29:48.76 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much. I have nothing to add. And thank you for all your hard work on this. I know that this has taken a bit of a hiatus, but having Callie Ford on this has really been a breath of fresh air and she's got some great ideas. So thank you. Um, Before we move on to public hearing, I wanna go back to the item that Commissioner Luxembourg has addressed earlier under item four. And I wanna implore the community development director, Um, to please follow through with these discussions and agreements that are happening. You know, Commissioner Luxenberg has put a lot of his time into trying to get this right. And if something has changed or you've gotten other advice in the time, I implore you to please issue a one-way communication to the commission so everyone's aware and not we're not elevating the frustration and we're running a streamlined process here. It's in everyone's best interest and certainly we're here doing the public's work as well. So it's important to everybody involved. So I would just ask that you do that. And if we need to agendize this item at our next hearing, then for discussion purposes, then I'd like to recommend that we do that. |
| 00:31:05.16 | Dan | What is it that you're referring to, Madam Chair? |
| 00:31:09.06 | Kristina Feller | I'm referring to the meeting that you had with Commissioner Luxembourg that he mentioned where the issue was you're issuing agendas to us and material with on a Friday before Wednesday hearing And some of these things are very complex that we need to get through this and And the idea is that we are all here to do our very best and a very thorough job and a very fair job And so to do that, many complex projects sometimes require more time. So if we need to agendize that in the future, we will. If we need to revisit that offline, we will. but I'd like to, keep that item on our front burner of things to discuss to ensure that we are a streamlined process here. All right, any other comments from any commissioner just by show of hands, Commissioner Saad? |
| 00:32:05.01 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask a point of clarification, Chair Feller? I know it's not agendized, but to Commissioner Luxembourg's point, I agree 100% in concept about our 10 days that we've all agreed upon. What? What happens if we did not have three yes votes on the agenda? Does that mean that the agenda does not move forward for the evening? |
| 00:32:29.92 | Kristina Feller | So we are, you know, this is a, these, this is one way communication. So I know that this is a point of clarification that I'll ask our city attorney, Sergio Rudin to address, but this isn't the time to actually get into dialogue debate, but I'll let him address the issue as a legal matter. |
| 00:32:41.88 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:32:41.92 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 00:32:42.00 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 00:32:42.10 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:32:42.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:46.53 | Sergio Rudin | So at that point, you basically have the choice of whether or not to recess or continue the meeting or adjourn the meeting to a different date. But as a practical matter, most public agencies, they don't have a vote on approving the agenda. It's not absolutely a formality that needs to occur with every public meeting. So You know, it's... I don't think it would necessarily be impediment to continuing the meeting in the first instance. But if, if, if the members of the commission don't want to continue with having the meeting, then your your options are to, you know, vote to adjourn the meeting at that point. |
| 00:33:26.79 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Sergio, for that. Any other one-way communications from any commissioner just by a show of hands? Nope, okay, if not, I'm gonna open this up for public comments. So this would be the time for the public to comment on item number five on your agenda. To do so, if you could raise your hand in the Zoom application. or press star nine from a cell phone. I'll call upon you in the order that I see your hand on my screen. So at this time I'm just looking for any raised hands. |
| 00:34:02.83 | Kristina Feller | Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close public comment. And let's move on to item number six, public hearing. Dan, I'll hand this over to you. |
| 00:34:10.92 | Dan | Thank you, Chair Feller. This is the time for any commissioners to declare any ex parte communications. Are there any? |
| 00:34:21.97 | Nastassya Saad | Commission. I did meet with the applicant for 212 Woodward. We did not discuss the merits of the project. I did visit 265 Gate 5 on my own. I did not. I do not have any expert communications to declare. |
| 00:34:40.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:34:40.67 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:34:43.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I visited 212 Woodward Avenue and 265 Gate 5 Road, but I did not have any, did not meet with anybody and had no ex parte communications, obviously. |
| 00:34:54.40 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:34:55.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:34:58.20 | Richard Graef | No, ex parte communication. |
| 00:35:01.22 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:35:04.01 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:35:04.02 | Andrew Junius | know, communications. |
| 00:35:06.30 | Kristina Feller | Right. I have no ex parte communications to declare. Thank you. |
| 00:35:10.57 | Dan | All right, so thank you, Chair Feller and members of the Commission. Item 6A tonight is 212 Woodward Avenue design review with heightened review and a variance and encroachment agreement. project number ID. or project ID. 2022-00049. Magda Gonzalez, contract planner. |
| 00:35:34.21 | Magda Gonzalez | Good evening, Commissioners. I'm going to share my screen. |
| 00:35:47.22 | Kristina Feller | Great, we can see that. Thank you, Magda. Thank you. |
| 00:35:54.48 | Magda Gonzalez | As Director Horner stated, I'm presenting a project at 212 Woodward Avenue. So York Biles residents, the applicant is Mr. Ted on you. The request is for the design review permit with hide and review. an accroachment agreement and a variance. The design review with height and review will link is for a 500 square foot concrete parking deck. new windows and doors. a new trash enclosure, a new exterior layout, with a main entry deck. and stairs with railings. and overhang to the existing ADU. a six foot fence, three gates. and stairs on the north side of the deck. and expanded Brandon Dex. The new windows and doors are going to be located on an existing opening. the DECK TO THE LEFT OF THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY, IT'S GOING TO BE REBUILT AND EXPANDED 80 one square feet and the one on the right side on the lower deck |
| 00:37:00.01 | Sebastian Bursz | on. on the |
| 00:37:03.18 | Magda Gonzalez | Are the lower decks? going to be rebuilt and may comply with the current setbacks. It currently extends one foot into the five foot setback So this project will allow it to be compliant with the required setback. The Encroachment Agreement was originally established in 1984. I apologize for the typo that I have here on my screen. the PowerPoint and the document, the staff report. I enlisted 1985, but it was actually approved in 1984. And it was for the... the reconstruction of an entry deck and stairs to the front of the building. Aladdin um fence as well as a six foot fence. and the current detached garage that you see right here. the revision to the encroachment agreement is now to add this new two car parking decks. to add a built-in band a new planter. new friends. to relocate the entrance to the garage. to add this new stairs. Sorry, I moved my hand. And to add the 42 inch tall. Um, partition wall, which we would look at there right here next to the trash enclosure. |
| 00:38:32.50 | Magda Gonzalez | And the variance request is to exceed the current 67% building coverage And the proposed one is 91.5. percent. and also to exceed the impervious coverage, which is currently 96% and the proposed is 112 square feet The original variance was also approved in 1984. THE SAME DATE THAT THE ENCOURAGEMENT WAS APPROVED. And it was also to exceed Well, like I mentioned, the building coverage and the impervious surface. |
| 00:39:12.36 | Magda Gonzalez | Any changes to the new THE PARTICION WALL WOULD MATCH THE EXISTING COLORS OF THE there aren't any proposals to remodel or make any changes on the actual structure. They're all for the exterior improvements. THESE WILL BE THE COLORS OF THE NEW FENCE AND THOSE TWO THE ITEMS THAT YOU SEE HERE ARE THE STAND-ALONE MAILBOXES. existing structure and the other ones for the ADU which is also existing. These are the colors from the residence. Like I said, any new color, any new additions to the fences will match this one. to the interior fences. I'm not sure. will match this new vertical stained wood fence And these are the proposed illuminated address numbers. |
| 00:40:06.68 | Magda Gonzalez | The proposal is exempt from CEQA, subject to sections 15301. ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND SECTION 15303E. construction of accessory structures. The project is consistent with the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a mix of architectural styles. including parking decks located in front of the properties The applicant submitted a package which included pictures of six properties along Woodward Avenue. that currently have parking decks. Also, the proposed project will improve circulation and enhance the safety of entrance. Currently, entrance to the property is blocked by on-street parking. The proposal will allow the residents to park one or two of their vehicles. on site instead of on the street. There is still one designated on-street parking, just in case anybody needs it. And the expansion of the decks will allow further enjoyment of the property as well. |
| 00:41:16.27 | Magda Gonzalez | Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to approve the design review permit with height and review, the encroachment agreement and variance for the project as proposed, subject to conditions of approval Alternatively, the Planning Commission may continue the hearing for additional information and or project revisions. or direct staff to prepare a solution for denial stating specific reasons for why one or more findings cannot be made. That concludes my presentation. I do want to note that yesterday staff received a comment from Jane Dirk. who Ask the architect or engineer to be mindful of any possible water runoff. I do want to state that the Civil Engineer has designed the |
| 00:41:59.76 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:42:02.66 | Magda Gonzalez | a drainage system that will allow the water from all the new to be contained within the site. And then to be rerouted to a new retention basin located right there on the property at the back of the structure, the existing structure. Also, the applicant and architect, Mr. Ted Banyu, is on the call and has prepared a presentation. |
| 00:42:33.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Magda. Thank you very much for that. Just real quick before we move into questions to you from the commission. You mentioned that there was one public comment regarding the water runoff, Is that? Correct. |
| 00:42:51.07 | Magda Gonzalez | Yes, she's her. She stated that she just she's a big concern about possible water on us. When it rains, she says the water just goes directly to the property because Her street is below Woodward Avenue. So she was concerned with any additional water flow. |
| 00:43:10.72 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And was that, that is the only public comment we've received so far? |
| 00:43:15.19 | Magda Gonzalez | Yes, ma'am. |
| 00:43:16.18 | Kristina Feller | And you've posted that to the agenda. |
| 00:43:19.61 | Magda Gonzalez | We received it yesterday. |
| 00:43:22.68 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, so it's posted on the agenda. |
| 00:43:24.87 | Dan | I didn't post it on the agenda. |
| 00:43:28.11 | Kristina Feller | Okay, well, when we get public comments, we need them posted to the agenda. I mean, we were getting public comments on another item. |
| 00:43:34.56 | Dan | Bye. |
| 00:43:34.93 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:43:35.05 | Dan | I was on the way. |
| 00:43:35.13 | Kristina Feller | I've been talking about |
| 00:43:35.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:36.06 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. So we need to get this posted. |
| 00:43:37.29 | Dan | Thank you. I was unaware. |
| 00:43:40.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Let's get this posted right right away. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay. Thank you for indulging my clarification there. Let's this is the time for commissioners to ask any clarification. questions to staff. Commissioner Luxenberg, let's start with you on this item. |
| 00:44:00.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Fowler. Magna, thank you. I have a series of questions. I'll do them one at a time and look for responses. On page two of your report, you mentioned that the project is on the upslope in the first paragraph. This project's obviously, you've been out to the site, is that correct? |
| 00:44:21.37 | Magda Gonzalez | No, sir. Not physically, no. |
| 00:44:23.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you have not been out to this site. |
| 00:44:26.05 | Magda Gonzalez | No. |
| 00:44:27.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I thought that was a requirement of four leaf that all people would have to visit the sites that they. Is that not part of the idea? |
| 00:44:34.14 | Dan | No, that's it. That's not a requirement. |
| 00:44:37.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll check the contract on that, I believe it is, Moving on, is located on the downslope side, which you do indicate in the attached resolutions, because you indicate on page 8 of the findings attachment that it is on the downslope. correct your report and make that an upslope? |
| 00:44:57.41 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:44:58.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I mean, I'm sorry, make that correct the upslope to be a downslope. You indicated in your report that it has a dedicated on-street parking space, but tonight you said that it's not a dedicated on-street parking space, which makes more sense to me. Is it a dedicated space or a non-dedicated space? It shouldn't be a dedicated space. It's in the public right away. |
| 00:45:01.47 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 00:45:26.57 | Magda Gonzalez | Well, I meant it. It's dedicated in the sense that it will allow parking on street parking. It won't block the entrance to the to the structure. Right in front of the planter, people will be able to park there. |
| 00:45:44.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | A dedicated space to a project would mean it's dedicated to that unit like the two in the deck would be dedicated so can you correct your report and make it consistent with what you had in your presentation tonight yeah you say a non-dedicated space uh you you mentioned in response to chair feller's comment we have not that that non dedicated space is opposite. Some garages across the street, which before there was an entrance to the house there. So now the garages are going to back into this space that they commented at all. |
| 00:45:44.33 | Magda Gonzalez | A dedication. |
| 00:45:44.99 | Unknown | What? |
| 00:45:49.46 | Magda Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 00:45:49.49 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:45:49.54 | Magda Gonzalez | Oh, |
| 00:45:56.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:46:20.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | in any way, so you've not heard from anybody across |
| 00:46:22.87 | Magda Gonzalez | No. |
| 00:46:23.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And Um... On page nine of the resolutions that you're proposing, there's a typo in item D. Instead of the word granting, you should have the word granting with a T, G-R-A-N-T-I-N-G. You indicated tonight that there were six properties and you have photographs. And you should put those up on the screen. I did not find them in your report or in the packet. Is there a reason you didn't provide us with those? |
| 00:47:01.80 | Magda Gonzalez | Yeah, it was an oversight on my part. I apologize. I thought they were part of my presentation and part of the report the applicant are provided as part of his application. Give me just a second, please. |
| 00:47:33.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | When you revise your report, if you can attach those, that would be helpful. |
| 00:47:37.22 | Magda Gonzalez | Yes, I will do that. |
| 00:48:00.31 | Magda Gonzalez | I'm sorry, I'm having issues with my PDF images. |
| 00:48:04.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Maybe I'll go on with other questions and we'll come back to that if that's helpful. Was this project sent to the Southern Marin Fire? |
| 00:48:06.57 | Magda Gonzalez | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:48:08.80 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:48:14.23 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:48:15.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And did you get comments back from them? Have you talked to them? |
| 00:48:18.04 | Magda Gonzalez | Yeah. |
| 00:48:18.06 | Unknown | I did, yes. |
| 00:48:19.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And what were those comments? |
| 00:48:22.77 | Magda Gonzalez | The comments were just that... |
| 00:48:29.23 | Magda Gonzalez | that the Northwest portion of the Woodward exit is prohibited to have off street parking. due to maintaining emergency vehicles. |
| 00:48:41.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So does that change the plan? |
| 00:48:47.71 | Magda Gonzalez | No, because they just included OF AVAILABILITY FOR OFF-SREET PARKING because that space would be available, but it's not a designated parking. They're proposing their parking to be designated on the concrete parking ducts. |
| 00:49:06.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not following. The Southern Marin Fire doesn't want, where on the plan does the Southern Marin Fire not want parking? |
| 00:49:17.68 | Magda Gonzalez | They don't want off-threat parking. |
| 00:49:20.21 | Kristina Feller | Magda, could you kindly share a plan so we understand what you're referring to? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. |
| 00:49:24.55 | Magda Gonzalez | background. |
| 00:49:27.03 | Kristina Feller | So forgive me, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:49:29.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, thank you, Chair Feller. That's helpful. |
| 00:49:52.41 | Magda Gonzalez | So this area, they don't want it to be designated as off-street parking. |
| 00:49:59.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if they don't want it to be designated off street parking, then this plan shouldn't be, You should have had them revise the plan to eliminate the parking. That was the space I was worried about because of the garages across the street. |
| 00:50:08.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:12.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If they're saying they don't want somebody to park there, We should. |
| 00:50:16.24 | Unknown | today. |
| 00:50:16.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, first of all, we need a condition You have no conditions in here, which is very unusual that we don't have conditions for Marin Fire. And so that was a red flag for me. And obviously they have some concerns. Can you add to your report? whatever they sent to you. And we have this plan revised to They want that to be a no parking area. |
| 00:50:39.69 | Magda Gonzalez | They don't want it to be designated. Yeah, I will revise the plan to include what they stated The applicant was just listing on there as it's available, but not, I don't think the applicant would even have the authority to designate on-street parking, correct? So it would just be available if people wanted to park there, but they wouldn't, yeah, they technically be designating it. |
| 00:51:06.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If the Marine Fire wants that to be striped as no parking, then it needs to be striped as no parking. So I guess, when you revise your report with the other changes, can you add Marine Fire's comments so we know what they are? Yeah, I'll ask for Claire for a key. |
| 00:51:21.91 | Magda Gonzalez | Yeah, I'll ask for clarification as well. Yeah. |
| 00:51:24.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And don't they want conditions? They usually want conditions. |
| 00:51:29.29 | Magda Gonzalez | That's all they provided. But yes, I will ask for clarification and if they want to add anything else. |
| 00:51:34.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and ask if they want any conditions because normally there's a set of conditions regarding sprinklers and a bunch of other issues that they have. And then was the plan reviewed by Public Works? |
| 00:51:46.89 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:51:47.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | because usually public works has extensive conditions and there was only one condition From Public Works, what did Public Works say? |
| 00:51:55.61 | Magda Gonzalez | Yes, there was only one condition because the applicant addressed all their comments. Give me just a second. |
| 00:52:01.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But there's usually standard conditions that they want regarding utilities and storm runoff and those types of things. |
| 00:52:01.94 | Magda Gonzalez | Thank you. Bye. Yeah. |
| 00:52:08.18 | Magda Gonzalez | That's true. But when they revised them, they didn't include any of that. |
| 00:52:12.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but maybe they thought you were just gonna use their standard conditions. Did you talk to them about that? |
| 00:52:17.67 | Magda Gonzalez | I did. But yeah, I couldn't ask for further information. Thank you. |
| 00:52:30.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chair, those are the questions I have at this time. When Magda, when you find those photographs, that would be helpful. But we can go on to other commissioners' questions. |
| 00:52:34.88 | Unknown | Oh, yeah. |
| 00:52:35.03 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:52:39.18 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you. |
| 00:52:39.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:52:40.99 | Kristina Feller | Thank you Commissioner Luxenberg for your thorough review. You raised some excellent points here. Commissioner Graff let's move on to you. Any questions for staff at this time. |
| 00:52:53.34 | Richard Graef | No, I don't. The only thing that was... somewhat confusing to me is Um, How does one arrive at 112% of impervious surface. Um, Yeah. I mean, I don't understand 112%. I don't know how that was arrived at and I'm not really sure what it means. |
| 00:53:19.97 | Magda Gonzalez | It takes into account not only the size of the parcel, but also what you're proposing, the encroachment on the right of way. |
| 00:53:29.45 | Richard Graef | So it's 112% of the What? |
| 00:53:34.57 | Magda Gonzalez | The parcel itself. if you take IT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF $100. 12%. So we're... technically cover the entirety of the parcel. And a little more. if it wasn't um... Thank you. proposed on the right of way. |
| 00:53:59.29 | Richard Graef | um, |
| 00:54:00.03 | Takashi Unai | you |
| 00:54:00.30 | Richard Graef | Okay. |
| 00:54:00.99 | Takashi Unai | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:54:02.93 | Richard Graef | Um, So, It's not a hundred and a thousand 12% of the what would ordinarily be permitted or It's still a little confusing to me. Maybe it's just me. And maybe it's not really, that important. but I, stumbled on that. Um, Um... So now that's the only other. The only question I had. travel. |
| 00:54:35.64 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Graff, if I may, I think Magda, what would be helpful with Commissioner Graff's question, which is fair, you've got the total size of the parcel right, which is the existing is 3,810 square feet. Um, But in the proposal, you haven't identified what this new total is. of the parcel size with the encroachment. So what is the existing parcel size and what is the encroachment size in square footage as you've expressed it in the parcel side. And that will tell us, I think, what we want to know. |
| 00:55:18.16 | Magda Gonzalez | Okay, I will definitely provide a breakdown on the revised report. I understand. how that's not fair. |
| 00:55:27.61 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, and even if you asterize under your table, your project summary table, you have existing and then you have proposal as two different columns. Under proposal, if it's no change to the parcel size understood, but if there's an encroachment there, which doesn't necessarily change the size of the parcel, but it adds the allowable area to improve, You can even asterize it and tell us what that number is. That will address, I believe, Commissioner Graff's Question. |
| 00:55:59.10 | Richard Graef | That would be helpful, thank you. |
| 00:56:03.96 | Kristina Feller | Okay, anything else, Commissioner Graff? |
| 00:56:06.93 | Richard Graef | Um, no, that's it. |
| 00:56:09.55 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:56:14.07 | Nastassya Saad | guys just I'm here I don't know what my camera is doing but I'm here if you don't see me um Thank you, Commissioner Graff. I had the same question. My other question is, can you, Magda, confirm, so there's an existing encroachment agreement, is that correct? Yes. And then do we know from the square footage of the everything that's coming with this encroachment agreement, what that square footage I mean, how much is the encroachment? I don't think I was... able to decipher that. No, I didn't provide that data. Do we know it perchance I think... |
| 00:56:57.32 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 00:57:00.64 | Nastassya Saad | I can save that for the applicant, but I would be curious to know if, I mean, that might be something to include as well. This is clearly going to get revised. If we can add that in just what the actual encroachment is. It'd be great to get what the current encroachment is and then the new encroachment. And then- I believe there was going to be a fence along the side and Do we know what the distance between that events that will be built along the I believe with the trash bins and the neighbors Do we have that distance? I believe it's... |
| 00:57:44.69 | Magda Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 00:57:44.72 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:57:44.84 | Magda Gonzalez | 17 feet, but the applicant can confirm that for me. |
| 00:57:48.82 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 00:57:51.51 | Magda Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 00:57:51.52 | Nastassya Saad | Those were all the questions I had right now. Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 00:57:58.10 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, Commissioner Saad. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:58:03.13 | Andrew Junius | No questions for staff. Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 00:58:05.60 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Magda, I'd like to just go back, if we could, to the public comment you received regarding water runoff and all of that did Did DPW get that comment, was that circulated to the Department of Public Works? |
| 00:58:24.23 | Magda Gonzalez | No, I was not. |
| 00:58:25.88 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:58:27.03 | Dan | We don't usually circulate comment letters like that. We just put them in the agenda. |
| 00:58:27.11 | Kristina Feller | Can you? |
| 00:58:33.15 | Dan | Um, |
| 00:58:34.23 | Kristina Feller | So Magda, can you show me, can you put up any civil or site drawings that just point out to me the area of concern? |
| 00:58:44.34 | Magda Gonzalez | Yeah, give me just a second. |
| 00:58:54.50 | Kristina Feller | And while you're doing that, just to kind of let you know, just the other question I have Um, I also am going to want to go back to your project summary table after we look at the civil. So I just want to give you a heads up. I want to look at that with you and the rest of the commission and the public here. |
| 00:59:29.65 | Magda Gonzalez | The owner, um... whose comment we received, their property is located on the street. on the rear of the property. So they're concerned that the proposed impervious surface is going to generate more runoff water to their property. But there's a new retention basin proposed right here. So it's... |
| 00:59:52.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Sorry, Magda, do you mind zooming in? I'm trying to keep up with your cursor. Sorry about that. |
| 00:59:55.47 | Magda Gonzalez | No. I just apologize if it freezes on me. I'm having issues with it. |
| 00:59:59.13 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:00:05.54 | Magda Gonzalez | Okay. |
| 01:00:06.20 | Kristina Feller | There we go. |
| 01:00:10.22 | Magda Gonzalez | So this would be the new retention basin. |
| 01:00:16.73 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and it's just a basin, so do you know where it's piped to? Is it piped to a main? |
| 01:00:22.77 | Magda Gonzalez | I do not. I don't know. I apologize. |
| 01:00:27.75 | Kristina Feller | Are there any drawings that would indicate that? |
| 01:00:30.53 | Magda Gonzalez | Yes. |
| 01:00:45.20 | Unknown | That one should have it. |
| 01:00:58.53 | Magda Gonzalez | So how the engineer designed it, the water is supposed to be retained here. on the site. And then any leftover would go to the basin here. |
| 01:01:14.22 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:01:14.26 | Kristina Feller | from the basin, where does it go? |
| 01:01:18.97 | Kristina Feller | Um. |
| 01:01:19.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:25.78 | Unknown | roll down a little bit. |
| 01:01:31.71 | Dan | If it's a retention, it'll stay in the basin. till it percolates into the ground. |
| 01:01:41.49 | Magda Gonzalez | I'm trying to find another. Um, |
| 01:01:44.31 | Dan | Yeah, it just says bioretention. note number 26. |
| 01:01:56.26 | Dan | Oh, maybe it's 28. |
| 01:01:57.34 | Kristina Feller | Is there a lateral there? |
| 01:02:00.18 | Dan | No, it's a retention basis. |
| 01:02:01.61 | Kristina Feller | Oh, bioretention. Okay. |
| 01:02:03.48 | Dan | Yeah. |
| 01:02:04.33 | Kristina Feller | It's hard to read here on the... It's moving. All right. |
| 01:02:14.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Magda. Yeah. |
| 01:02:20.16 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And can you just for the benefit of the public highlight again why this is heightened design review. |
| 01:02:33.00 | Magda Gonzalez | because of the excess in building coverage, the request of building coverage, it's more than 80%. |
| 01:02:39.46 | Kristina Feller | So let's go ahead to the project summary table very quickly. And then we'll ask the applicant to make a presentation, but let's go to that very quickly. |
| 01:02:57.28 | Unknown | I'm sorry, give me just a second. |
| 01:03:24.80 | Magda Gonzalez | Will this suffice or the one for the resolution? |
| 01:03:28.85 | Kristina Feller | Where's the project summary table? |
| 01:03:34.34 | Nastassya Saad | It's in the staff report. |
| 01:03:36.03 | Kristina Feller | It's on page five of the staff report. |
| 01:03:46.20 | Kristina Feller | Okay, and it goes on to page six, but let's zoom in so we can all actually read that. and those at home and in the audience can read that, the table. Okay, so if you can scroll down a little so we can see the table. That would be great. All right, so just real quick, the parcel area, you've got existing and then proposal. I think perhaps this is where you can help indicate as both Commissioner Graff and Commissioner Sadev made points of What, to add in or identify somehow what the the current encroachment size is and what the new encroachment size is and are there really two encroachments or are we pulling it all together into one as one total that would be really helpful. |
| 01:04:40.28 | Magda Gonzalez | Yeah, I will definitely add a new field with what the previous encroachment granted because a lot of the that they're proposing now were approved previously. I just didn't have a clear break down what that square footage was at that time. |
| 01:04:57.50 | Kristina Feller | And you're referring to 1984. |
| 01:04:59.69 | Magda Gonzalez | Yes, ma'am. The variants and the encroachment that were approved at that time. |
| 01:05:03.39 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, okay. All right, well, it's important to get this right. So let's make sure we do that. I'm just curious about If you just scroll down a little bit more to the rest of the table, that would be helpful. Um, Can you just go over how like they've got The ordinance allows for 75% maximum impervious surface, and this is 96%. So the delta between 75, if you scroll down, there you go. 75 and 96, is that Is that Delta? related to the ENCROACHMENT. |
| 01:05:47.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:47.20 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay, I think we just need to quantify that. It's important, I mean, particularly if Something happened in 1984 and there's not enough record or understanding what that is. Let's make it clear here. So have that problem again. |
| 01:05:59.85 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:06:02.47 | Kristina Feller | Um, And then, Under the parking, it's two per dwelling unit. Um, And so there are four spaces proposed here, which I understand. However, I'm curious, because this is close to public transportation, is that still a requirement? Did you double check that? because you're within, with striking distance of public transportation, usually those parking requirements are minimized. |
| 01:06:34.31 | Magda Gonzalez | that it's required now, but that they were proposing That's why it's listed as proposed, not required. |
| 01:06:42.12 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So is that a discussion that you had with them? |
| 01:06:49.67 | Magda Gonzalez | regarding it being required or proposed. |
| 01:06:53.45 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:06:55.07 | Magda Gonzalez | No, because I understood that they knew that they, Just two parking spaces were required for dwelling. The other one, BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE STREET, THEY WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO DO, TO to provide two other parking spaces. and their proximity to transportation. |
| 01:07:18.10 | Kristina Feller | Right, so you're saying that this complies. |
| 01:07:23.70 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:07:25.12 | Kristina Feller | Um, All right, we can talk about that. Just saying thank you for clarifying that. Okay, just back to Commissioner Luxenberg's question of these other six properties that you're referring to. If you have any evidence of that, that would be helpful. Yeah, can we move to the applicant? |
| 01:07:50.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:09.03 | Magda Gonzalez | I'm trying to open the PDF and it's not working for me. I apologize. |
| 01:08:15.00 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Commissioner Luxenberg, if it's okay with you, I'm gonna go ahead and ask the applicant to present. And while the applicant is presenting, hopefully Magda can find those items that we want to see if you're amenable to that. |
| 01:08:30.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, and it was submitted from the applicant. So maybe when we ask the applicant questions, maybe they can find what they submitted. |
| 01:08:37.45 | Magda Gonzalez | Oh, I found them. I found them. Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:08:40.60 | Kristina Feller | the tablo. |
| 01:08:41.11 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:08:54.00 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:08:57.81 | Kristina Feller | So this is what's proposed. |
| 01:09:02.03 | Magda Gonzalez | No, there's other properties within Woodward Avenue that have parking deck. |
| 01:09:06.10 | Kristina Feller | I have. We have address for anything. |
| 01:09:11.31 | Magda Gonzalez | Ah, yes ma'am. |
| 01:09:15.95 | Kristina Feller | Is it 234 Woodward and 238? Is that what the numbers mean? the photo. |
| 01:09:22.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:09:23.62 | Lisa York | Yes. |
| 01:09:39.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask, Chair Feller, did you look up these samples and see if they also had encroachments or whether they were, and what the improvement service for those who were? |
| 01:09:52.76 | Magda Gonzalez | I did not look on the previous surface, but yes, some of them did have encroachments. |
| 01:09:59.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you don't know which of these is comparable specifically and which is not? |
| 01:10:04.62 | Magda Gonzalez | I don't remember right now. |
| 01:10:07.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Please. |
| 01:10:12.25 | Kristina Feller | Okay, anybody need to see anything else at this time? just by shoving on the commissioners. |
| 01:10:17.09 | Unknown | I show. Yeah. |
| 01:10:22.02 | Kristina Feller | OK, I think Magda, as requested, this needs to be included in our staff report. Thank you. |
| 01:10:29.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:10:30.04 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay, let's go ahead and stop sharing screen then. And let's invite the applicant to present And who, let me see who in the audience is presenting on behalf of the of the applicant. Ted, hello. Welcome, Ted. Zoom team, if we could, allow Mr. Bono to please your co-hosted now. So you should be able to unmute If you need to share your screen, if you could indicate that as well, or go ahead and do so. So welcome this evening. The format is you have 15 minutes to make a presentation to the commission and to the public. If we interrupt you at any time, that will stop the clock. That doesn't count against your time. And if you have any time left and you'd like to use it later, I'll make note of that. And, um, And you can use it after public comment. So the floor is yours. Welcome this evening, and thank you for being here. |
| 01:11:32.85 | Ted Banyu | Thank you. Thank you so much. And I'm here with Lisa York, the owner of the property. And I can share my screen. Yes. Do you mind letting me know if you can see my presentation? |
| 01:11:50.07 | Kristina Feller | We can, yes, thank you. |
| 01:11:51.88 | Ted Banyu | Okay, great. And some of the questions that were coming up, I do have answers to. I was considering going out of order to answer those, but I think I'll just stick in order and answer them as they come up. And let's go to the beginning, not the end. |
| 01:12:12.08 | Ted Banyu | Okay, I just wanted to start by stating the project goals, what's behind this project, why we've submitted this project, Number one is to improve the existing ADU. This photograph right here is a picture of the entry into the ADU. Non-code compliance stairs, a little bit kind of disorienting, confusing to find your way through. So we are proposing to build a new entry on the street. Can you see my cursor? Okay, so new mailbox new address sign entry from the street with a code compliance stare that leads clearly down to the adu entrance down here. And we are proposing this is the lower floor, which actually shows the floor plan of the ADU. We're proposing to provide a covered entry and provide a nice usable deck for outdoor living space for the ADU that's separate from the main residence. Another project goal is to improve parking. And this I guess can address one of the questions that Commissioner Feller was asking. I do think that because of proximity to public transportation, additional parking for the ADU is not a code requirement. But it's also kind of recognizable that most people own cars. So, improving the parking in part is to add parking for the ADU. This is a photograph of the Oh, someone's asking to enter the waiting room. Should I admit them? |
| 01:14:11.08 | Ted Banyu | Nevermind. |
| 01:14:11.52 | Kristina Feller | You're okay, continue on. |
| 01:14:12.85 | Ted Banyu | Okay, sorry. So here's the existing conditions. And this is to address another comment about the fire department. Yes, there were comments during when we submitted and during incompleteness from McKenna, the fire marshal. She made a site visit and later recognized that the street parking is permitted here. So on our site plan, If you see this cloud, this is the actual cloud that we put on our drawings when we resubmitted for incompleteness. She made a note that there's no parking signs right here pointing to the left. Sorry, get this out of the way. Another no parking sign here pointing to the right. Parking is actually permitted across this width and there needs to be 11 feet clear. And so she made a site visit, recognized that clearances were there and That's why that's not a condition of approval. So, you know, these are street parking spaces that exist, not obviously not dedicated to this property, just public street parking spaces. |
| 01:15:36.60 | Ted Banyu | Okay, sorry. So showing existing conditions, street parking is kind of limited in this area because of those no parking zones. The main entry to the property often gets blocked by cars that are parked right there. That's another thing that we wanted to improve Um, And the existing garage right here is about 19 feet wide, so a little bit tight for two cars. And there is no extra parking for the ADU currently. Thank you. |
| 01:16:08.50 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:16:10.05 | Ted Banyu | With the proposed design, we are creating two new off street spaces, so four total off street, and we only lose one parking space so we have a net gain of a space in the neighborhood. And that's because we designed this carport specifically to maintain enough room right here for a street public street parking space in between the two. Um, Another project goal was to improve the curb appeal and just the general circulation and functionality of the property. The existing street frontage is a bit random in appearance, not super aesthetically pleasing. There's multiple gates, fences, stairs. This is a photograph here. I don't know those of you who did go to the site probably saw this, but if you haven't been to the site, it's good to see sort of what it's like and what could use to be improved upon. The proposed street frontage is as a result of the project will be more organized clearly delineates entrance to the main house and the separate ADU. And, um, |
| 01:17:32.74 | Ted Banyu | the access to both units is more clear. Each separate unit has its own clear entrance. |
| 01:17:40.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry, sorry to interrupt, but if you could go back, where is the deck on the elevation? I'm confused now. I thought I knew- |
| 01:17:46.44 | Ted Banyu | the parking deck. |
| 01:17:47.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Yeah. |
| 01:17:48.31 | Ted Banyu | It's right here. Thank you. |
| 01:17:50.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Why doesn't it not show, what are we seeing if we're not seeing cars? |
| 01:17:57.26 | Ted Banyu | We're seeing a low resolution image. I apologize, but this is the outline of a SUV size car. And this is the outline of- |
| 01:18:09.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I see it now, thank you. |
| 01:18:11.26 | Ted Banyu | Apologize for the low resolution there. |
| 01:18:14.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I get it now, I see it now. |
| 01:18:15.75 | Ted Banyu | Okay. |
| 01:18:19.99 | Ted Banyu | Um, calculations, this, this will, this will definitely address some of the things that you were talking about. The data calculations are somewhat misleading, and that is because municipal code requires that we add areas for structures that are not physically on the property for both coverage and impervious surface. So while we're using the area of the lot, which is this shape for the denominator, if you will, the area that we're using to add to it is all of this area that is in the right of way. And that's how we end up with like 112%. of impervious surface. The other thing I wanted to point out is that municipal code requires that we include decks and impervious surface And so that's what we included in our calculation, but decks allow water to drain through them to the ground below. So they're not truly impervious surface from a, a civil engineering perspective. So both of these requirements are what create the high numbers compared to what's really happening here. Drainage. I know there was a neighbor comment and I believe Lisa, can you, this where my cursor is here is where the neighbor lives who made the comment. |
| 01:19:42.86 | Unknown | Exactly. |
| 01:19:52.23 | Ted Banyu | So because we're proposing to increase impervious area through this project, we hired Lee and Bray's licensed civil engineer to address the drainage. I do want to make note here again, all of these areas that you see with this kind of wood hatch. These are the decks. So these drain through to the ground. The new real impervious surface that we're adding is this parking deck right here. And it drains via a hard line. zoom in here a little bit, drain in the middle, and it comes around the side of the property and it's captured in this bio retention planner. So there is actually no increased runoff as a result of the added impervious surface to our to our project. So I think that's a good thing for the neighborhood. I was going to bring this up. Here's the six photos of the neighboring properties. Just showing you that there is a neighborhood pattern for parking decks on all of these downsloping properties. These are all on the same 200 block of Woodward Avenue on the downslope side. I don't know which of these have current encroachment permits, but they are all physical encroachments. Um, so I wanted to thank Magna for the detailed staff report and findings and just kind of conclude by, uh, emphasizing sort of the net gains for the community. We have increased parking in the neighborhood. We've created this via a parking deck that is really low in profile and unimpactful on the neighborhood. We've improved curb appeal and no increased runoff with added impervious surface. And we get a more usable ADU. So thank you for your time. And that is all I have for you tonight. |
| 01:21:58.64 | Kristina Feller | Terrific, thank you so much. I will. note that you've got four minutes and 35 seconds left. Although we didn't stop the clock when Commissioner Luxenberg was asking a question. So let's leave it at an even five. Should you want to use that later? |
| 01:22:16.73 | Ted Banyu | Thank you. |
| 01:22:16.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:22:16.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:18.08 | Kristina Feller | If you don't mind stopping the screen share here for just a moment. |
| 01:22:24.79 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:22:25.54 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you so much. And thank you for your presentation. Ms. York, did you want to add anything at this time? Thank you. |
| 01:22:33.50 | Lisa York | Thank you. |
| 01:22:33.64 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:22:33.67 | Lisa York | The husband's on the phone as well. We were both really excited about the projects. All the neighbors that we reached out to have been really supportive of what we're doing. And I think they're looking forward to seeing an improvement in front of our house. I think those are my main comments. |
| 01:22:53.85 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you for that. So this would be the time that commissioners have the opportunity to ask you any clarifying questions before we move in to public comment. Oh, wow. |
| 01:23:06.43 | Ted Banyu | Oh, I'm sorry. May I say one more thing? |
| 01:23:09.46 | Kristina Feller | Sure. |
| 01:23:09.87 | Ted Banyu | you You were asking about areas of the encroachment, and I did do some calculations while the staff report was going on. Would you like to hear those? |
| 01:23:21.81 | Kristina Feller | Yes, please. |
| 01:23:23.00 | Ted Banyu | Okay, so the existing area of the existing encroachment is 832 square feet. And the proposed new encroachment area is 615 square feet. |
| 01:23:41.69 | Kristina Feller | And just a question of clarification, we don't need to keep the clock going Zoom team. These were questions that we were asking. So just as a point of privilege, just to ask a clarifying question here. these are the new encroachment agreement is additive, it's not redundant with any part of the existing encroachment, is that correct? |
| 01:24:06.58 | Ted Banyu | The numbers that I gave you are additive. So what I did is I took the existing encroachment area and then I added the 615 square feet is only new area. It's not like reconstructed. Yeah. Does that make sense? |
| 01:24:22.14 | Kristina Feller | instructive. Yeah. It does make sense. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for that. Clarification. |
| 01:24:30.14 | Ted Banyu | If I might ask you one other thing, Tahoe is the other owner and his hand is up. So if we're still in our present- |
| 01:24:30.41 | Kristina Feller | Oh. |
| 01:24:37.73 | Kristina Feller | We're moving. Yeah, we're moving into Commissioner questions of of um of the applicant. I'm going to ask Tahoe's iPhone to unmute if he would like to answer any of these questions. And of course, we still have five minutes at the end. Okay, thank you. Comments after public comments. |
| 01:24:54.91 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. Bye. |
| 01:24:57.92 | Kristina Feller | If we could, there we go. My iPhone is, is. is unmuted. Great. So um Commissioner Assad, let's go ahead and start with you. If you could, do you have any questions for the applicant at this time? |
| 01:25:12.26 | Nastassya Saad | I definitely, no, thank you to the applicant for the presentation. And I was very curious on the encroachment. Could you confirm if you do know, I believe Magda said, and I'm sorry, I don't know where I am on this video, but I'm here. Magda, I think said the distance between that right fence and the next neighbor was 17 feet. But do you happen to know offhand or can you confirm that? |
| 01:25:39.08 | Ted Banyu | So it's a little weird because it's all such a wide right of way there. So it's a little hard to determine where the neighbor starts. But would you mind if I share my screen one more time so I can show you? I did do a measurement. That'd be great. Okay. |
| 01:25:56.51 | Unknown | That'd be great. Okay. |
| 01:26:02.08 | Ted Banyu | So what I did |
| 01:26:08.00 | Ted Banyu | is I took a measurement from this, this is what you're asking, correct? |
| 01:26:13.67 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, from that point, yes. |
| 01:26:17.21 | Ted Banyu | So I went from here to here, which is sort of the closest neighbor's corner. Is that what you mean? |
| 01:26:27.10 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, I mean, I visited the property and knowing that area, I guess that is the only adjacent neighbor based on the property. |
| 01:26:35.57 | Ted Banyu | It's 38 feet from here to here. |
| 01:26:37.02 | Nastassya Saad | 38 feet. Okay. Great. |
| 01:26:43.84 | Ted Banyu | Thank you. |
| 01:26:43.86 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:26:43.88 | Ted Banyu | Should I stop my share? |
| 01:26:47.27 | Nastassya Saad | I'll defer to the chair, but those were all the questions I had. Thank you. |
| 01:26:50.85 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Thank you for sharing your screen. And thank you Commissioner Saad for the question. Commissioner Graff? |
| 01:26:53.51 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 01:26:54.20 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:26:58.84 | Richard Graef | um, Hmm. The No, the only question I had was, has been clarified, so thank you. |
| 01:27:12.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:27:15.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Fallon. Ted, I think you answered all the questions I had. However, your comment to the Chair about these square footages, if you could put that screen back up. I just have one quick question about the overlap part of the question. So currently between the parking garage and the parking deck, all of that area currently is in the encroachment. Is that part of the 815 or whatever? |
| 01:27:46.70 | Ted Banyu | Actually, if you don't mind, yeah, let me see. Do I have the existing plan here? Yes, here is the existing plan. So the 832 square feet, I included the garage and I included this existing deck, actually only what's in front of the property line. I did not include these stairs. I wasn't sure if they should count or not. |
| 01:28:17.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. |
| 01:28:18.19 | Ted Banyu | And then on the new one, what I did is I drew that same line, and then I drew another line. that includes the rest of everything beyond that line. And that's where I came up with 615. |
| 01:28:28.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Absolutely. Okay, that's what I thought. And so I'm good with that. Sure, Paula, those are the only questions I have. |
| 01:28:37.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg, and walking through that just to be sure. Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 01:28:44.73 | Andrew Junius | No questions, thank you. |
| 01:28:46.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you again for your presentation. I think you've addressed most of the questions that I had, so I appreciate that greatly. So if the commission does not have any additional questions of the applicant at this time, just by a show of hands. I don't see anybody else having more questions. I'd like to open this up to public comments. To do so, you can raise your hand in the Zoom application or press star nine on your cell phone. Um, We are on item 6A on this evening's agenda. You'll have three minutes for public comments. And I'm just looking for raised hands at this time. Again, this is public comment on item 6a. Seeing no hands raised, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment. and allow you, Mr. Bono and Ms. York and Tahoe's iPhone to make any closing remarks you would like to make at this time. |
| 01:29:53.53 | Ted Banyu | Tahoe, if you're listening, would you like to add anything or say anything still? |
| 01:30:04.60 | Ted Banyu | Thank you. I think we're good then. Yes. Thank you. |
| 01:30:07.98 | Tahoe Boaz | Oh, there he is. |
| 01:30:08.03 | Unknown | Oh, there he is. |
| 01:30:09.68 | Tahoe Boaz | Sorry, my video won't come on. Tahoe Boaz here, you probably know me from Southern Fire. Just wanted to thank everybody for their time and looking into the project of the proposal. Thank you. |
| 01:30:23.88 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay. |
| 01:30:27.30 | Ted Banyu | So no more comments, but yes, thank you so much. |
| 01:30:30.73 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Okay, with that, let's go ahead and move the conversation up to our virtual dais here for any deliberations. and any motions that we might be considering this evening on item 6A. Commissioner Luxenberg, would you like to start us off? |
| 01:30:47.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, Chair Feller. I think that I understand the reasoning for the variance. I do think the additional parking space is helpful. I do think that the parking for the ADU, even though it's not required, would be helpful. I think it'll improve. The landscaping will be improved on the front. It'll be clearer. I think all of that works. I do think we need to have the staff report correct. I do think we need the conditions from Public Works because I know that they're going to want standard conditions unless they've changed their philosophy. I think we also need Marin Fire usually has conditions. Every other project we've approved has had conditions. I think that we should have those. So I don't know how to, we've had problems in the past where we make changes from the dais to the conditions. And then in one case, it took over six weeks to get that posted and they weren't correct. And then we had to correct them. So I think we need to somehow we might need to unfortunately to continue this to get the staff report correct and the conditions correct so that we have the information in front of us had to my earlier comment had this come in 10 days before I could have got these questions to staff and they could have been ready to go with the corrections. So again, that process for the future is critical, but for tonight, my thought is, I'm not sure how we don't have information we need, even though I could support both the variants and make the findings for the project. |
| 01:31:27.49 | Sebastian Bursz | Bye. |
| 01:32:32.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So that's where I'm at at the moment. |
| 01:32:41.66 | Unknown | You're on mute. |
| 01:32:43.01 | Kristina Feller | Sorry about that. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Saad, your thoughts? |
| 01:32:50.82 | Nastassya Saad | Um, Commissioner Luxembourg stole my thunder. I I'm hugely supportive of this project. I think it makes sense. I think being able to have an extended invitation to visit the site also made it all that more tangible. Um, So I can really understand what they're trying to achieve. And I think... I think there there can be some improvements and they're they're striving to make it the best that they can. I think the parking is a great idea. Woodward is a very complicated street. I think we all know that. So adding parking is always a win, whether it's required or not. Um, I am wondering if we can find some type of compromise to move this forward tonight, but I completely share Commissioner Luxenberg's concerns, I've got concerns on the staff report and why there's so much missing. It's giving me pause in terms of Southern Marin Fire's comments public comment. some of the the math on the variants. I'm not sure in terms of continuing just yet, but I do share the same concerns on, proving something and putting it on public record without being 100% certain. I think the staff, excuse me, the applicant presentation really did answer everything. Uh, all of our concerns and seems accurate so i'm hoping we can use that. and leverage it to move forward. Um, on the record, definitely supportive and would like to find a way to move this forward tonight if we can. |
| 01:34:26.49 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Thank you for that. Um, Commissioner Graf. |
| 01:34:32.29 | Richard Graef | Thanks, Chair Feller. Well, I can certainly make the findings. I think it's a A very nice project, well thought out. I'm totally in support of it. I'm, not overly concerned with the sort of errors and omissions that are in the staff report and so on, because I think those can be corrected. But I, I... I'm. I'm comfortable with moving the project ahead In fact, I'd make a motion for approval subject to clarification on the staff report. and any other uh, partner and information, but I, I think it has all been clarified and it all seems to be in order to me So, Yes, I would support the project 100%. |
| 01:35:31.88 | Sergio Rudin | Commissioner, you know, if you're trying to make a move motion to approve the project, Um, Subject to clarification is a little bit ambiguous. And I will I will just state that, you know, if you're approving the project, I don't really see that. going to revisit and revise a staff report would be particularly useful. However, if there's concerns about conditions of approval, we should potentially clarify that in a motion to approve. because that would That would be an important part of the approval itself. |
| 01:36:05.05 | Richard Graef | I see. Okay. um, Thank you. |
| 01:36:08.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:36:09.61 | Richard Graef | Yes, maybe somebody could help with the words, but you get my intent. |
| 01:36:17.27 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, definitely get your intent. Appreciate that. And Sergio, thank you for weighing in there. |
| 01:36:22.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:22.30 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 01:36:22.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:22.60 | Kristina Feller | Let's see what Vice Chair Junius has to say also. |
| 01:36:22.76 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:36:27.68 | Kristina Feller | You might have some ideas here. |
| 01:36:29.76 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. Yeah, I think we're all on board. This is a, you know, I've actually walked by this property a fair amount of times and this this specific stretch of Woodward is interesting. Obviously this is a pretty common condition It actually seems to be the more, you know, this is a pretty common condition all over Sausalito. The curvy streets up on the hillside create this, you know, kind of, in my opinion, kind of bizarre right-of-way situation that. probably can't be avoided, but it creates an enormous amount of, you know, kind of unfortunate complications and detail that is know seemingly overwhelming for such a relatively straightforward project in my opinion I totally agree with everybody. I think this is somewhat of a no-brainer. We can figure out how to move it forward. I think city attorney is right. It's not really about the staff report. Staff report is what it is. Um, uh, we're on it's unfortunate the state of it, but I think the good news is nobody's questioning the plans. The plans seem 100% spot on. I think the project sponsor and the architect did a great job with the presentation. I don't think there's any question we can approve this project based on the plans. And if it comes down to some type, some Uh, You know, motion that includes adding standard conditions that we all have seen before. in other motions, in other approvals, I would be fine with that. So, maybe City Attorney Rudin can guide us along here, You know, it is unfortunate that we didn't have time to ask some of these questions to get the conditions worked out. But at this point, it really is down to the conditions of approval. you know, Thankfully, unlike a lot of things we've seen in past months, the plans are Nobody's questioning the accuracy of the plans. um, It's a complicated site, relatively complicated project in a lot of ways, but But it's... It's ready to go. As far as I'm concerned, I would move it forward, notwithstanding questions about conditions. So I'm ready to go. |
| 01:38:30.55 | Max Hausiger | And, |
| 01:38:31.11 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:38:31.12 | Sergio Rudin | I believe the main concern that was voiced by some of the commissioners was concerned over the Southern Marin fire districts conditions of approval. And You know, while there have been all of the conditions listed in prior projects, that is not strictly something that is necessary in order to approve a project. We can add a condition of approval simply requiring the applicant to comply with any conditions imposed by Southern Southern Fire District. If the commission is interested in improving the project tonight, you could move to adopt the resolution Um, with a modification to condition number 13 to require compliance with any conditions imposed by Southern Land Fire District. Thank you. |
| 01:39:20.75 | Andrew Junius | That seems like a no-brainer to me. Thank you. City Attorney Rudin. I would actually make a motion to approve on that basis. |
| 01:39:28.41 | Kristina Feller | Well, let me go ahead and maybe add my comments before we make. |
| 01:39:31.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:31.91 | Andrew Junius | I apologize. |
| 01:39:32.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:34.35 | Kristina Feller | Um, And thank you everybody for weighing in and Sergio for you weighing in as well. Yes, we do find ourselves, you know, on our back foot yet again, but let's, let's try to turn, turn this around. I'm looking here at the notes that I took as everybody provided their comment and there are nine. nine issues here that I think we need to somehow address because I, Like, I think my colleagues completely support this project and do not want to hold up this applicant if we can avoid it. Um, Some of these are just issues on upslope, downslope. You know, the report was incorrect. The dedication, the dedicated parking, it's not dedicated to the project, but it's a dedicated parking space, meaning a defined parking space. parking spot on the on the street, but that is the public street. It's not dedicated to the project. typos regarding grant, grant, granting, The six examples of the other projects on Woodward were not included in the staff report, however, They are, I think, by association based on this public hearing here. We can certainly refer to that as well as the applicant's presentation. The Southerman fire comments, the Department of Public Works, their conditions of approval, the calculations regarding impervious surface, which also lead to the calculations of the encroachment. And if those are confirmed areas or not, and I would defer to Magna for that. Um, of the current and the new and then the water just discharge you were going to double check that but we did look at the drawings here. Um, So, you know, For me, I don't know, and I want to get some ideas from Sergio yet again. So if you don't mind my asking you to pop back on camera. Um, If we sort of verbally get through some of these conditions of approval. Um, Can we, are we in a position where we could approve the project but put the resolutions or review them back on consent or through a one-way communication, to the commission where prior to to any final sign off. Is that possible or is that something we can work through your office to finalize. |
| 01:42:04.20 | Sergio Rudin | So if you would like to approve the project tonight, you can make whatever changes you would like to make into the record verbally. as part of your motion to approve, and you can change the conditions of approval. Um, And then basically it would be up to staff to, you know, revise the resolution and make sure that The resolution matches exactly what the motion changed in the resolution. now if you would like to actually see the written resolution before you approve it, then, you know, the way forward would be to continue this item. direct staff to make the changes and then You know, obviously at the continued meeting, you would approve the resolution and it would be finalized. Um, Based on some of the issues that you raised, Chair Feller, with respect to the conditions of approval for public works, I'm not sure what those are. If staff have a list of those that they can read into the record, you know, then that You know, one of the main issues that we would need to address here because really The approval of the project is the resolution, and the resolution needs to include the conditions of approval You know, that's really the key action here. more than correcting typographic errors or things like that. you know, I'll leave it to Dan to comment and, you know, to staff to comment as to whether or not there are additional conditions of approval, |
| 01:43:30.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:39.35 | Sergio Rudin | that really do need to be included in this report, not so. Um, |
| 01:43:45.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you for that. Dan, do you have any Any items to add to that? |
| 01:43:54.77 | Kristina Feller | You're on mute. |
| 01:43:58.95 | Dan | about that. Looking at the DPW review right now, The most recent one looks like it was 8-19-22. |
| 01:44:11.86 | Dan | Um, And the fire review I looked at, does only talk about parking spaces, but that seems to have since |
| 01:44:25.36 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, those are their comments, but we're asking about the standard conditions of approval and the resolution. Those are not included, and so we're just wondering where those are. |
| 01:44:35.66 | Dan | Well, that's because I'm not seeing any and DPW didn't give us any. Um, |
| 01:44:41.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do they give you a, sorry, do they give you a comments each time or do you just take their standard? How has this process worked in the past? Because this is the first time that they're gone. Was this different than the last three or four projects you worked on? |
| 01:44:50.09 | Unknown | All of you. |
| 01:44:50.68 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 01:45:03.30 | Dan | you Not that I know. |
| 01:45:05.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So maybe they thought you were using those standard conditions because you always have. I mean, that question hasn't been asked. I mean, I feel bad that this project, yet again, we're behind the eight ball here. But we, you know, one time we just wrote him in by cutting and pasting him on the dais here. But this was a question that should have been asked. And why you didn't ask them, do you want standard conditions? You not want, we don't have an answer to that. I don't really want to set a precedent here. of, well, we just want to get it to go through tonight. So, you know, we'll rush it through because we, you know, we all agree we can make the findings, but we were assuming that there were conditions that would have been put on. And we don't know from public works and fire that they don't want them or they do want them or I also want to make a point, excuse me, Chair Feller. If the fire comes up with something that changes something we approve, then the applicant comes back in for changes to approved projects. And we're trying to avoid that. That's why we like to ask the question in the beginning and have those answers so that we put it to bed so that we're not going to be here two months from now approving changes to an approved project because fire asked for something that did a minor change. And that's why we want to be sure that we know what the answer is. PROVING CHANGES TO AN APPROVED PROJECT BECAUSE FIRE ASKED FOR SOMETHING THAT DID A MINOR CHANGE. AND THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE. I WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS DONE TONIGHT BUT WE'RE YET AGAIN TRYING TO WRITE CONDITIONS IN THE DAIS WHICH WE REALLY NEED TO AVOID. Anyways, thank you, Chair Powell. Sorry for the interruption. |
| 01:46:48.11 | Kristina Feller | No, no. Not at all. I think you're... the mouthpiece of all of us on this. So thank you for taking the lead on that. I'd like to go back to maybe Vice Chair Junius who made a motion here to approve it, but can I pile on here, Vice Chair Junius, to say, that the resolutions or conditions of approval have to include Southern Wind Fire DPW standard conditions of approval. I'd like to include that the, the calculations on the encroachment of the existing being 832 square feet and the new being 615 square feet for a total of, 1,447 square feet, I mean, you know, we look back at this stuff 10 years from now, we have to make sure that this is, you know, complete and comprehensive, not just for CDD or the planning commission, but for the, For the applicant, for the owner, we have to make sure that these things all add up and that the city council signs off on something specific, not sort of theoretical. So I'd like to add those things in there And that I would like to add that any any changes to the proposed design that any changes come back to the planning commission and are not handled ministerially. if everyone's in agreement with that. |
| 01:48:25.87 | Andrew Junius | I guess I'm comfortable if the city attorney believes that's specific enough. Um, Yeah, I'd be all right with all that. |
| 01:48:36.45 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I mean, if we can read what the standard conditions of approval are that we are adding. into the record. Dan, do you know what those are that you would be adding to the resolution at this point |
| 01:48:50.34 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:48:51.43 | Sergio Rudin | OK, well then in that case, I think we probably need to continue the item in order to revise the resolution to add whatever conditions of we need to add. |
| 01:49:02.99 | Andrew Junius | I mean, can I ask you, you know, while we're going down the rabbit hole here on conditions of approval. I'd be curious the city attorney's opinion Thank you. the city attorney's comment. on the idea that Most of these conditions actually They arise from existing municipal code. Is that correct or is that incorrect? Thank you. |
| 01:49:20.57 | Sergio Rudin | I would say that A substantial number of them do yes. Right. |
| 01:49:25.67 | Andrew Junius | Right. And so... So in a lot of respects, what we're really doing here is we're repeating what the what the applicants already required to do. through different permits that they're gonna get via DPW and sign offs and whatnot. So I've always thought that some of this is a bit redundant. |
| 01:49:38.82 | Kristina Feller | I've always thought of some of this. Not in all cases though, particularly with Southern and Fire, it has to deal with a lot of different things that are beyond just municipal code. It could be there. approved planting species or the naughty list of plants. I mean, it could include other things. |
| 01:49:59.02 | Andrew Junius | I hear you, but in this case, for example, if we're really worried about Department of Public Works, I would be... SURPRISED IF MOST, IF NOT ALL, THE CONDITIONS, THE STANDARD CONDITIONS ARISE DIRECTLY FROM REQUIREMENTS IN SOSOLITOS MUNICIPAL CODE. So, |
| 01:50:15.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think some of them might be related to this drainage issue though and that's the one I'm really concerned about is if they have any questions about how things to do or don't tie in or how the runoff works, since we don't know, I mean if we knew I you know i'm just frustrated because if we we had a report from public works and we really don't want to put these conditions and we don't really need these standard condition. I agree with you, the Commission genius that we should reduce the number of standard conditions that are redundant, if anything is in already the color I agree that we should do that, but I don't want to arbitrarily. take out something that they would have wanted with regard to how this drainage works or some connection and it causes some problem down the line because we don't have the answer. Because the staff didn't follow up with public works and get a question. Do you want conditions in here? Are you okay with no conditions in here? I mean, I don't understand why that wasn't asked, but it hasn't been asked. And so we're out where we are. That's my issue. |
| 01:51:15.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:51:19.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:20.98 | Kristina Feller | So it sounds like based on Sergio's input here, and thank you for that, Sergio, that because we cannot read specifically into the record what those conditions of approval are. that Because some of those conditions of approval have to do with sort of the future work of the construction documents that we haven't even seen yet. So they are important to be in there. So, So it sounds to me that you are leaning towards continuing this item until such time as the Community Development Department can actually prepare the proper resolution that includes the standard conditions of approval from other authorities having jurisdiction here. Is that correct? |
| 01:52:02.64 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, I would say that at least the issue that causes me concern is the DPW issue and It seems like we are not certain whether or not DPW has additional conditions to add with respect to the drainage issues. If that is the case, and I don't know whether that is the case, but it sounds like it may be the case. you know, then we may need to actually add conditions related to that. Now, obviously, there's an opportunity to add additional requirements, you know, and verify compliance with things like, you know, plumbing codes, you know, the Like, um, You know, at the building permit stage, there's a lot of opportunities to verify compliance with municipal codes, other requirements, etc. If it's issues related to that that can be verified at the building permit stage, then we don't need to add conditions of approval. And Dan, I just don't know if this is touching on those sorts of issues or if it's touching on things like compliance with public works, standard details for construction in the right of way, You know, What? |
| 01:53:20.34 | Dan | afterwards. |
| 01:53:23.07 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I think maybe to close this item out, to not belabor it here, it sounds like we're getting advice that we should continue, continue this until such time as we can be specific with what those resolutions are. Um, and certainly, um, you know, what we have is not what our standard conditions of approval are. So let's, I'll make a motion to continue this item. |
| 01:53:49.88 | Andrew Junius | Actually, there's a motion on the floor that didn't get seconded, which I will withdraw. I will withdraw my motion. |
| 01:53:54.03 | Kristina Feller | my motion. |
| 01:53:54.98 | Andrew Junius | for approval. |
| 01:53:56.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:53:56.26 | Andrew Junius | And I'll make a motion to continue to date certain where we can get this resolved. |
| 01:54:01.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair. Do I have a second for that for Vice Chair Junice? Okay, thank you. |
| 01:54:08.04 | Kristina Feller | Could you take a roll call, Dan? |
| 01:54:10.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Before we take the role, I would encourage staff to immediately talk. It's obvious, but I want to say it anyways. Talk to Public Works, talk to Marine Fire, |
| 01:54:10.82 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:54:19.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and follow up with whatever they said before and get those out. I'd also, whatever date certain, if we're going to talk about a date certain, I want to see the final conditions and the final package posted 10 days before we did. and I'd like to amend the motion to add that provision. |
| 01:54:37.15 | Unknown | and then, |
| 01:54:37.17 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I'll amend my... |
| 01:54:43.29 | Andrew Junius | pick a date certain so what are we looking at in terms of dates we need a month do we need two weeks is october 5th possible |
| 01:54:51.46 | Dan | Not at this time, not if we need it 10 days before. |
| 01:54:54.40 | Andrew Junius | Okay, let's go for, I would move to continue to October 19th our second meeting in October and add the condition that requested Commissioner Luxembourg made regarding the availability of the staff report at least 10 days in advance of the |
| 01:55:12.32 | Kristina Feller | Do I have a second? |
| 01:55:14.61 | Unknown | It was seconded by Commissioner Graff. |
| 01:55:17.08 | Kristina Feller | Would you like to re-second, Commissioner Groff? |
| 01:55:19.25 | Unknown | Bye. Thank you. |
| 01:55:21.02 | Richard Graef | Yeah, sure. A little reluctantly, but. Yes. Let's get it down. |
| 01:55:25.85 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, this is the date certain of October 19th. Okay, Dan. |
| 01:55:32.97 | Kristina Feller | you please take the roll call. |
| 01:55:37.28 | Dan | Yes. Commissioner Graff? Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:55:43.18 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:55:43.65 | Dan | Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 01:55:45.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:45.41 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 01:55:45.51 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:55:45.58 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 01:55:45.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:45.75 | Dan | Thank you. Chair Feller? |
| 01:55:47.10 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:55:47.67 | Dan | Thank you. POTION CARRIES. |
| 01:55:49.41 | Kristina Feller | And apologies to the applicants for this hiccup. Okay, let's go ahead and move on to item 6B this evening, which is 265 gate five road. Dan over to you or Cecilia, I'll invite both of you to present this. |
| 01:56:06.39 | Dan | Okay. Item 6B 265 Gate 5 Road Design Review Permit. Um, to demolish a one story commercial art studio site block walls and decks and construct a combination one and two level structure. with roof decks. Cecilia Jarolowski. contract planner will present. |
| 01:56:30.82 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Good evening, Commissioner Cecilia Jaroslavsky, Contract Planner, with your permission, like to share my screen. |
| 01:56:41.60 | Kristina Feller | Good to see you, Cecilia. Thank you for being here this evening. |
| 01:56:44.54 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Oh, absolutely. Now let me just see about sharing my screen. |
| 01:56:59.57 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Okay, I'm not having any luck. |
| 01:57:03.35 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Zoom team, we provided Cecilia the ability to share her screen. |
| 01:57:14.88 | Kristina Feller | If we could co-host Cecilia so she has full capability, please. |
| 01:57:24.57 | Kristina Feller | There we go. |
| 01:57:25.44 | Unknown | you |
| 01:57:25.51 | Kristina Feller | Okay, let's see. Oh. |
| 01:57:30.96 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Okay. Are you seeing my PowerPoint? |
| 01:57:34.29 | Kristina Feller | We can see your PowerPoint, yes. Great, thank you. |
| 01:57:36.26 | Cecilia Jarolowski | There we go. So the project before you is 265 Gate 5 Road. It is a zone industrial marine ship located approximately 2000 feet east of highway 101 and three miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge. Uses in the area include residential, households, industrial, commercial, and retail. The project site is triangular. level contains approximately 31,000 10 square feet with an average lot width of 103 feet. This is the view of the project area on gate five road facing north and from the gate five road bar the landing intersection facing east. |
| 01:58:24.64 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The project was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and determined that the subject property does not satisfy any of the qualifying criteria for resource. The site contains several small artists studio spaces all on a gravel floor. The project includes the demolition of a one level 4,598 square foot structure removal of the existing containers and sheds. |
| 01:58:57.72 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The project includes the installation of a five foot wide sidewalk on gate five Road. along and extending the front property line. The vehicular access is from Gate 5 Road and would contain 20 standard parking spaces two of which would be handicap accessible, parking area would be approximately 56 feet wide at the entry area and widened to approximately 80 feet wide. and limited to the Eastern portion of the subject property adjacent to buildings A and B. The pedestrian main entrance would be located between buildings A and B via access stairs that would be nine feet wide. and contain four steps. there would be an additional pedestrian site access from Vardal Landing Road at the rear of the site. The project will also include interior open space courtyard area. the project would meet all setback requirements for the district. A new transformer is required by PG need to upgrade the existing utility and would be seven feet, six inches by eight feet, 10 inches. and installed at the Southwest corner of the project site. to be connected via an underground line to the existing vacant utility pole at the Southeast corner of the project site. Construction staging would be located within the northeastern corner of the project site. Building A would contain a vestibule to a men's and women's bathroom and one large artist studio, approximately a thousand square feet. A fire control room would be located at the northeast corner of the structure and an exterior stair to the second level. is also located at this corner of the structure, the top level. would contain a roof deck. Building B would be a square structure containing approximately 1,000 square feet also for an artist's space. Building C would contain two artist studio spaces, 1 318 square feet and 175 square feet. Building D would contain a 1,700 and 83 square foot artist studio space and smaller rooms for an elevator. an electric room. |
| 02:01:08.68 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The second level of the project would connect all four buildings have a rectangular shape, 157 feet wide by 48 feet, seven inches deep. This level would include two handicapped accessible bathrooms, 10 artist spaces, and a 167 square foot space open to the patio below. The height of the second level of the project would be 32 feet, which is the allowable height for this district. The roof line of the second level would include three areas open to the ground level. the total FAR of the structures would be under 10,000 square feet. |
| 02:01:48.05 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The top level would contain a roof deck on building A totaling 1,179 square feet. This portion of building A would total 20 feet, four inches in height. adjacent to building D a smaller roof deck at the one story elevation. Building D would contain a 1,284 square foot roof deck accessible from stairs and an elevator along the East wall of this structure. Landscaping includes the installation of eight trees, three rain gardens, landscape planting zones that surround the property and a variety of hardscape areas. The slide demonstrates the elevation from the front of the structure along gate five road in the rear along Varda Landing Road, shown on the flight plan, vehicle access is from the south. |
| 02:02:45.55 | Cecilia Jarolowski | This section is located along the front of the structure. The maximum height of the project is 32 feet at the second level and approximately 20 feet at the first level and includes a pass through area on the ground floor. and roof decks. |
| 02:03:05.59 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The applicant submitted a story poll plan with the location and height of each story poll. Please note, however, the heights on the plan are above sea level. The site is approximately six feet above sea level and the project would not exceed 32 feet above the grade of the site, which is the maximum allowable height for the district. The slide demonstrates the two level story poll is seen from a distance from gate five road. and along the project frontage both facing west. |
| 02:03:39.01 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Story polls shown are of the one story structure and the two story structure as seen from Gate 5 Road, the front of the project. The applicant submitted a material board similar to the project located at 52 Varda Landing. And based on planning commission comments on that project, the applicant will be modifying the colors to address commission concerns raised for that project. The applicant will probably speak about this during his presentation. |
| 02:04:11.02 | Cecilia Jarolowski | This slide demonstrates renderings of the project from the intersection of Gate 5 Road and Varda Landing Road and from Gate 5 Road facing west. |
| 02:04:24.25 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The owners and designers of the project held semi-regular tours one-on-one and group as well as community dinners with the tenants of Marinship Studios. bar to landing residents and neighbors in the marinship. Since the finalization of the staff report, staff has received 12 letters in support of the project. and two citing concerns. |
| 02:04:47.98 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Several concerns about the project received from the resident at 655 Olima Street, including the possible loss of approximately one third of the private view from the residents and stating the project does not preserve the character of the area or incorporate site considerations. |
| 02:05:09.09 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The project is a contemporary industrial style design, which would preserve the industrial character and use of the area. The site is zoned industrial. And the area contains several two level structures on gate five road. Examples located at 150, 200, and on the 300 block of gate five road shown here. The project has been reviewed by the seed level rise task force who requested a five-step submittal but also acknowledge that nearly all of the information requested has already been developed by the applicant. I believe the, Sea level rise task force letter and emails have been submitted to the commission for Your review, the project would not exceed the maximum allowable height The project has been designed to address drainage reviewed by city agencies, and would include the installation of a new sidewalk along gate five road. Although 655 Lima Street is located approximately 2000 feet southwest of the subject property. the project does minimize any view obstruction from neighboring sites. |
| 02:06:16.91 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The Marin specific plan map sites, the project parcel as nine F. which is not listed as a view corridor parcel and shows the view corridor from the intersection of gate five road and Varda landing road as well as from Coloma Street. |
| 02:06:37.36 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The specific plan also states that structures and landscaping from Coloma Street right-of-way between Gate 5 Road and the shoreline could obstruct views of the shoreline. But the plan also states that given the site line distances and topography, No shoreline view is likely down the street. |
| 02:06:59.03 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The project complies with the view corridor requirements of the specific plan by clustering structures on the lot optimizing open space areas and placing onsite parking alongside buildings instead of in front of buildings. Although the specific plan prefers zero setbacks along streets and property lines, the project would be sent back several feet from all property lines. The view corridor from Coloma street runs through the proposed onsite parking area which would not contain any structures or large trees. |
| 02:07:35.10 | Cecilia Jarolowski | This slide shows a rendering looking down Coloma street into the bay. |
| 02:07:43.96 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The project as proposed requires the approval of design review permit and compliance with CEQA and would meet design review findings required for permit approval. The letter submitted by Mr. Yates is concerned this project does not qualify for an exemption However, the project is exempt under Sequest section one of five, 303 new construction. Thank you. Alternatively, since the project site is under five acres, The project would also be exempt under class 32. which is characterized as infill development. other Facts of finding under this classification. include that the project is consistent with the general plan designation that is located in an urban environment that it has all of the utilities necessary for the proposal. |
| 02:08:35.26 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The project is consistent with the general plan land use policies including the land use and growth management, community design, health and safety, climate change mitigation, and economic element, The project is consistent with the, specific plan policies, including maintaining the industrial and artist's character of the area. providing individual activities within the project and encouraging public access and use. The specific plan allows for industrial Marin and fine arts as a principal use as proposed in the project. |
| 02:09:12.20 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Staff recommends the commission approve the design review permit with conditions of approval. The commission may also continue the project and recommend project modifications. or deny the project. Thank you commissioners that concludes my presentations. If I may commissioners to address The two residents concerns the applicant would like to request the commission allow for some additional time for them to present as well. Thank you. |
| 02:09:40.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Cecilia. Thank you so much. Um, Just as a quick point of privilege, based on one of the slides you had regarding public comment I had only counted 13 letters. Let me read them off. And if I mispronounce anyone's name, please, please forgive me. Chang, Ellingson, Khan, Nadeau, Nemo, Seton, Gilbert, Rogan, Weschler, Ahmaud, Merilise, Yates, and DeRay. What are we missing here? Because that's only 13. You said there were 12 letters in support and two that did not support. So we're- |
| 02:10:27.23 | Cecilia Jarolowski | That is correct, Commissioner. I could go down my list if that would be helpful. |
| 02:10:32.39 | Kristina Feller | I want to make sure, because we've got a lot of late comments, I want to make sure that the written public comment that it's on the record and those comments are registered equally to any verbal comments that we get just like we do in any other application. |
| 02:10:49.69 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Absolutely. Would you like me to read off the names? |
| 02:10:53.10 | Kristina Feller | Please. |
| 02:10:53.88 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Um, Okay, I'm just gonna go down the list first. Residents in support, Amat. Sarah. Chiang. Dire. Ellingson. Gilbert. |
| 02:11:08.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:08.86 | Cecilia Jarolowski | con Merrily's to do. Rogan. Saturn. and wash work. and the two residents, that cited their concerns are Stacy Nemo, and Ed Yasser. |
| 02:11:30.17 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Thank you. |
| 02:11:31.17 | Kristina Feller | And yeah, sir, you said. |
| 02:11:32.72 | Kristina Feller | Bye. Yeah, sir. |
| 02:11:33.40 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Yes. Yes, Mr. Ed Yasser, yes. |
| 02:11:38.04 | Kristina Feller | All right, thank you. Thank you just for clarifying that. And thank you commissioners for allowing me the point of privilege. Okay, Cecilia, thank you for the presentation, staff report, and working with this applicant. this would be the time for commissioners to ask any clarifying questions of staff Commissioner Saad, would you like to start us off on this applicant? |
| 02:12:01.24 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Thank you, Cecilia. Thank you for the presentation and the report. You had a slide because I was going to ask, based on how it was written, there were a lot of heights But you had one slide in your presentation that showed like the full height, I think it was up to 32. but could you go back there? I just want to clarify, not by building individual, but what the overall structure The height is proposed Bye. |
| 02:12:31.97 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Absolutely, Commissioner. |
| 02:12:32.81 | Nastassya Saad | Let me get that. Sure, thank you. |
| 02:12:50.24 | Nastassya Saad | I think that was the one Okay. So the entire story structure. for the two story is that 32 feet. Is that correct? Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the breakdown by building, but that's a good visual. I was also wondering, and maybe it's just how I'm reading it. So if we can clarify the sea level rise task force, there was that communication between the applicant and, and the team, but the last attachment, I think nine was a response for 52 Varda Landing Road. And it does seem that I see the five step plan. Is that intended? Cause it's not mentioning this project address. So. |
| 02:13:39.67 | Cecilia Jarolowski | So, Commissioner, it's my understanding that when the sea level rise task force group went out to the site, they actually reviewed all three sites. And I can certainly, the applicant can certainly speak to more detail about that, but they reviewed all three sites at the same time. That's my understanding. |
| 02:13:58.07 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. And then the last... communication was a response from the applicants team for that five step plan is that what you had said? Correct. Okay, great. And then I also had a question on On page three of the staff report, And this is in regards to, I believe, the ingress and egress. Let me just jump over. to page three, it had mentioned, I think, 24 feet. based on for the ingress and egress. Sorry, let me just find my own notes here. So under the under the image, under figure two on page three of the staff report, I'm reading, to accommodate adequate emergency egress and ingress, the proposed driveway would have a minimum width of 24 feet. But in the resolution, and I believe it's number, which is on page six, it mentions to it, it says the exact same line, but it has a different number. So Resolution proposed entrances, exits, internal circulation. It says to accommodate adequate emergency egress and ingress, the proposed driveway would have a minimum width of egress. 20 feet, three inches. Do you know which one, and it might be on the plans, but do we know which... minimum width for the ingress and the egress is correct. |
| 02:15:44.31 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Oh, we do, and I can pull up the plans if you would like |
| 02:15:47.06 | Nastassya Saad | to take a look at those? That would be great. And if it's not what's in the resolution, we might want to note that for a correction. |
| 02:16:01.10 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Can you see the plans commissioner? |
| 02:16:02.57 | Unknown | I can't. I can. It's like an ant's prayer, but yes. |
| 02:16:13.69 | Cecilia Jarolowski | This is also something that the applicant might be better to speak to as well. |
| 02:16:17.59 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, yes, I can see. I can see clearly now, thank you. |
| 02:16:31.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:47.78 | Cecilia Jarolowski | This is taking me forever, I apologize. |
| 02:16:49.85 | Nastassya Saad | I don't want to hold us up if you want to search while maybe somebody else asks questions, but it's just... a point of clarification. especially since it's in the resolution. |
| 02:17:07.64 | Kristina Feller | Let's go ahead and get this clarified. |
| 02:17:09.61 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 02:17:10.86 | Kristina Feller | or Commissioner Sott, if you have any additional questions. |
| 02:17:15.47 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. I have one more kind of a specific question and I can also ask the applicant, but because it's in the report, I believe it's page two, it mentions that the building will include studio spaces of various sizes. including large sculpture artists and artisan boat builders. And I was just wondering if you got that directly from the Applicant. |
| 02:17:43.43 | Unknown | Yes, I did. |
| 02:17:43.45 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, I did. Okay, thank you. Um, Chair Feller, I think those were all that I had at the moment for staff. |
| 02:17:52.14 | Cecilia Jarolowski | I apologize, commissioner. I can't locate the actual detail of the width. I know that it's on here because I did take it from here. So I would have to defer to the applicant just to ensure that we have the right number on there. Okay. |
| 02:18:06.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Saad and Cecilia. Thank you. Let's go ahead and stop screen share if you want to keep looking. on your computer, that's fine, but let's go ahead. Commissioner Luxenberg, Do you have any questions for staff? |
| 02:18:21.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll say. Some of these are continue on with Commissioner Saad's inconsistencies with the staff report and the drawings, starting with parking. The staff report indicates that there are 20 parking spaces, 20 parking spaces is required. However, the site plan, which is the primary plan for the site has 19 spaces. That's plan A 1.01. AND ALSO A 1.21 ALSO SHOWS AN INCORRECT PARKING LAYOUT. SO CAN YOU GET THEM TO REVISE THE PLANS SO THAT THEY'RE ALL CONSISTENT WITH THE 20 SPACES COME LATER? How come some show 19 and some show 20? |
| 02:19:13.16 | Cecilia Jarolowski | No 20 spaces are required and they will have 20 spaces. |
| 02:19:17.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, but shouldn't all the drawings show 20, though? and they correct all the drugs? |
| 02:19:23.40 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Yeah, we can do that. |
| 02:19:24.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And As talked about at length on 52 Varta landing, the zoning ordinance does not allow for gravel parking lots. Sheet C100 indicates cross aggregate permeable pavement per B slash C401. I don't know what that is, but then sheet L1.01 indicates that the parking is gravel. And we were very clear on 52 Varta landing that we wouldn't allow that. So why are they showing gravel here? |
| 02:20:00.47 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Commissioner Luxenberg, the applicant will definitely modify the landscape plan. We did talk about it before the hearing. So they're fully aware of what the commission would like to see on 52 Varta landing, and they're going to do the same with this project. |
| 02:20:14.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so that would be good. And then Thank you. If you can bring up the first rendering you show, |
| 02:20:41.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That one, yes. Could you zoom in on the one on the right? a little bit. |
| 02:20:48.20 | Cecilia Jarolowski | I'm sorry, say again, commissioner? |
| 02:20:49.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you zoom in a little bit on the one on the right? |
| 02:20:53.23 | Cecilia Jarolowski | No, I don't think I can. |
| 02:20:54.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so if you were your point of cursor was a second ago, on the right edge of the building, right about there, a little bit off, there's a wall, which I'm real confused about because there's a parking space that 20th space occurs under the overhead. And there's this big wall there. So I don't understand. Do you know what that wall is? |
| 02:21:18.15 | Cecilia Jarolowski | This is an artist rendering, so I would defer to the applicant to explain the rendering itself. |
| 02:21:24.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, because I don't understand how that wall can be there in the parking space that we're talking about. Just a correction for your staff report. You refer on page nine to an IH zone. I'm not sure you mean the I zone. I don't know what IH is. |
| 02:21:40.83 | Cecilia Jarolowski | It probably was a typo. It's industrial marine ship. So it should be I-M. |
| 02:21:45.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I am, okay. I didn't know what the H was for. And then similar to Commissioner Saad's comments, the way I read the Sausalito Sea Level Rise Task Force response was only for 52 VARTA landing. It was not for this project. And also it says that they needed to do a five step plan. And I assume they would use the five step plan for this as well. Do you know if they |
| 02:21:48.98 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Michael. |
| 02:22:12.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | prepared the five step plan. |
| 02:22:14.93 | Cecilia Jarolowski | It's my understanding that they have done a substantial amount of work already. by the sea level rise task force group. but I would defer to them since they have had direct communication with them and I have not. |
| 02:22:29.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And then on the CEQA thing, you did not have a CEQA section in the original. I noted that you have that in the presentation, and I noted an hour before you submitted a new report to us. But if I understand this correctly, this is an industrial site, and the artists go a question for Sergio. decided to commercial buildings, which this can't be because it's industrial, how that would apply. So my question, and maybe it's a question for Sergio, is what is parcel 32 and why is this any different than 70 to 74 Liberty Shipway? I mean, it seems an industrial site. It seems like why is there an exemption for this and not Liberty Shipway? This is my question. Maybe that's Sergio, or can you come up |
| 02:23:40.78 | Sergio Rudin | I'm not going to get into 70 Liberia Way in terms of my response to this, Um, just because I don't have the ISMND for that project in front of me. Um, and trying to pull up the supplemental memo that staff prepared. which I do think actually does explain why the 15303 exemption applies. First of all, with respect to categorical exemptions, typically they apply to what is specified in the categorical exemption, 15303, just like the rest of them, say that those are a non-exclusive list. So a categorical exemption can be applied Um, I, you know, for small structures and small structures in the exemption are defined relatively broadly Um, as long as you are, you know, basically, projects that are similar in kind to those that are listed. in the exemption. So staff are analyzing this as a project that is similar in kind to those that are listed in 15303 C. I'm just going to bring up 15303 as the exemption and just give you guys a sense of this. So 15303 says class three constructs consists of construction of a location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures, installation of small new equipment and facilities and small structures and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only modern minor modifications are made in the exterior structures. The number of the structures described in the section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. So that is key right there. And then it says examples of this exemption include but are not limited to and staff are basically analyzing this exemption under C. or at least akin to C. A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not invite involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. And This goes on to state in urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to for such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zone for such use, if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances were all necessarily. public services and facilities are available in the surrounding areas, not environmentally sensitive. So that's the language of the exception. If that. |
| 02:26:25.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let me ask you this, because I'm relatively new to Sausolio, I've been here for five years, but I read the Marineship Ordinance and at length in the general plan at length, But the way I understand the marine ship specific plan is office use, retail use are no longer allowed, are not allowed to be added. But industrial use is fine, which I believe this is. It's an industrial zone and I have no issue with artists in the industrial zone. But if that's the case, then it's not a commercial building, Am I misunderstanding something? |
| 02:27:07.02 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, you know, I think with respect to Um... First of all, I mean, the project as analyzed does fit into the infill development categorical exemption. So, you know, to the extent that the city doesn't want to rely on 15303, it doesn't have to. But additionally, You know, the definition of what a commercial building is in this particular CEQA exemption Um, you know, It doesn't necessarily track with how we define what a commercial use is in our zoning code. Um, The court cases that have interpreted what a commercial building necessarily is don't necessarily tie to what the land uses are under the zoning code. At the end of the day, you know, an artist studio is likely to be a similar structure. for purposes of invoking this location as any other sort of commercial use. Also, I don't think that, um, If you look at the Marinership specific plan and how it defines what the artist uses that are allowed. You see if I can pull up the Marinship specific plan. um, N R. appendices, we have the definitions of what we consider on industrial use. and what our art use is and what our Um, So applied arts is considered an industrial use under our code and it says the following is a partial list of potential uses that would be consistent with the intent. Architects, building designers, commercial photographers, computer software and hardware designers, graphic design including production, home decorators, industrial designers, interior designers, landscape architects designers. you know, to the extent that this project is gonna end up having those types of uses I would suggest that it is substantially similar to the kind of uses that would occur in a commercial building. And I think key here to the invocation of this exception is that it doesn't involve significant amounts of hazardous substances. I think that is the key. and why staff can feel that they can rely on this particular exception. |
| 02:29:35.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I don't know. This one seems iffy. I wish that we had had more time an hour before this meeting to talk about it to get parcel 32 because I have not had a chance to analyze or understand what that means. But you're saying you feel that the, because I can't see 15303, but you're saying you can see parcel 32 or whatever it's called, part 32. |
| 02:29:59.17 | Sergio Rudin | I think that THAT staff. can rely on the 15303 exception. However, I think that the 15332 exception more clearly applies. And so I definitely think that if the commission is going to approve the project, it should approve it on the basis, you know, invoke a categorical exception. I think it should invoke both of them. |
| 02:30:23.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Obviously. Okay, thank you for that answer to that question that's helpful. The last questions I have. I note on page nine of the conditions you have public work should be 1712 because you repeat a set of numbers in your conditions for some reason. to which computer. |
| 02:30:46.90 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Sorry, Commissioner, would you please repeat that? |
| 02:30:49.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so in the proposed conditions, if we get that far, there's a number 12 for public works, but there's also a number 12, 13 for, I think it's community development. So that should be 17. You're sort of repeating a bunch of numbers. |
| 02:31:09.91 | Unknown | I can correct that. |
| 02:31:09.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can't remember like that. And then can you let me know what the difference between condition 10 and condition 21 is? Condition 10 is more comprehensive, so shouldn't we eliminate condition number 21? |
| 02:31:34.51 | Cecilia Jarolowski | I agree with you commissioner and I defer to the city attorney on whether we should eliminate one of those. |
| 02:31:47.27 | Sergio Rudin | And give me a second just to pull up the conditions of approval. |
| 02:31:55.96 | Sergio Rudin | draft resolution so we're looking at conditions 10 and conditions 21 21 10 was more comprehensively |
| 02:32:03.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:15.99 | Sergio Rudin | and then 21. |
| 02:32:20.58 | Unknown | you |
| 02:32:21.39 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, I think 21 is duplicative and I would suggest removing it. |
| 02:32:25.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. My last comment, Cecilia, in your presentation, you clearly noted on the assessors plan what the project site is in red. You showed where the parcel is in that plan. |
| 02:32:42.78 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Are you referring to the Marinship specific plan map? |
| 02:32:46.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, no, no, I'm referring to the parcel that's involved in this project. |
| 02:32:50.04 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Bye. |
| 02:32:50.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, that you put it nice red and said project site. Can you also update your report and do that because it took a while to try to figure out what was the parcel because you just sort of copied what the parcel map was, but it wasn't clear, but it was very clear in the presentation. |
| 02:32:50.73 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Yeah. |
| 02:33:10.90 | Cecilia Jarolowski | So commissioner, what would you like inserted into the staff report, the assessor's parcel map? |
| 02:33:10.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So commissioner, |
| 02:33:16.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, so you have it in there as attachment to. So you've attached his attachment suit, but unlike what you've done in the presentation where you put a red line around and made it clear, it was not clear in the report. So it took a while to try to figure that out. |
| 02:33:24.16 | Unknown | Bye-bye. |
| 02:33:35.86 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Okay, understood, I can do that. |
| 02:33:37.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Chair Feiler, those are my questions at this time. |
| 02:33:43.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg, I appreciate it. Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:33:49.46 | Richard Graef | Um, No. questions for other than thank you for the presentation, it was very good. Most of my questions and concerns I think would be better served by going directly to the applicant. So no questions for Cecilia. |
| 02:34:15.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 02:34:19.93 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. City Attorney Rudin for the excellent SEQA discussion. I thought those were interesting questions. I never really thought about that. You know, there is no direct connection between local zoning ordinances in the California Environmental Quality Act. They're obviously very close to the ability, |
| 02:34:37.38 | Sebastian Bursz | yet. |
| 02:34:39.80 | Andrew Junius | work together quite a bit. I understand the questions that you were asking, Commissioner Luxembourg, No question in my opinion, opinion that that either of those in both The class two and the class 32 exemptions absolutely apply here. So I'm not at all concerned about that. And I look forward to the presentation from the sponsor. |
| 02:35:02.07 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Um, let's see, uh, Cecilia, I just had a couple. questions for you. First of all, You had mentioned, and the applicant can obviously comment on this in their presentation or afterwards if they'd like to, but that they've built up the site a little bit due to issues regarding subsidence and sea level rise. Is that correct? |
| 02:35:29.44 | Cecilia Jarolowski | No, the site is naturally home. about the approximately six feet above So I'm not quite sure what the question is. I don't believe that they have modified the site. The building will have a higher finished floor elevation due to sea level rise, but I would defer to them on that question. |
| 02:35:54.26 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And with a higher finished floor level, I'm assuming that you have reviewed any kind of accessibility issues. Are there ramps and accessible paths of travel into the building? |
| 02:36:08.07 | Cecilia Jarolowski | but yes, there are. |
| 02:36:09.50 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Good. And then the new transformer, is that just a transformer for this particular project? It doesn't serve additional buildings or projects. |
| 02:36:22.18 | Cecilia Jarolowski | I would also defer to the applicant on that. They've been working directly with PG&E. |
| 02:36:26.95 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, And then just for clarification, I just want to make sure that this is on the record that you have applied the marineship specific plan to this project because it was submitted before the marineship specific plan was incorporated into the general plan update. |
| 02:36:47.98 | Cecilia Jarolowski | But yes, the analysis was working with the Marin ship specific plan and the maps in the presentation are actually from the specific plan. |
| 02:36:57.06 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Thank you. Um, And I guess, yeah, I just want to sort of agree and echo a little bit what some of these other questions were. Regarding the sea level rise or the task force, my understanding is that whatever we received, it was not specific to this project. It was only specific to 52 Varda Landing, which was one of their conditions of approval. |
| 02:37:08.92 | Sebastian Bursz | I'm not sure. |
| 02:37:08.99 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:37:09.00 | Sebastian Bursz | I'm just going to say, |
| 02:37:18.83 | Kristina Feller | that that that work be done with the sea level rise task force, whether or not the task force is looked or spoken to other people that you know regarding other projects that's great. But I'm still not seeing anything related to this particular project unless I'm you think I'm missing something. |
| 02:37:36.63 | Cecilia Jarolowski | It's my understanding that they did review all three projects, but I will defer to them again. |
| 02:37:41.42 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Are they... attending this evening. |
| 02:37:47.43 | Cecilia Jarolowski | The applicants are here as well as their engineers, yes. |
| 02:37:47.56 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay, no, okay. All right, so not the task force, okay. Thank you. |
| 02:37:54.20 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Thank you. |
| 02:37:54.21 | Kristina Feller | And I just, again, just for clarification, it sounds like what has been submitted. regarding the finishes and regarding um you know both the materials for the building but also the drive are not what is really being proposed this evening. Is that fair to say? Or again, am I... |
| 02:38:16.00 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Yeah. The, the material board was submitted prior to the 52 Varda landing comments that the commission made. So the applicants wanted to be sure that they took all of your comments into consideration and whatever, whatever modifications you'd like to see in terms of painting or coloring and materials, just as with 52 Varda landing road, they're open to taking a look at and modifying. |
| 02:38:45.28 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, |
| 02:38:48.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure, Keller, can I follow up with that? If they knew they were going to change it, why didn't you go back and ask them before we have a public hearing, which then if we can't resolve these or we don't have the right conditions, we're going to have to continue this. Why wouldn't they come in and tell you before our hearing, can we modify our plans based on what we know we're going to be asked from 52 Varta Landing? I'm really confused on that. |
| 02:38:48.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:38:51.89 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:39:12.61 | Cecilia Jarolowski | Well, I think that this was before they were able to work with the task force for 52 Bar to Landing Road So they were probably needing to talk to whoever was going to work with them on that project. Thank you. |
| 02:39:26.50 | Unknown | That didn't change the parking lot. |
| 02:39:26.54 | Cecilia Jarolowski | I don't know. |
| 02:39:26.70 | Kristina Feller | You know, I mean, couldn't you Yeah. I mean, you know, Commissioner Luxenberg brings up a good point. It's the exact follow-up question I was going to ask. I agree. I mean, if, I mean, if you knew that these finishes, I mean, there's been plenty of time between 52 and this, so I'm not exactly sure. I mean, we've been getting comments up until an hour before this actual hearing. perplexed by that. because I don't want to waste an applicant's time, but I certainly don't want to waste the commission's or the public's time either who know we know something is wrong before we walk into the hearing. So let's just remember that for the next time. Um, Okay, I don't think right now I have any additional questions. I want to hear more from from the applicant, but Cecilia, thank you. for the presentation again. Commissioner, just by a show of hands, do you have any follow-up questions before we hear from the applicant or... |
| 02:40:18.17 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner. |
| 02:40:24.25 | Kristina Feller | or not. Okay, let's go ahead and ask the applicant, to go ahead and make their presentation on this project this evening. I'm not sure who is making that presentation. this evening is is that you Mr. Innings are you going to lead the Okay. Zoom team, if we can make sure that Mr. the ability to share his screen, to unmute himself and controls, so let's co-host him. And is there anybody else on your team that you, that we need to do the same? Okay, I'm going to ask you to unmute there. Zoomed. There we go. |
| 02:41:10.01 | Matt Innes | Yes, thank you. So I will be presenting, but Max Hausiger, our client, will be speaking first, as well, Takashi Unai, who's also from EYRC Architects. |
| 02:41:20.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:41:20.49 | Matt Innes | Excellent. |
| 02:41:20.56 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Let's make sure everybody can control their functions. And I think you've been through this before. So you have 15 minutes to make the presentation. Any time you want to save for later, you're welcome to do so. And I hand the floor over to you, Mr. Nins. |
| 02:41:23.08 | Matt Innes | on me. |
| 02:41:44.51 | Max Hausiger | Okay, so I'm gonna start us off like Matt said. Can everyone hear okay? |
| 02:41:49.91 | Kristina Feller | Yes, thank you. |
| 02:41:51.68 | Max Hausiger | So you may know me from a VARTA application. I grew up in Northern Marin and moved to VARTA landing after college just five years ago. My family started before Varda landing, the very first thing we found was 265 Gate 5 Road. which we purchased because we're huge fans of the Marinship. We love the history and the culture. And when we found out about the Marinship specific plan, we became even more interested because we just want to support the arts community. And so we thought that's great that there's a plan that, that there's specific requirements in place to do that. Um, Furthermore, we love Gate 5 Road because it has iconic institutions like Heath and the ICB building and many interesting and also famous projects. practicing artists and makers that are still highly active today. When we got to Gate 5 Road, the lot was written with issues, like various unpermitted, dangerous work that we inherited with the lot, which we fixed to the extent that we could. But most importantly, it flooded very frequently. um, And so we knew that we should make the most out of the space in creative but temporary ways in order to support the arts community as soon as possible. But the facilities still lack in many ways, and we still have floods from time to time. which obviously does not help anyone. Um, And so, yeah, with this proposed new building, we know it's ambitious and that the process to... get it approved and get it built is long and arduous, but we feel like we've spent a lot of time listening to the community's needs, researching, working with the city, and we think it will be a huge improvement to Red Ship Studios, which is what we're calling it. Um, and We also feel like it's consistent with the Marineship specific plan and can set a great example for the community and how to support. community, but also the greater community than than we're in shape. Thank you. |
| 02:43:55.07 | Takashi Unai | I'll go next. I'm Takashi and I'm a partner at UIRC Architects. Um, We've been working with Max and Marcel on this project for about five years. We've been very inspired by Max's vision and Marcel's vision and also learning about the community, which we have been familiar with. We've been working in the Marin area. Our first project maybe is about 15 years ago now. We are big fans of the culture of marineship and we're hoping or we believe that very deliberately by learning about the community and work with Max and Marcel that we are proposing a building that would support the community and also address the very real concern about climate change and sea level rise. So I don't want to take too much more time of our time, but thank you, Chair Feller and other commissioners for your time, and I'll hand it over to Matt. |
| 02:44:59.68 | Kristina Feller | Zoom team, can we please stop the clock and co-host Matt Innes, please? |
| 02:45:05.03 | Kristina Feller | There we go. |
| 02:45:05.47 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:45:08.46 | Matt Innes | Great, sorry, thank you. I was muted there as well. Thank you, Takashi and Max. for the introduction. Um, I know that Cecilia had mentioned it as well, but if there's any chance that we could get more time, I think by the time I talk and our engineer talks about the sea level rise, we may run over the 15 minutes. but I'll just get right into it. Um, Our proposal is 4265 Gate 5 Road. The lot itself is triangular shaped on Gate 5 Road in the Marin ship as Cecilia already covered. As many of you already know, The site history is that it was initially a large tidal flat that was then filled in for the Mirage Ship Shipbuilding during World War II. |
| 02:45:51.91 | Sebastian Bursz | thing. |
| 02:45:54.09 | Matt Innes | And then after it was vacated by the Navy, artists and creatives moved in And it really defines, you know, what makes us leader special and what makes this site special and is really our intent to support and further that community. Looking at the existing site, there is one leftover building from the Marinship era. This small one-story warehouse which has been remodeled and subdivided throughout the years. It is now used by artists in Marinship Studios. The site currently hosts 20 artists. through that warehouse and through the shipping containers at each edge of the site. You can see that warehouse and the shipping containers here. The site currently is mostly flat, pretty much entirely gravel and used for both parking and outdoor workspace for the artists. Looking at the art studio building here, you see that existing leftover warehouse that's been kind of remodeled and shopped up through the years. Here's the other view of it. Here are the shipping containers and outdoor space that our client has improved since purchasing the land. And then here's a quick, THE STREET FACADE AS COLOMA HITS 265 GATE 5 ROAD. You can know that there's no sidewalk on maybe six or seven foot fence surrounding the property. One major characteristic of the property is that it floods often in both king tides and in severe weather. And that's only going to continue. And it's something that we really care about addressing We are inspired by the architecture of the Marin ship, which is characterized by these leftover warehouse buildings from the Marin ship era. We love this kind of industrial metal and wood aesthetic and how it's been taken over by artists and it's something we want to continue. We've also looked at surrounding buildings on site and how they've kind of taken that existing warehouse aesthetic and blended it into something more modern. In terms of our motivations, You know, a big move here is that we're really trying to create a community that can ride out the storm. That community being the Marin Ship Studios and wider Sausalito artist community. And that storm being climate change and wanting to address see little rise before it's too late and save these studios and provide a building that can survive in the future. We're embracing flood water coming out of the site and with a number of landscape and simple strategies, we're guiding that water naturally back into the bay. We're embracing materials. that are present already in the marine ship, you know, the steel, metal and wood kind of warehouse aesthetic We're creating spaces that utilize the unique sites, views, and indoor-outdoor climate. And we're really trying to think ahead in terms of climate change So again we're proposing to remove this warehouse insight, including the shipping containers and stuff over the shipping containers and decking over the existing culvert which runs into the bay. And we are proposing to replace it with a two-story art studio building that mimics the existing parking lot and an open culvert And to clarify earlier, we are showing 20 spaces in the site plan. One space is just slightly obscured by the overhang of the second story. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but we are proposing 20 spaces. And we're also proposing a 24 foot wide driveway, which you can see here. You can see here, so I apologize for being dim, but a light dash of where that second story overhang runs. So you can see that obscuring that bottom parking space. which is not obstructed by any walls. It's a full handicap parking space. So looking at the ground floor we have. cluster of art studio buildings shown here in blue. an art studio slash exhibition space here at the front. Some service spaces in yellow and red, including a large freight elevator. And those individual spaces kind of create and border and define this outdoor space that is both covered and uncovered and will be a work and gathering space for artists. In the spirit of providing space for these artists, we're also providing large doors, whether they be barn type doors, garage style roll up doors or full height double or single doors to allow art and larger pieces to move in and out of the space as well as some kind of freight and docking areas for pallet jacks, forklifts and getting these pieces on and We will be hosting large format artists, including some of our existing artists like Jay Nelson, who does build artisan ships and boats currently. Looking at the second floor, those kind of cluster of smaller buildings are topped by this one continuous bar The idea of that bar is that we're creating this one large space within one roof. And the idea is that that larger space can then be subdivided to fit different artists' needs in terms of space. and even different artists' abilities in terms of financial support. The hope is that by having this big flexible space, it gives us the most room to provide a home for the most artists possible. Those artists will again be served by this outdoor roof deck. which will also have great use of the Bay. There's also a smaller art studio here on the second floor. which connects to another roof deck This whole secondary or second floor is served by this free elevator. And we're again providing large doors to move in and out In terms of the roof plan, you can just see here that we're providing skylights that serve that flexible space below and allow for it to be subdivided and still have natural light. We're also providing a lot of space for solar panel arrays. in terms of material, We have, as Cecilia mentioned, updated the tone of the charred wood that we're suggesting, which will cover most of the lower volumes. I apologize that that was not shared earlier. We have not had a chance to meet with individual commissioners to discuss that, but we will be meeting on Friday and hope to have a decisive decisions soon. But that shardwood, as we explained last time, is not only meant to give it kind of a unique character, but it also naturally provides a protective layer for the wood. We're also providing that the upper level of this building be clad entirely in this perforated corrugated metal. And the idea is that that both speaks to the corrugated metal of the warehouses, but also allows for light and air. to move into our windows and to allow the building to kind of dematerialize and minimize the impact of this building size. You can see here in terms of elevation, that perforation and openness and transparency is really evident. We're providing natural light for the interior spaces. We're allowing light for these covered exterior spaces. And we're really minimizing the impact of this building. Um, You can also see that our average grade is at 7.8. Um, To slightly clarify on what Cecilia had mentioned earlier, our average grade height is more like seven or eight. It's not six. Um, and to meet FEMA requirements, our level one floor will be at 11 feet. Both the level one floor and the exterior deck down here at level one. And that is a FEMA requirement to stay above the floodplain You can see at three foot six above that level one, we have this kind of continuous datum that runs across the building. And the idea with that, Is that this lower 3 foot 6 from level one up to this windowsill. will preemptively be built in a way that it is waterproof and impermeable and submersible. And the idea is that years down the line, as sea level rise occurs and the 11 foot height is no longer high enough, that we can actually raise the level one building floor level three foot six up to the base of that window sill. Um, thus, avoiding the floodwaters and still providing an eight foot six lower level that would still be usable to artists and people in the future. In terms of sea level rise, just to clarify, we have met with the sea level rise task force. We did discuss all three proposals. The civil override task force communicated their you know, verbal approval, but we have not shared our drawing set for 265 Gate 5 Road yet. And we have not yet provided the five point system that they asked for. But Sebastian Burtz and Jimmy Galvez will be presenting after me from our civil engineering team. And they will be talking about our proposal, including those five points, which we have ready to share with the Sea Lower Rise Task Force. In terms of landscaping again we're taking into consideration what we were told that 52 part of landing road. I apologize that it was not shared earlier, but we are providing similar paving strategies with this checker block paver solution in the driving area. UM, the delta grid with grass in some of the more like paved walk areas, A new sidewalk along Gate 5 Road that connects with our parking lot and handicap spaces. large paper ducking area. And then also these rain gardens, similar to 52 Barter Landing Road, which strategically gather water and filter it back to the bay. In terms of landscaping, we're looking at a number of native grasses and hedges. which will be in this green area. and then more flood friendly and seawater friendly planting in these blue rain garden areas. Also providing a number of boxed trees in these movable planter boxes. And the idea with those is that they're more flexible for artists needs if we need to move anything to get art in and out. Some quick renderings looking down As you can see, we're respecting that Columbus Street View Corridor, which is the width of the right-of-way of this Columbus Street And you can see the building beyond. As we move closer, you can see this large art metal bar of the upper level kind of floating over those smaller bars of art studios at the base. I'm looking down to six are looking down to five road, you can see how the height of our building kind of being into check out with other existing building heights. Again, we are 32 feet above the average grade, which is within our allowance per the municipal code. I missed you. |
| 02:57:07.92 | Kristina Feller | We are past the 15 minute mark. So can you want to just finish up your slides here and then we'll go into commissioner questions. |
| 02:57:18.05 | Matt Innes | Yes, sorry, really quick. We have again kind of putting our building in the greater context. And that transformer in the front view. Looking down Varda Landing Road, there are two existing buildings within the Clipper Yacht Harbor parcel that our client currently leases for Artispace. and will continue to be used by artists. I'm looking from the parking lot. You can again see that the parking runs slightly under that overhang. This would be that 20th spot questioning earlier. We're also providing space for forklifts to move in and out from the parking lot to bring art in. And then this kind of shared outdoor space for artists is flanked by these art studios. which have these large doors to move our in and out. And the idea is that this building is permeable and open to both light and air and also our amazing sight and the views on it. So that concludes my presentation. If you're willing to let us have a couple more minutes, we have a presentation from our civil engineers on sea level rise. |
| 02:58:27.94 | Kristina Feller | I think we'll get to that in our Q&A. We strive hard to be fair to every applicant in front of us. So if we can maybe start with some questions here, because I know that question is going to come up anyway, and we can get into some of the detail. That would be great. Let's see. Commissioner Saad, would you like to start us off? |
| 02:58:51.06 | Nastassya Saad | Um, |
| 02:58:51.53 | Kristina Feller | questions of the application. |
| 02:58:52.43 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Yep. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Thank you to the team for the presentation. Actually, if we can just start with the sea level rise, would love to hear. um, how that's being addressed, where you are on that five point plan and Um, any discussion specific to This location, not on 52 VARDA, but if anything you guys can tell us in terms of your sea level rise conversation |
| 02:59:26.94 | Matt Innes | Yeah, if it would be possible to have Sebastian Bursch be able to talk and share screen, I think he would be best suited to respond |
| 02:59:37.96 | Kristina Feller | Zoom team, can you co-host Sebastian, please? And let's, While you're doing that, let's hear what is the update with the conversation and where are you with the five step program as Commissioner Saad was asking. |
| 02:59:55.83 | Matt Innes | you So we we met with the Sea Global Rise Task Force and walked all three sites. We talked about the strategy for all three sites. We recently received the like essentially an update verbalizing that they approve a bar proposal and that we've modeled in more depth than they can model. but that they would like to see all of our research kind of parcel down into this five-point response. And so we have that response. ready for 52 of our landings. We also have it ready for 265 Gate 5 Road. And I think Sebastian was going to present that. |
| 03:00:39.28 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, and just as a quick side note, forgive my my introduction here, but we are only talking about 265 gate five. We are not talking about any other project this evening. |
| 03:00:54.07 | Sebastian Bursz | Yes. Good evening. Can can everybody hear me and see the slide? |
| 03:01:02.17 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, if you can just give us a quick update on this, that would be great. |
| 03:01:05.96 | Sebastian Bursz | Great. Yeah, thank you for the extra time. So, We've 265 Gate 5 was designed originally with the similar methodology that we use for other regional projects. for your time with that. You've already seen that approach. So I'll just jump forward to The request we had to format our strategy into the five step process from the sea level task force. Overall, it uses the same state guidance, OPC 2018. It uses the, they recommend we use the same high emissions scenario that we had already been using and agreed with the overall assessment of the OPC 2018 guidance says to use the 66% chance likely predictions for projects like this that are adaptable and don't have significant infrastructure human safety risks. So to go into the findings in their format, They first... We specify the high emission scenario and that we're using the likely SLR predictions. We then specify the project lifespan. Um, For the buildings that is set at the aspirational 100 year mark. We're shooting for 2120 that this development, that the buildings are pre adapted. for the sea level conditions we might experience in 2120. Those range on the low end of 2.2 feet to the high end of 4.1 feet of additional sea level rise. The task force process also requests clarification of estimated subsidence And the source of that, we There is no guidance from the task force for parcel-specific subsidence because it is very parcel-specific, primarily driven by the depth of bay mud under the site. And. The county sea level rise planner also does not have specifics. So we were able to utilize the site-specific geotechnical report, not only evaluated the settlement of kind of near surface fill conditions, but also looked at the deeper bay mud conditions specific to this site. that report based on the, The rather shallow depth of Bay Mudd at the site predicted two to four inches of settlement, We're utilizing that upper range, that four-inch settlement. The task force then asks you to take those SLR ranges, and the subsidence to create a relative water level during the design storm. which in this case matching FEMA standard is the 100-year storm. What that does is create our relative water levels, which is How high will that flood level be considering the four inches of subsidence? or currently, with no subsidence in 2022 at 9.63 feet during that 100-year storm. And looking at our project horizon, out at 2120, the low end of sea level prediction, with subsidence would have the water level at 12.16 feet. If you look at the high range of 2120, it's up at 15.06. And for reference, I also put in there the 2110. That's the 90 year. the high range of the 90 year prediction, 13.46. What that looks like on the project. is starting from the bottom, we have our average grade, Here in red are our flood levels. We have the current flood, 100-year, 9.63. We have the current flood, 100-year, 9.63. the current in black level finished floor elevation of 11 feet. You'll see above that, we start seeing flood impacts. The lower range of 2120, our 100-year target, is 12.16. which is above the existing level but well below the maximum level that that finished floor can be easily raised to. Next up, we'd have the upper range of the 90 year prediction. 13.46 feet. The task force requests a clarification of what free board you would provide, what minimum distance between the floor and that water level. And so in this case, with the FEMA standard one-foot free board, we are at our maximum level of the finished floor, which is 14.5 feet. We have over one foot of freeboard all the way out, even to the highest expected water level in 2110. So 90 years out, we still have our freeboard. You'll see that one red line, that's still our upper range 2120 is above that finished floor level. So in the upper range of the 100 year prediction of sea level rise, we do exceed the maximum level that this building is pre-adapted to. So in summary, with the extended foundation, the ability to raise that first floor. The building's pre adapted to uh, to 14 and a half feet that leaves, will leave one foot of free board to the highest range of SLR predictions in 2110, 90 years, or to at least the low range of sea level in 2120. So we meeting that 90 to 100 year goal for pre adapted building. And, Thank you. Happy to explain more, go into the methodologies. Thank you for the extra time. |
| 03:07:07.25 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Commissioner Saad, this was your question. Do you have any additional follow-up to sea level rise or any other questions of the applicants? |
| 03:07:15.95 | Nastassya Saad | Not to belabor this, it was a helpful presentation, but just so I understand where you are in the process, can you just re-clarify? So that is going to be or has been presented back to the sea level Right. task force and then there'll be one more discussion. Can you just clarify where. |
| 03:07:36.28 | Matt Innes | We need to share that information with the Sea Blover Rise Task Force, and they will review it at their next meeting. |
| 03:07:43.01 | Sebastian Bursz | Thank you. |
| 03:07:43.03 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:07:43.64 | Sebastian Bursz | Thank you. |
| 03:07:43.67 | Nastassya Saad | The memo is probably... |
| 03:07:43.96 | Sebastian Bursz | Bye. |
| 03:07:44.01 | Matt Innes | Bye. |
| 03:07:44.16 | Sebastian Bursz | as well. Thank you. |
| 03:07:44.47 | Nastassya Saad | Right. |
| 03:07:44.53 | Sebastian Bursz | I'm scared. |
| 03:07:45.49 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. And there won't be any changes to what you submit to them based on what we saw this evening. Will it be the same presentation? |
| 03:07:54.30 | Sebastian Bursz | Yes, the memo is completed. Nothing I've seen in this. uh, presentation or any data requests would change the those values. |
| 03:08:04.70 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, great. This is a general note just back to staff since the applicant has also clarified in their presentation for for design review permit finding 10 on page six of the resolution will need to make the change that the ingress and egress that proposed driveway is the 24 feet, not the not the 20 feet, three inches that's in the staff report, excuse me, resolution. So that's just a note. And Can you explain, I just want to make sure I'm understanding the design as well. I think it said multiple areas within the staff report as it was going through each building that there were no connection. No interior connection between the first and second levels. Can someone just explain the design concept there? I don't think I'm following because it sounds like there's that connecting, connector above. for the rest of the buildings, but why is it, Is it a space issue? Why are we not connecting the first and the second floors? I just want to make sure I'm understanding all the design intentions. |
| 03:09:22.44 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 03:09:22.64 | Matt Innes | Yeah. That is correct that they're not connected. I think in the, I guess, interest of the spaces being as open as possible and giving as much of our confined site to studio space as opposed to circulation space. We've left it all exterior connected. |
| 03:09:48.01 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you. That's helpful as well. And I think that's all the questions I had at the moment, Chair Feller, thank you. |
| 03:09:59.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. Commissioner Graff. |
| 03:10:02.77 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Chair Fowler. Excuse me. I have. Several questions to clarify. some of these might be kind of silly, What is... outdoor toconium or toconoma. or whatever that is. That was... Not clear to me what that is. I've never heard that word before. |
| 03:10:27.12 | Matt Innes | Yeah, I'm going to do a bad job explaining tokenoma, but a tokenoma is a Japanese concept where it's a space near an entry that gets kind of decorated at different seasons and switched out. And so the idea with that outdoor tokenoma space is that it's just a space. a nice green space by the entry of our building. that maybe. |
| 03:10:53.68 | Richard Graef | It's imagined to be a planted in some way or some Maybe various ways, yeah? |
| 03:11:03.44 | Matt Innes | Yeah, then it'd be a planted area that kind of announces the entry and might be Twitch season later. |
| 03:11:06.97 | Richard Graef | I know. Life changes. You might change the plantings. Yeah, okay, got that. Um, I was looking at the plans and you've got the large exhibit space. And I noticed that it's pretty much surrounded by windows unless I'm not reading the drawings correctly, Seems to me that an exhibit space mostly would suffer from daylight. And usually you want an exhibit space uh, Well, at least you and all those perimeter walls, if they're all glazed, I'm just wondering what the, how useful that is because you know, displaying art and artifacts and things like that, you usually want a light controlled space. So I'm wondering about the use of windows for the exhibit space. Um, Mm-hmm. Let's see. Um, Yeah, and you... call out an area called the Dining Hall. And I'm sort of wondering as I mean, there's a generous sort of indoor outdoor space kind of. in the middle of the project. And, Um, I don't know, I just saw a dining hall and wondering if that's really what what the intent is there. |
| 03:12:51.84 | Matt Innes | Yes, so to respond to the the exhibition space, I think the intent is to have that piece, which is kind of the most prominent lower part of our project, be an area that could kind of be seen by the public or passerbys and communicate the use of this building that it is this active art builder space. So I think that's the hope with making it more open to that corner and glaze. And that the actual exhibition or presentation or art showing there would be more on interior partitions or movable pieces to display the art as opposed to the exterior walls of that space. And then I guess the exterior space would be better defined as a communal space as opposed to a dining hall. I think the intent is that can use this outdoor space, which is both covered and open air in a flexible manner. It could be a lot of people to build something, to move something, to gather for small events, to eat lunch and collaborate with other artists. It's kind of a flexible space that's meant to serve many uses. |
| 03:14:14.12 | Richard Graef | Okay. And then on the On the second floor, there's a, Um, I get the north and south all mixed up here. Um, I think it's on the west end. Um, There's a deck that seems to be accessed only through one of the spaces and it's called sort of an exhibit slash storage space and there's the freight elevator there but the only access that i see to that deck is through that space. or is that space intended to be more of a kind of a circulation space or How does that work? |
| 03:15:00.06 | Matt Innes | So the space that's at the far northwest corner, kind of where Gate 5 Road meets Varda Landing Road, That outdoor deck space is, yes, it's only accessed from that art studio slash storage space. and would kind of belong to that art studio storage space. There's the deck that comes I guess then there's a deck that is accessed from the elevator, from the stair, and from both of the upper level spaces. That's accessed by everyone. And then the large art studio space to the southeast of the second floor then has its own art studio deck that does provide a stair access down to the lower level. Oh, yeah. But you're correct in that the far Northwest outdoor areas only access through that art studio space. |
| 03:15:57.23 | Richard Graef | seems kind of exclusive, it's a big debt One studio, one space. Um, Okay. Let's see. Bear with me for a minute here. Thank you. The spaces on the second floor you were describing as you would be able to partition them with walls as required, you've shown a bunch of rather regular walls showing a bunch of sort of regular spaces, but, um, I'm glad to hear that that's not what your real intent is, if I'm hearing you correctly. But does that have a ceiling? |
| 03:16:41.43 | Matt Innes | Thank you. I mean, what |
| 03:16:42.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:16:42.73 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:16:43.03 | Richard Graef | What's the ceiling? |
| 03:16:44.14 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:16:45.19 | Matt Innes | So the ceiling, we're looking at using Um, essentially like a trust ceiling with concrete deck above. And so we're looking at right now the trusses creating coming down to a 10 foot six ceiling height. And so the idea is that those walls would be less than full height. maybe eight or eight or nine six. And so that that way they're not really attached or confined by the ceiling height. or the trust location. So the intent, like we've drawn that kind of regular layout, but the intent is that it could be very flexible |
| 03:17:24.27 | Richard Graef | Yeah, but you don't have... In other words, if you're a noisy artist, your noise is going right over your partition artists. Is that correct? |
| 03:17:36.56 | Matt Innes | at Yes, I think if it became an issue, we could look into building like a drop ceiling to seal it off. Uh-huh. |
| 03:17:45.16 | Richard Graef | I'm just curious. I mean, it's interesting because for years, I was in the industrial center building for many, many years. And our first years there, we made a lot of noise. we were on the third floor and the walls went up to 12 feet and all the noise and all the dust and everything went all over the place. And some people didn't like that. Um, We were the noisy ones, I have to say. Um, machinery and spray booths and compressors and all that. But artists can get to be pretty noisy people. And so it just seems to me that the design ought to be able to accommodate a little bit more isolation. for um, or certain artists. That's a comment that answered my question. |
| 03:18:42.64 | Richard Graef | Well, I don't know who this question is really for, Um, This is a grand idea. And I'm just wondering, you know, about about the affordability and and whether Um, the artists are really gonna be able to afford these kinds of spaces. This is an expensive building and, an exclusive setup. And I'm just wondering, you know, how affordable that might be. And And so that's one of my big questions about about the concept. And so I don't know if you're Can't answer that now. later. But I have to put it out there. |
| 03:19:32.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:32.74 | Richard Graef | And that's for my questions for now. |
| 03:19:32.76 | Unknown | No. |
| 03:19:32.98 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 03:19:33.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:33.03 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:19:37.81 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:19:37.82 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you, Commissioner Graff. Thank you for that. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 03:19:43.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair Feller. Matt, if you could bring up the floor plan on the second floor. Yes. |
| 03:19:53.84 | Unknown | one second. |
| 03:19:59.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So I want to understand this. So if somebody is in a wheelchair, they go up in the elevator, they have to go outside and then go inside to get to artist studios one through 10. |
| 03:20:16.19 | Matt Innes | Yes, that's correct. |
| 03:20:17.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Does that comply with codes and whatever? |
| 03:20:21.85 | Matt Innes | Um, To our understanding, it does. |
| 03:20:25.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Can you walk me through a layman's understanding? Well, not a layman's understanding, but can you go back over this? The current elevations are seven or eight feet or so, and the sea level rise goes to 12 to 15 feet. So when this building is first built, |
| 03:20:38.60 | Unknown | uh, |
| 03:20:52.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the level of the floor on the first floor of the four buildings as well. |
| 03:20:58.25 | Matt Innes | It is 11 feet. |
| 03:21:00.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It is 11 feet. And then sea level rise happens and the floor flows and the ceiling gets lower, explain this in layman's terms. |
| 03:21:13.50 | Matt Innes | No, yes, of course. So this in quick section is the building before sea low rise occurs. This is on day one, the level one, floor height would be set at 11 feet, which meets the FEMA flood requirement. Goodbye. |
| 03:21:28.52 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:21:30.46 | Matt Innes | The preemptive strategy for down the line sea level rise is that this lower window sill data, which runs across the whole level one building design, would be built so that it can be essentially fully waterproofed and submersible. And the idea is that this building is much too large to float as you know, proposals. But Here, instead of floating, we're proposing that we could then raise the level one floor from 11 feet. up to 14 foot six. Up three foot six. because of those submersible impermeable walls and still provide an eight foot six lower level floor. So the lower floor to ceiling height, sorry. And so the building stays in place. Nothing floats, nothing moves. We just raise the finished floor height of the lower level. |
| 03:22:29.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the ceiling gets shorter, like I just said. |
| 03:22:32.34 | Matt Innes | Yes, the ceiling height would shrink because that floor height is being raised. |
| 03:22:35.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. And then on the outside, your handicap wraps and all of that stuff, go to 11 feet. So how do you get them up three and a half feet? |
| 03:22:46.33 | Matt Innes | we would have to redesign or rebuild the handicap ramps in the event of significant sea level rise. |
| 03:22:54.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. Okay. So now I understand better now. So can you go back? Do you have the rendering that was on the first sheet so you can explain this wall to me, whether that's just a mistake? Yeah. So... Behind up on your cursor, that wall. |
| 03:23:11.19 | Matt Innes | Yeah. So. |
| 03:23:16.96 | Matt Innes | Yeah, so this is an entry fence. |
| 03:23:20.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, not that. The wall behind it. |
| 03:23:20.64 | Matt Innes | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:23:22.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:23:22.99 | Matt Innes | Okay, and then if I go to a different rendering, I'm not necessarily sure what wall you're referring to. |
| 03:23:31.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, can you go back, just go back to the one you were at, and I can make it clear. So move your cursor up slightly. Well, over to the right a little bit. What is that? |
| 03:23:42.54 | Matt Innes | So this is the building beyond. So this charred wood portion here Okay, is this charred wood portion here. |
| 03:23:48.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Good. |
| 03:23:52.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. It just seems the angle seems off and it looked a little bit like what you had at 60 bar or 52 bar to land and you had like an entry wall with flats. So that's what it looks like. But you're saying that's just, there are different planes is what you're saying. |
| 03:24:06.03 | Matt Innes | That's what it looks like. |
| 03:24:11.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:24:11.09 | Matt Innes | Yes, yes. |
| 03:24:11.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I got it. I got it. You don't have to belabor that. But to my comments about you have a bunch of sheets that are the parking is wrong. So you will update all of your on two issues. One, you have 19 parking spaces on at least three sheets in your set. |
| 03:24:31.77 | Matt Innes | I'd be happy to add additional notes to them, but just to clarify, I think the issue may just be that you're not seeing the parking spot under the volume of this. |
| 03:24:42.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, no, I understand that fully. So what I'm telling you is three of your sheets in the set that is posted online have 19 parking spaces. |
| 03:24:45.23 | Matt Innes | Bye. |
| 03:24:53.98 | Matt Innes | Okay. |
| 03:24:54.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. They're numbered one through whatever. So, and it's a different configuration. It's not, you didn't do the parking. |
| 03:25:07.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:25:07.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you bring up the set you submitted? |
| 03:25:10.07 | Matt Innes | Yeah. |
| 03:25:11.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. OK, that looks sort of like it. So according to, let's see, A101. |
| 03:25:29.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're saying that has 19 spaces. You're saying there's one under the overhang? Is that the issue? |
| 03:25:36.33 | Matt Innes | Yeah, and I'm sorry if that wasn't clear enough in this drawing, but there is a 20th right here. |
| 03:25:39.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | drawing. THE 20TH RIGHT THERE. IT'S JUST YOU CAN'T SEE IT BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. I GET IT. THAT'S FINE. AND THEN THE COMMENT ABOUT GRAVEL. YOU HAVE GRAVEL PARKING ON SHEETS. LET'S SEE. |
| 03:26:04.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to |
| 03:26:05.59 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 03:26:10.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | L1.01. |
| 03:26:16.07 | Matt Innes | Mm-hmm. Um, yes, that that is correct. And I apologize that we did not submit a revised set after our discussion of previous or other proposals. This this proposal was set. The proposal that we're discussing today essentially was set almost a year ago |
| 03:26:29.49 | Sebastian Bursz | Okay. |
| 03:26:36.47 | Matt Innes | October of 2021. And so, We totally hear the, you know, requests on our other proposals and are fully on board with switching away from gravel and going with this checker block paver. So there's this project. |
| 03:26:56.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So there's a project is approved. The set that you submitted would be the set that gets attached. And so what I want to make sure of is you can go in and correct all the plans so that there isn't any confusion down the road that the set of plans that's going to get attached doesn't say gravel. It says this checker block papers is what I'm asking about. Great. |
| 03:27:20.36 | Matt Innes | Yeah, we would be very happy to do that. |
| 03:27:21.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Okay, and then on this sea level rise, you're going to submit this five-step plan. If they come back with something that changes your design, I like to avoid having to get changes to or improve projects. So when do you think you're going to have that information from the sea level wise task force? So that if they ask for something that changes your design, whether it's ramps or land Thank you. from the C-Level-WISE task force. So that if they ask for something that changes your design, whether it's ramps or landscape, when do you think you're going to hear back from them from the conversations you've had? |
| 03:28:01.15 | Matt Innes | I actually don't have the date of their next hearing, but we're ready to submit those five points tomorrow. And so we'd be on the, yeah, as quick as possible to get them. |
| 03:28:15.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Chair, those are the questions I have. Thank you. And thank you, ma'am. |
| 03:28:22.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Luxembourg. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 03:28:25.70 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. Just one follow-up question. the The issue about the raising the floor, I think that's fascinating. And I think I remember the farther landing one where you've got the floating floor. I understand this building's too big for them. When you say raising the floor, does that mean you're just gonna pour a new cement slab on top of the old cement slab? Is that the deal? What do you mean by raise? |
| 03:28:46.73 | Matt Innes | So I think we would utilize the existing foundation and just raise the interior floor through supports. I don't think it'd have to be a new slab. But the idea is that we're preemptively building the lower walls of that lower floor to be waterproof and submersible So we wouldn't have to go back and retrofit that. Thank you. |
| 03:29:06.24 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:29:06.81 | Matt Innes | Like, |
| 03:29:07.20 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:29:07.28 | Matt Innes | Right. |
| 03:29:07.35 | Andrew Junius | I mean, I get the fact that it's all waterproof and retrofittable, but I Is it? I mean, I don't think it really is. It's fascinating. I'm not sure it's a it's a key point here for the entitlement. I'm just interested in the technology and your But it is a, it is a, it's, you've got, but you're basically building like a bathtub there kind of thing where the, you'd have maybe a, a non-cement floor that would be built on top of the cement foundation floor? Is that So, Bill, is that one of the possibilities? |
| 03:29:36.70 | Matt Innes | Thank you. |
| 03:29:36.72 | Andrew Junius | Yes, yeah, it is essentially about them. Got it, okay, I understand. |
| 03:29:43.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Um, And again, you know, thank you guys for the presentation and the discussion. I did have a couple follow-up questions, and I'm just looking at my notes as I do that. Um, When you described how you would raise the interior floor based on, you know, the 100 year marker or what have you. Um, How are you designing the project now where all of your utility hookups or utilities or pumps or anything like that are above that? that height as well. |
| 03:30:21.40 | Matt Innes | I think the intention is that anything on the exterior would need to be at a higher height, at that height. I don't know if Jimmy or, yeah, Jimmy wants to jump in from Sherwood. Yeah, can you guys hear me? |
| 03:30:36.92 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:30:37.16 | Sebastian Bursz | Thank you. |
| 03:30:37.75 | Jimmy Galvez | Yeah, so utilities are going to be installed basically using the basically direct connection to the pipes. we would have to look into flexible connections, right, to be able to extend those services up to the new floor. So that will be part of the process. I also wanted to share as well that in terms of the other mitigations for flood, we're using FEMA recommendations and allowing vents through the bottom part of the floor that would allow water to go through back and forth. And that would also serve as another mitigation element for the building structure. |
| 03:31:26.76 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. And then of course your parking lot would not be, you know, changing elevation, theoretically. But I mean, have you considered anything with, you know, you're daylighting that creek that runs I guess on the southern edge of the property into the bay. So it's basically a culvert there. I mean, is there any concerns about erosion control? Have you looked at that and feel that it's capable of handling your parking, your surface parking lot. |
| 03:31:58.28 | Jimmy Galvez | So to clarify, I think you're referring to the section on the east side, is that the? the plug control channel. Is that what you're referring to? |
| 03:32:09.42 | Kristina Feller | Wherever your culvert is, wherever you're daylighting the culvert of the creek that goes into the bag. |
| 03:32:15.91 | Jimmy Galvez | So that is currently concrete walls. And then what we're doing is actually building a curb that would actually hold the parking lot in place. And so everything is graded away from that channel. |
| 03:32:34.75 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:32:35.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:32:35.27 | Jimmy Galvez | to drain out basically. |
| 03:32:38.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And, you know, I'm curious, have you guys considered with this design, any other type of you know, sustainable, considerations like solar panels or EV charging or anything that can sort of contribute to the longer term goals here in California for lower emissions or, you know, cogeneration of power that way. Uh, and anything like that, um, incorporated in this project? |
| 03:33:14.74 | Matt Innes | Yeah, so I think our aim is to provide solar panels on the roof and we're already planning out space for that. I think we'd also be providing EV chargers and I think really working with our MEP team to strategize on providing an efficient and high performing building with efficient mechanical systems and Um, everything else. |
| 03:33:40.12 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:33:40.39 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:33:40.49 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:33:41.39 | Kristina Feller | And then you |
| 03:33:41.47 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 03:33:41.49 | Matt Innes | And you know, |
| 03:33:41.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chair Fowler, can I ask a question to follow that? Sure. If you put any panels on the roof, do they have to be within the 32 feet? |
| 03:33:44.41 | Matt Innes | Yeah. |
| 03:33:51.39 | Matt Innes | I our intent is that they would are 32 feet right now includes a pair of it. Okay. |
| 03:33:59.04 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you, Chair Powell. |
| 03:34:02.78 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, certainly. You know, Matt, in your presentation, you talked about how this project, you were inspired by the Marin ship. I sort of wrote that down. I'm struggling to see the connection with the design and some of the other buildings that you, the industrial buildings that you were showing. I'm not seeing how any of those any richness of association there with, um, the theme. explain that a little bit and explain sort of the perforated metal panel like the Mercia And what is actually behind it and what Is that sort of a satin finish? Is it gonna be? reflect a lot of light. I mean, I'm just really... not it's not clicking with me. I want to know more. |
| 03:34:55.99 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:34:56.28 | Matt Innes | Thank you. Yeah, so I think we are taking direct inspiration from these warehouse structures, many of which are clad in corrugated metal, many of which are straightforward rectilinear geometries. And we're taking that to inspire that upper level with that corrugated metal. The perforation is to kind of lessen the impact of that. shape and piece up in the air. And the idea is that that corrugated perforated metal is essentially a building scan or rain screen. So there's normal you know, wall construction behind it, The windows that are behind the perforated metal would sit just directly behind it and look out through that screen. And the lower level pieces that support that second metal bar I think are also taking inspiration from other warehouses and surrounding homes and houseboats that are clad in this kind of weathered wood. And so I think we're in materiality speaking directly to those warehouses and the kind of greater context of the Marin ship. |
| 03:36:13.43 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And this is admittedly a slightly loaded question, so bear with me if you will. But you mentioned that this set of drawings was issued a year ago. And is that for us to believe there have been no amendments or changes or anything in a year. |
| 03:36:37.39 | Matt Innes | The only changes that we have made are in response to the items we discussed at 52 Varda Landing. the gravel to I guess the change of the gravel to grass pavers and then also the change of the charred wood to a lighter warmer tone. |
| 03:37:02.25 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:37:02.47 | Matt Innes | Every other building item has stayed in place since that, I think it's October 25th. 2022 or 2021 submission. |
| 03:37:13.07 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, okay. Those are all the questions I have for now. Unless there are any other follow-up questions for the applicant from the commissioners. I just by a show of hands. Oh, okay. I see too. Oh yes. Commissioner Saad, you had your hand up and then commissioner Graff. |
| 03:37:31.46 | Nastassya Saad | I just had one more question I was going through. the resolution again, and there is a Under number six, it talks about the landscaping And there seemed to be quite a heavy a load of plants to be installed. And it says two rain gardens, Um, 478 plants, all drought tolerant. I believe eight trees. Could you just speak to... the effort to maintain those and you know, is Is there recycled water or how are those rain gardens going to function as well just be conscientious of current. conditions. |
| 03:38:15.49 | Matt Innes | Mm-hmm. So I think the intent with all the landscaping is that there would be no permanent irrigation and they won't require any irrigation once established. I THINK THAT GOES AS WELL FOR THE TREES. THESE ARE NOT MEANT TO TAKE WATER OR REQUIRE WATER. I don't believe we're currently thinking we're not currently thinking of harvesting rainwater for irrigation because the plants aren't intended to require irrigation. |
| 03:38:48.66 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. So no irrigation plan? Do you know the... how, They're set up. to set up the drought tolerant plants how long it would take them before they would no longer need support of I mean, is it going to be like a mulch? Like what if you could just get into a little bit of the detail on the landscaping that would be, |
| 03:39:15.29 | Matt Innes | Yeah, if it would be helpful, we could even... like as a potential condition of approval or something, get our landscaper to more eloquently write it out with a better explanation. But I think that typically they require a year of irrigation and that irrigation would probably only be provided during dry months. |
| 03:39:37.25 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, manually meant to be manually completed. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Thank you, Chair Feller. |
| 03:39:43.46 | Kristina Feller | Sure, thank you. Commissioner Graff you had a follow up question. |
| 03:39:46.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:39:46.81 | Richard Graef | Yeah, just to clarify a couple of things. Um, On the second floor in the elevations, there are some dotted rectangles that appear to have little glass symbols. That's glazing, correct? |
| 03:40:03.54 | Matt Innes | Yes. |
| 03:40:04.09 | Richard Graef | So How does that, work. There's your screen. right, your corrugated screen. Which, what is that metal by the way? |
| 03:40:16.43 | Matt Innes | I believe it would be corrugated steel. |
| 03:40:19.00 | Richard Graef | still. Yeah, we're all. |
| 03:40:21.27 | Matt Innes | Yeah. I believe so. |
| 03:40:23.91 | Richard Graef | Okay. I had never seen that. before, but. Sure, it can be done. So, So you've got the screen. And then what, a space? and then a wall How does that work? get it. |
| 03:40:42.11 | Matt Innes | Yeah, exactly. |
| 03:40:42.52 | Richard Graef | A wall has windows. |
| 03:40:45.00 | Matt Innes | Yeah, there's the perforated corrugated metal, a small gap an inch or two, and then the wall assembly. And that wall assembly is pretty typical, you know, with the window in it. and that perforation allows for views and light to enter, but also provides some sort of shading and protection and privacy Oh. |
| 03:41:10.67 | Richard Graef | Okay. |
| 03:41:12.24 | Matt Innes | Yeah. |
| 03:41:12.34 | Richard Graef | Perfect. |
| 03:41:13.37 | Matt Innes | And the intent is that the windows would also be operable, but open in to allow some natural ventilation. |
| 03:41:20.76 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Oh, good. So back to the bathtubs. Um, So the I guess it's like three, main lower buildings. are all bathtubs. And as the water, the sea level rises, and you can raise the floor level in the bathtubs So you would also have to be, correct me if I'm wrong, raising the whole entire Plaza with it. Correct? |
| 03:41:53.65 | Matt Innes | You would, yes, correct. |
| 03:41:55.66 | Richard Graef | And that's like a paved solid surface, but you'd have to like, frame it up and raise it. somehow. |
| 03:42:03.49 | Matt Innes | Yeah, so much in the way that the interior floor would be raised, it's just a pedestal system. Like they're pavers and they could raise with a pedestal beneath it. |
| 03:42:08.12 | Richard Graef | Oh. |
| 03:42:13.22 | Richard Graef | Okay. Why? That sea level rise. It's stellar, isn't it? Okay, no more questions for now. Thank you. |
| 03:42:25.17 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner McGrath. And Matt, just one last thing that Commissioner Graff was talking about. My experience, particularly on the waterfront with the type of system with the corrugated perforated metal and then operable windows is you have to really think hard about bird control. because it really promotes a lot of nesting. in there and then you know we'd certainly I'm sure DPW has looked at this or will again about any of the hydrostatic pressure on how you, this pedestal system that you're talking about, because once water starts rising like that, it's not just moving a floor up out of the water. There's a whole engineering task to be calculated there. So would be curious what DPW thought about that if you've submitted that to them. |
| 03:43:20.91 | Matt Innes | Yeah, I we would be happy. I don't think DPW has commented directly on that, but we're working with both our civil engineer and with the naval engineer to further that design. |
| 03:43:34.90 | Kristina Feller | All right. Great. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Commissioner Luxenberg, you had your hand |
| 03:43:39.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. One last quick question related to this bathtub. So you've got you're working on the 90 year 100 year timeline. So what's the useful life of the building? |
| 03:43:53.93 | Matt Innes | I think that we're coming in with the intent that it would be 100 years. And then we're also recognizing that at the highest level, highest prediction, 100 year, that it may be more like a 90 year lifespan. |
| 03:44:12.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the building will have a 90 year lifespan. I mean, that's longer than most modern buildings these days. |
| 03:44:18.75 | Matt Innes | Thank you. Currently, worst case scenario, it's a 90 year lifespan. |
| 03:44:22.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:44:22.05 | Matt Innes | Okay. |
| 03:44:22.40 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:44:22.48 | Matt Innes | Thank you. |
| 03:44:22.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:44:22.52 | Matt Innes | Thank you. |
| 03:44:22.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:44:22.70 | Matt Innes | Yeah. |
| 03:44:22.72 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:44:22.91 | Matt Innes | Bye. |
| 03:44:23.02 | Unknown | Thank you. I'm also sure, fellow. Thank you. |
| 03:44:26.03 | Kristina Feller | Great, thank you. Okay, I think this would be a good time to open this up for public comments. To do so, you may raise your hand in the Zoom application. or you can press star nine on your cell phone. And again, this is item six B on this evening's agenda. And Mr. Yates, you've had your hand up very patiently for quite some time. I see a couple more coming in here as well. We'll allow three minutes for public comment this evening. And I'll call on everybody in the order that I see you on my screen. So if Mr. Yates, we can unmute you. |
| 03:45:05.65 | Kristina Feller | Zoom team, can you assist Mr. Yates? to unmute. |
| 03:45:18.00 | Kristina Feller | Okay, Mr. Yates, you should be able to unmute yourself. Okay, there you go. |
| 03:45:21.12 | Ed Yates | Yeah. Oh, so thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, My name is Ed Yates. I'm a land use municipal and environmental lawyer in San Francisco. Although I partly grew up in Sausalito at the Sausalito Yacht Club. Father's knee. around all those guys in the boats drinking away. And my father was also a captain of a Liberty ship, which as you know, were built in Marin's ship. It is a sailboat in South Sudow Harbor. So I got a little different take on what's compatible with then Mr. Houdsager. But first, Chairman Feller, could you freeze my time for just a minute for a point of information? |
| 03:46:04.22 | Kristina Feller | That's okay. Keep going, sir. |
| 03:46:05.86 | Ed Yates | Okay, well, so what I want to say is first, I have a hearing disability. So if you could all speak slowly. That'll help. You've been doing great. So I just wanted to let you know that too, is I worked... many, many years ago for a law firm named Rubin and Junius and did some contract work for them. I did not work for Mr. Junius. I didn't have any contact with them. I don't think there's any issue. Third, is. I contacted the city. To make you aware to make staff aware of all the problems with due process and procedure that you have. And you've got to lie. And so I would like you, Madam Chair, if you could, because I'm the one who alerted you these problems, I did not sandbag the city and throw them at you tonight. I alerted you to the problems. And yet, Mr. Hotart. The planning director didn't communicate with me and threw this stuff on the agenda at the last moment. about the things that I had suggested So I would request that you give me 10 minutes with one minute to respond to the developer. |
| 03:47:20.45 | Kristina Feller | But you know, sir, this is just public comment on this item this evening as standard procedure we provide we allow for for three minutes. Certainly allow you since the clock is still moving for, you know, the rest of your time. back to I think about a minute and 10 seconds. But I'm not- |
| 03:47:38.89 | Unknown | I'm done. |
| 03:47:39.55 | Kristina Feller | I'm unclear what it is you want to comment on regarding this project specifically. |
| 03:47:46.60 | Ed Yates | Well, I'm a minute, I asked you if you could freeze it, Because these are points of information So, I'll start if you want to cut me off, That's your choice. The developer's gone on for two hours. So I'm getting paid by somebody to represent them. We're probably going to appeal this. possibility we will litigate this. I really think it's a good idea to get this stuff out now. and not lay it all on the city council. So. Up to you. So I'll start, you can cut me off whenever you want. You're the boss. So first of all, the comment letters. The planning department puts on its website, the comment letters have to be in by September 14th. Well, of course, that's nonsense. You all know, we all know, Mr. Junius knows, Mr. Hotar, Mr. Rudin know. Can't limit letters. Any more than a letter that's arised before you make your decision. So that was misleading to the public. People called me. What's going on? That's misleading. Co-process issue number one, deprocess issue number two, the findings as Mr. Luxembourg, I believe, mentioned there. So delivered an hour before that you didn't even have them. Miss Geraldowski claimed that, oh, I have them. And I said, well, send them to me. She never sent them to me. They just appeared magically because I had pointed out, you need findings. You can't just say, yeah, whatever, Looks good, you can't do that. |
| 03:49:14.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:14.54 | Ed Yates | So we're trying to help us. |
| 03:49:14.78 | Kristina Feller | I'm pretty sure we're not going to be able to get through all of your items. We do, I believe, have public comment. And I appreciate you commenting this evening, but there are others in the audience that would like to comment as well. And we like to be fair and equitable to everybody. |
| 03:49:32.26 | Ed Yates | Just give me another minute. |
| 03:49:32.88 | Kristina Feller | another minute. to Stacy Nemo is our next speaker this evening. If we could unmute Stacey Nemo and ask to share your video. |
| 03:49:51.17 | Kristina Feller | Okay, if you don't mind unmuting yourself. |
| 03:49:55.19 | Stacy Nemo | Got it. Thanks. And I would like to share my screen too, if that's working okay. |
| 03:50:00.95 | Kristina Feller | you're co-hosted, you should be able to do so. |
| 03:50:04.10 | Stacy Nemo | Okay, great. Okay. You know, this is the first time I've done anything like this. It's generally, yeah, it's definitely not something I would normally do. I've served on the Arts Commission in town. I've been part of the school board, and I've also been on the Sausalito Cruising Club board. Um, but this is the first for me being in front of the planning commission. I respect all the time you guys put in here. It's an amazing and difficult job you do. Um, That said, I just wanted to talk a little bit about this plan. I think Sausalito is an amazing place. And one of the most amazing things about it is of course the waterfront. And I'm concerned about this project, not just because it blocks public and private views, but it's also out of alignment with the Marinship Plan goals. There's also something else that I'll just throw in there, but it's much too little time to get into it. The storm drains in the plan drain into culvert, which is actually above or Yeah, above the tide line. So once the tide comes up, there's no storm drains on the building as is planned right now. And it's also important to note that most of the flooding in Sausalito is due to subsidence and not sea level rise. If you look at the Manzanita parking lot or if you look at this photograph right here, this is subsidence, not sea level rise. Adding eight million pounds of soil to a sinking lot that's already got a detached sewer line problem along gate five road does not seem like it's going to help with the subsidence issue at all and doesn't seem like it's been addressed either but given a limited time as i mentioned i'll focus on the marineship plan um one of the main goals of the marineship plan is to maximize the amount of real uh and effective open water and shoreline area what we have in this plan here in the yellow area is completely empty space. The bottom floor is 14 feet of mostly nothing. It seems to exist only to put the second floor higher up into the air. |
| 03:51:39.68 | Sebastian Bursz | area. |
| 03:51:52.86 | Stacy Nemo | It's going directly against the regent plan of trying to minimize the space that you're occupying. play the plan already accommodates sea level rise with what calculates to be 880 truckloads of filled dirt to meet the 11th floor Hi. So why keep all this space open and elevate a massive 150 foot by 14 foot unarticulated facade up into the sky to the height that it's at. And the height that it's at has also been a little misleading. It's not really 32 feet. It's 39 feet, eight inches. Now, if It gets a little gray here. And I think the whole planning commission is going to run into this over and over again. And it's important to get this right now because this is such a landmark and how to accommodate building heights in regard to sea level rise. I think one of the main things that the marine ship plan does very well is it says it should be in line with buildings around it. Having 14 foot tall ceilings is not a way to minimize your mass and it's not required for any reason other than the possibility of having a large sculpture. Even that seems a little uh, fishy. But we can move on to how it looks in the environment. You see it blocking, completely blocking out the mass and the hills beyond there. |
| 03:53:13.12 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Mr. Nemo, I'm sorry to interject, but your three minutes has elapsed here. |
| 03:53:15.95 | Stacy Nemo | I'm |
| 03:53:21.00 | Kristina Feller | But I appreciate you sharing your screen and walking us through some of your concerns here. So thank you for giving us. |
| 03:53:28.12 | Stacy Nemo | Okay, just the most important part is it's most of the area is 22 feet tall. Only the things in red here are above 22 feet and the building is 40 feet. |
| 03:53:34.33 | Kristina Feller | and we're going to have a |
| 03:53:37.67 | Kristina Feller | And the building Thank you. Thank you for putting your slides together and sharing that and Appreciate that very much. I'm looking for any additional hands from the public for public comment this evening. You can raise your hand in the Zoom application or press star nine on your cell phone. Okay, seeing no additional hands, I'll go ahead and I'll close public comment and I'll bring the discussion back up to our virtual dais. Commissioner Luxenberg, would you like to start us off? |
| 03:54:15.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. |
| 03:54:22.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. There are a bunch of issues here. I think the first of which is, is it consistent with the Marine ship? And I think it is. I mean, I think it's artist-based. We, Sausalito focuses on the arts. I think that's, and it's attempting to do that. So I think from that point of view, it's correct. I do think it's an industrial use. I don't, I'm not comfortable with 15303A for CEQA because I don't think that applies from my read of it, but I'll defer to our city attorney on that. However, I have news to me about this part 32, which came up an hour before we came in today. I am going to stress, as I did in the beginning of this, these plans came in a year ago. There were changes that occurred that should have changed these plans. I think we want to send a strong message to the community development department that when changes occur, go back to people before you schedule something for a hearing and make sure their drawings reflect all the latest things. I mean, there's no, we're sitting here and belabor stuff that, you know, something could easily go through, but we got conditions that we have to add that would have been known. Staff should not even put it before us when they know we're going to say these things. This is the third of three projects in this area with the same architects. So those were known. I think that those should have been addressed before now. I do concur with Commissioner Graff's issue on affordability. This seems to be a very expensive building between the bathtub and all the space and the volumes. Will it be affordable? I don't know whether the owner is going to subsidize the artists or how that's going to work. But I think it is a great concept for the artists. So I'm not that troubled by there was a comment about this being 39 feet just now. It's clear to me that that's the elevation above sea level. It's the elevation of seven feet. It's going to meet the zoning code. And now I understand there's a parapet. But I guess I get a little worried when the architect talks about, you know, some things that aren't yet there, like the EV panels aren't yet there. And we've seen several projects come in with changes to an approved project. So I would hope that we get the project it's designed and they don't have to keep coming back to us so but i do think it's a good use for the marine ship i do think it's a uh you know it's a uh you know it's going to improve the site obviously we need conditions to make sure the gravel road isn't there and all things were talked about anyways those are my thoughts i want to hear what everybody else thinks about this thank you chair fellow |
| 03:57:31.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:57:32.83 | Kristina Feller | Thanks for starting us off. Commissioner Graff, do you want to weigh in on that or share your other ideas? |
| 03:57:42.24 | Richard Graef | Okay. Um, I would concur with Commissioner Luxenberg's comments about having all the information in front of us. in the drawings. I think that's good practice. And I would hope that would be So in the future, the design changes I understand. their response and um, there are probably good changes, but, that you can't do. process was not really followed. Um, Mm-hmm. I, I really appreciate the concept and I appreciate the the fitting. to the Marinship Specific Plan, I get all that. providing artists spaces and the Marin ship or even related issues uh, light industrial things like maybe small boat building. things like that, I think is wonderful. I am worried. again about Bye. this project being able to be a affordable. for what might be a typical artist. I mean, I... Ah. I'm an artist, I'm a designer, I've been in this whole for many, many years and I know what the struggle is like to afford space or to find space even. So I'm all for providing the space. um, And I think, and, and, and, And it's being done in a really interesting way. The building itself is really Um, Pretty interesting. Um, However, I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I feel like the design of the building is out of part. It feels like it I like the building a whole lot. In fact, I really like it a lot. But, It doesn't seem to fit. where it is. And that's a hard thing to say because I know the effort that went into producing this design. You know, it's very thoughtful. in many, many ways. But that's what I'm seeing. I'm seeing this as an artifact that really kind of It doesn't, along in the kind of a low key, uh, sort of semi-industrial context that it's in. So I would prefer Hey. more modest approach. uh, to the architecture. Um, That's my personal view on it. Let's see if there's anything else. All right, off the end. Yeah, the affordability issue. is really an issue to me. |
| 04:01:08.25 | Richard Graef | Well, most of my questions have been answered Um, I'm just not quite sure where to go with this. As I say, it's quite an effort and it's a remarkable building But I've feel like it's kind of out of place. |
| 04:01:25.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:25.87 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:01:26.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:26.32 | Richard Graef | That's... That's enough of that. |
| 04:01:30.86 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. Thank you very much. Commissioner Saad. |
| 04:01:36.55 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Feller. Thank you for all the conversation and public comment this evening. I am in the same camp as Commissioner Graff. I... I don't think it necessarily fits in with the character. Um, I... I love the concept. I love what the property owner is trying to achieve. So I want to be very clear about that. I agree with Commissioner Luxenberg as well. I mean, I'm I'm reading this. the same way in terms of the marine ship plan. defining it as an artist space. I think that's all wonderful. I do think it is. quite large, it is a very huge lot. And I do think there is a bit of an opportunity to reduce some of the scale. And I can't recall who came up with this comment, but considering how much space there is. I too first noticed that second floor, which is why I was asking about the height because there are so many buildings interconnecting them makes it look to me as one massive scale, if you're looking from the street and you're looking at those renderings, you're not seeing that bird's eye view that we have here on these plans. And I do. I just find it quite. especially if you're comparing to what has been there. I think the staff report does correctly state that it is underutilized. I agree with that. I think there's opportunity for development. I'm just having a hard time sort of swallowing not the scale combined with the look of the building, I'm just not that. invited by it, I don't know how else to say it, but I do think that there's a, good intention here, I think, from what we heard in terms of our previous comments at the previous project, the pavers make sense. drought tolerant plants I think supporting the artists makes sense, but I'm struggling with a couple of the findings at this moment. in the design review in terms of light and air. and views. So that's currently where I am. |
| 04:03:56.61 | Kristina Feller | Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 04:04:03.31 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. I certainly agree with the comments regarding the appropriate use here. um, You know, I think it's interesting when you look at the evolution of industrial areas in a variety of different Bay Area communities, you oftentimes see this interesting interconnection between industry in some respects kind of phasing out and, communities moving in and, and, uh, interplay there I think is really fascinating and should be supported and that's what So I think we're all. Eventually, I mean, we're all, I would assume we're all kind of on board with the concept. I mean, I actually really like the building. I think it's It's a forward looking design in you know, kind of a, you know, underutilized is kind of an under, overutilized word we're using tonight. I mean, clearly the lot, the property can accommodate a significant amount of development. I think they've done a great job with locating the building in a place where, you know, views are, you know, accounted for, and I thought the view studies and the information in the staff report regarding view corridors down Cologne and whatnot were excellent and make the right points and allow us to allow me at least to make the findings in that respect. It is a big building. It is within the height limit. We have height limits so that we don't go above them. I think this notwithstanding, quibbling about, you know, where the sea level rise is going to be in years ahead and what that means for the grade and how you measure it. You know, I'm fine with that. I like the, I really like the overhanging concept. I love the mossing, the way it floats over the kind of the glassier base. I think the creative layout is really interesting. I just think it's the kind of fun, cool, you know, kind of surprisingly interesting project that this part of Sausalito could really benefit from. Um, uh, And I, you know, I tried trying to start redesigning it or having to, you know, trying to send these guys back and rethink it. I think that's going to be tough for them. I think they've done a great job. The metal exterior on the bar box above at the top, I think, is fascinating. A lot of interesting maintenance issues could go there, like how do you wash the windows? And Commissioner Feller's comments about birds and all kinds of stuff. Yeah, this isn't... A lot of things need to be thought through. But overall, I just thought when I first looked at it, I was really impressed. and I would be very supportive of it, but it sounds like we're going to have some more discussions. So but I'm very, very supportive of the design set overall. |
| 04:06:41.67 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. You know, I think that this, you know, this evening is sort of another unfortunate situation where we would likely have to continue this project anyway, because of the lack of complete information. But, um, So that might have been inevitable, even, you know, even under different circumstances, but I wanted to be a little bit more specific with some of my comments about where and how I think you've got some interesting design ideas, but I do not think that this is at all in keeping with the general plan and marinship specific plan that has been laid out by Sausalito. And those are, part of our guardrails that we have to uphold here on the commission, despite what we may or may not like personally. But I'm looking at Um, land use and growth management elements, which is a carryover from the Marineship Specific Plan, because of course, this, the Marineship Specific Plan applies to this. And it's called It's LU 3.4.4, which is sense of place development plans should recognize the aesthetic and social value of small scale individual activities as a vital component in the overall composition. of the marine ship that has to do with the land use and the design. I don't I couldn't support this project-based on that. There's another policy under community design about public realm and promoting a positive relationship between the structure and the adjoining public realm. Even though you're not adjoining a park necessarily and at least you're putting in a sidewalk, it's not really pedestrian friendly or welcoming or inviting or any of those things. um I agree with Vice Chair Junius, I mean, there is a height limit on this Parcel. you can't go above it, but you can go up to it. those are there for a reason and those are fairly objective. So staying below it is certainly critical. So also, you know, policy CD 4.7, marineship character, promote industrial development in the marineship. What confused me with this is that the comments we got from that is that the project is an expansion of the existing artist colony and does not include an industrial development. Well, it is an industrial development, because it's industrial zoned and those are the functions as defined in our general plan and marineship specific plan. That did not really make a whole lot of sense to me. And then, you know, there's another policy, which is CD 5.2, undergrounding utilities to alleviate public safety concerns, particularly during hazard events, reduce or eliminate overhead utilities. Well, none of that is really happening on this site and I know that is not entirely the applicant's responsibility, because of course you have to deal with PG&E. But I think we haven't really addressed that because you still have poles there. You might have a new transformer, but that's above grade. And maybe that makes sense because the sea level rise, but we need, these are in place for a reason. These are our policies and ordinance here for a reason. But I just don't see how this project really addresses any of this stuff. So I don't think that I even, with all the mistakes from staff, I don't think I could support the design as it stands now because it's not in keeping with the marineship specific plans, And the general plan update, which incorporates the partnership specific plan, So, I wanted to call a couple of those out. It's not an exhaustive list, but a couple of them out. So the applicant had the benefit of understanding what we're looking at And what we have to uphold, and it's not about my opinion if I like it or not, or somebody else's opinion if we like it or not, because that can be very subjective. But these are actual public policies in place and ordinances and guidelines. So I would ask that you revisit those perhaps and reconsider what you're proposing here that in order to actually comply with what those are. Because I don't see that here either. So those are my thoughts. I would support a motion to continue continue this and I would I would recommend a date uncertain because of the extent of some of the comments and coordination that clearly needs to be done. But interested in what my colleagues would think about that or any other ideas. |
| 04:11:44.25 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 04:11:46.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think that, I think we all agree that the use that's being proposed is fine. It goes with the marineship and the concept works. I mean, I would like at some point some idea from the applicant on a pro forma of whether per Commissioner Graff's comments on whether these spaces are going to be able to be rentable to artists at an affordable price. but I think so we all agree. PER COMMISSIONER GRAFF'S COMMENTS OF WHETHER THESE SPACES ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE RENTABLE TO ARTISTS AT AN AFFORDABLE PRICE. BUT I THINK SO WE ALL AGREE I THINK WITH THAT CONCEPT. I THINK THAT WE AGREE THAT THE MATERIALS AREN'T QUITE THERE YET. I THINK THAT IF WE AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT AND I THINK THAT THEY ARE trying to you know, sea level rise issues that whether this building is as designed as it is, the concepts could go to the sea level task force and they can come back with whatever that committee defines. And so that that gets worked into the design. So I think when, if we continue this, they should get those answers that should be incorporated into design. They should correct the things on the plans with regard to the pavers and all that kind of other stuff. And then maybe come back with some changes to the design to reflect the comments they heard this evening. And those can be worked through. And so, you know, and as we stated repeatedly tonight, stuff will come to us sooner, we can get questions off. So then whatever date we do have, we're not having to continue it because we don't have the right information. We have staff make sure that they've got answers. People may or may not agree with the actual aesthetic of this at the end of the day, but at least all the materials and all these other questions could be answered. So I would encourage you to go get that with you know even if the design changes i don't think it's going to affect the sea level wise that sort of seems pretty clear to me that the the levels that they're talking about are the levels that they need to design to and i don't think i don't think we're questioning the bathtub approach i think we're questioning more of the height and the materials on the outside and the bulkiness of it. But anyways, those are my thoughts. And I would support a motion to continue doing data. I'm certain. |
| 04:14:18.08 | Kristina Feller | support. And I think that's a good thing. |
| 04:14:21.43 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:14:22.71 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:14:22.74 | Kristina Feller | All right. Any other thoughts, commissioners? Yes, commissioner Graff. |
| 04:14:30.50 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I think... this is another example where it would have been really, really, Donald Fischhoff. to have a serious study session above. developing a concept like this and a project of this scale in this location. And I think... it might have resulted in quite different. Um, product, you might say. So I'm just kind of lamenting the fact that we didn't get a chance to really evaluate the whole thing. Um, and design approaches and things like that. before. uh before now so um I just wanted to put that out there because I think it would have saved everybody, a lot of Trouble. Um, And so that's pretty much it other than the fact that I, I just feel like it's a little too All to corporate looking. just feels out of place. I'll stop there. I look forward to our next meeting. |
| 04:15:42.90 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Graff, and thank you for those comments. I think study sessions are so beneficial to applicants and you know as well. It's very important. So we should be looking at incorporating those more from CDD. So thank you for those comments. Commissioner Saad, any further comments? |
| 04:16:11.00 | Nastassya Saad | I think we're all in general consensus here. I would definitely support a motion to continue. I'm not comfortable. Regardless how I feel about design, I'm just not comfortable with the lack of information and some of the discrepancy. So based on that, I think continuing it makes sense. |
| 04:16:22.00 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:16:22.34 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:16:22.54 | Unknown | you |
| 04:16:27.26 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Vice Chair Junius, are you in line with that? |
| 04:16:31.89 | Andrew Junius | to continue. There's data uncertainty. |
| 04:16:34.70 | Kristina Feller | Bye. Let me just, if I can here, let me ask the applicant or some but one representative of the applicant team If they could come back up here. Having heard the comments and deliberations here. I want to make sure that you don't have any questions for clarification. And we have been clear. about that direction. Matt, is that is that you? |
| 04:17:06.83 | Matt Innes | Yeah, yeah. No, it's been really clear. And thank you for all the feedback and your time and thought around this. It's really helpful. When when I guess to just ask two points when we refer to the or when you guys refer to the lack of information is that just the changes that were made after this was submitted a year ago, the changes that were made in response to the 52 hearing. And I apologize for those not being communicated earlier. |
| 04:17:37.36 | Kristina Feller | No, that's a fair question. That's certainly part of it. And we'd want to understand what the Sea Level Rise Task Force had concluded there. And that's really also for your benefit. So you're not spinning your wheels and there's not a lot of abortive work. we want to make sure that what you're proposing whatever it might be. you know, certainly passes muster with them. That's important. And a more streamlined approach, let's say. So, yeah, and, you know, if there were changes that were being made, staff should alert, or we could have pushed this presentation so we're not wasting your time either to the next meeting or something, just so we can close the loop. And we don't like to continue design reviews like yours based on incomplete information. There might be know, there might be other reasons to continue it, but we don't, you know, simple stuff like information, that could have been available. It's not always a very favored reason by us because we don't want to waste your time We know the importance of the project and and value your client and your time. |
| 04:19:01.16 | Matt Innes | Yes, thank you. Yeah, and I hear that concern, and we will certainly make sure that we've spoken with everyone and presented all the clear, correct information for our next hearing. |
| 04:19:14.50 | Takashi Unai | Would it be okay for me to ask a couple of questions? |
| 04:19:20.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Yeah, for clarification of our deliberation, sure. |
| 04:19:25.13 | Takashi Unai | Yes. Well, first of all, thank you for all your time. And certainly just echoing what Matt's saying, we will you know, clear up all the discrepancies and answer all the questions. My concern would be more in regard to the comments I've heard so far in regard to the design and whether or not it's, um, suitable for the marine ships. And, you know, there's an aspect of that that is subjective. but I'm wondering how we will be able to, or I'm wondering if there's the ability to get a little guidance around some of the at least for the opinions that have difficulty with the design, how that might change. so I don't know, a little bit of clarity around that would help us tremendously. |
| 04:20:22.79 | Kristina Feller | Fair enough. And I certainly know, you know, can understand that, you know, saying somebody doesn't like something or isn't warming up to it is not enough of a direction or, or, um, input for you, which is why I started to rattle off a number of these elements that, you know, you are part of the Marinship specific plan. Many of them are also incorporated in the general plan update. So it's sort of the same thing. They might have different reference numbers, but the LU3.4.4, the CD1.9 and 1.6 and CD4.7, 5.2, You know, all of those are part of what we're given as we have to be able to make these findings. So for you, those are the elements that you should focus on. about why we can't make the findings. . if there's some uncertainty about, is it the finish? Is it the massing? Well, I think certainly the massing you've heard rather consistently from those that are not in favor of or warming up, let's say, to the design, that that has a lot to do with it, that it has no reference whatsoever |
| 04:21:43.47 | Kristina Feller | on. |
| 04:21:48.60 | Kristina Feller | to any other aspect in the Marineship. I think you've heard, and if it hasn't been made clear, I think everyone's very supportive of the use and developing the site for the artist community and things of that kind. That is not the issue whatsoever. I think it's really responding to what's been drawn. |
| 04:22:15.01 | Takashi Unai | Thank you. |
| 04:22:15.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:17.54 | Matt Innes | And in our I guess in summary of this meeting, will we be able to get those points that you listed, Chair Feller? Sorry, you rattled off a number of points. I just wanna make sure that we have those. I know. |
| 04:22:31.24 | Kristina Feller | I did rattle them off. I'm happy to coordinate with Cecilia. because I mean I've got them highlighted in my you know printouts of everything. I'm sure she's taking copious notes as she does as well. And we'll make sure that that's clear to you and allow us to allow the CDD to kind of compile everything and they're welcome. We'll coordinate with them to make sure that it's very clear to you. |
| 04:23:02.63 | Matt Innes | And then kind of pushing from there would I think it's a commissioner graph mentioned a study session. Would it be possible or something the commission would be open to when we do come back and talk design to actually present it directly to you in a less formal setting than the hearing. |
| 04:23:23.67 | Kristina Feller | Um, it's a good question and it's a fair question, but unfortunately due to the Brown Act, um, we're, we're not able, uh, to meet, uh, informally because we would have to declare that as ex parte communication and that would be likely grounds to recuse ourselves. And I don't think that either of any of us want that. And you probably don't want us to do that either. But the study session really kind of is meant to be informal, meaning we don't take action on a study session. We are just providing as much information input and direction and discussion and things of that kind, but there's no action taken by this commission. It is just that, and that's a study session. It includes public comment. It includes, you know, the ability to do that, which is just as important. You obviously have a lot of support for this project in the community. I believe the commission is supportive of the project. I think there's just some concern about the context of what has been designed to date and how that works to support the marineship specific plan. |
| 04:24:36.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chair Falkar, suggest something? Sure. Since you're suggesting a study session, given you've already submitted, we can continue this to a date uncertain. But if you want to come in at the next meeting as part of the continued public hearing with some sketches or whatever of things you're looking at, we can react to those and then continue that again to a meeting later that we would actually do an approval. TO LOOK AT AND REACT TO, I THINK WITHIN THE BROWN ACT WE CAN DO THAT. I WILL LEAVE THAT TO OTHERS TO DETERMINE. |
| 04:24:38.75 | Kristina Feller | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:25:10.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:29.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:29.52 | Takashi Unai | Thank you. |
| 04:25:29.66 | Kristina Feller | I'm not. |
| 04:25:31.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:25:32.60 | Kristina Feller | Chair Feller would that be |
| 04:25:32.63 | Takashi Unai | Chair Keller, would that be possible? |
| 04:25:35.95 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, we have, but yeah, and my point was in the past and Sergio can help us out here is we have actually had situations where it started as a design review hearing just like this and, and it then moved into a study session and then back into a design review and Sergio I don't we have precedent for doing that I don't see an issue with that if we wanted to unless you would advise otherwise. |
| 04:26:04.46 | Sergio Rudin | I don't have a issue with the commission noticing a formal meeting to consider you know, alternative designs or proposals. Also, I think Commissioner Luxenberg's suggestion that if the applicant has you know, various conceptual drawings that they wanna present, you know, the commission can certainly react to those in a continued hearing. you So, you know, those are both options. I think the issue, particularly under the Brown Act, that would be concerning is, you know, if individual commissioners are meeting with the developer to help develop a proposal that's going to eventually come back before the commission that. you know, may be problematic, but you know, I have less concern about, you know, reactions by the commissioners in a public meeting to whatever the developer may want to propose. |
| 04:26:55.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Sergio. Yeah, so we won't be able to meet with you individually or, you know, quote unquote, off the record as a group. So it needs to be in a format like this, but it can, as Sergio said, you know, if you want to come with a couple options and that kind of thing, that's fine too. |
| 04:27:14.42 | Takashi Unai | Good to know Will's. chat internally and Let you know. |
| 04:27:20.36 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Does your team have any other additional questions for clarification from what you've heard from our deliberation? I just wanna make sure it's clear. And don't forget this is recorded. So you can also go back and listen to it if you are so inclined to do so. |
| 04:27:33.71 | Matt Innes | Thank you. |
| 04:27:38.75 | Matt Innes | I think that Jimmy may have had a question from our civil team. |
| 04:27:42.77 | Jimmy Galvez | Yeah, one question, I think one of the items I heard was the the undergrounding utilities. And maybe it's through that session or maybe it's working directly with Sicilian staff, but I just want to clarify it. Um, the underground, basically the overhead lines deliver power to this entire neighborhood. And so undergrounding these lines would be basically at a very large cost to the project. So the transformer that we have proposed is only for the for 265k Pyron. dropping from the nearby pole. drop and underground in that poll itself. would basically expand to literally in every direction. Um, that the police provide. So I think my question is, How do we provide responses to some of these items, right? and clarify for staff and or you guys' office in basically explaining our approach on these things. |
| 04:28:52.38 | Kristina Feller | It's a fair question. I'm reading straight out of the staff information about what the membership specific plan and policies are that apply to this project. And that happens to be one policy that applies to this project. And so. You know, I'm not making it up or trying to, you know, apply something ridiculous to your project just, you know, for the heck of it. It's these, these are the, these are what we have to review in order to approve a project. So if it's cost prohibitive, then fine. Or if it's technically not able to be done in this part of town for whatever reason, I just think it's important that you understand that this is what we look at and it's part of the Thank you. what the public sees as well. to be able to make findings. And so. Some of these might not be possible to achieve for some you know, extreme reason or condition. And that happens, you know, happens as much, you know, up in the hills as it might, you know, down on the shoreline. And I just think it's important, you know, that you can address it because we're, we're we're completely transparent on what those findings have to be. |
| 04:30:06.71 | Jimmy Galvez | No, it makes sense. And to clarify, I'm not questioning the reference, but more how do we explain our approach in relation to responding to that reference, right? That's what I would like to work with, with, uh, with your office and staff on. |
| 04:30:22.09 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think Cecilia is the point person. She's the assigned planner to this. You know, she knows these quite, quite well and can help formulate whatever those responses are. to be able to address it, absolutely. we would welcome that. |
| 04:30:42.88 | Unknown | Sounds great, thank you. |
| 04:30:44.04 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Kusher Graff, you had your hand up. |
| 04:30:47.53 | Richard Graef | Yeah, I did, Sheriff Fowler, thank you. |
| 04:30:50.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:30:50.37 | Richard Graef | Um, I just wanted to clarify what you're suggesting as the next step in the continuation of this saga, and whether that would be in fact a study session, whether it would be simply a continuation Oh. This meeting, but just to I'm not quite sure what the format is or what the protocol would be. Uh, |
| 04:31:26.13 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:31:26.53 | Richard Graef | Thank you. I mean, I'm all for it. I think we should do it. But I'm just wondering, how would it work? legally and technically. |
| 04:31:37.33 | Kristina Feller | Exactly. Yeah, I would suggest what Sergio suggested, and that is to continue this hearing continue this meeting on this with this applicant to a date uncertain, which allows you the time to develop what you want. And whenever that continued meeting is, and we'll get it calendared at another time, not this evening. when you're more comfortable, when you might be ready. you are welcome to bring additional concept sketches to that hearing. And we can look through different options and you can solicit input ideas and defend your favorite or do however you'd like to do that. That is what I would suggest. And that is, I think, the motion that we should be making this evening at this time. Unless, Sergio, you have any other thoughts regarding that. I think you kind of already shared them. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I thought. Thank you. |
| 04:32:41.34 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Chair Feller. Oh, that clarifies, that's fine. |
| 04:32:42.03 | Kristina Feller | So |
| 04:32:44.93 | Richard Graef | Sounds good to me. |
| 04:32:45.86 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So I would entertain a motion at this time. |
| 04:32:51.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm happy to make a motion to continue this to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to come back with some alternative ideas where they could get feedback at that meeting and in that event they would understand that no action would be taken that evening and then it would be further continued and they could finalize and come in with all the data or whatever that we need for an actual approval so I would so move that. |
| 04:33:24.54 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Is there a second? |
| 04:33:27.17 | Richard Graef | I'll fuck it. |
| 04:33:28.24 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. Dan, could you please take the roll call? |
| 04:33:35.73 | Dan | me on mute. Commissioner Saad. |
| 04:33:38.70 | Lisa York | Yeah. |
| 04:33:38.78 | Dan | Yes. |
| 04:33:38.98 | Lisa York | you |
| 04:33:39.52 | Dan | Commissioner Graff. |
| 04:33:40.69 | Lisa York | Thank you. |
| 04:33:40.72 | Dan | Thank you. |
| 04:33:40.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:33:40.92 | Dan | Yeah. Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 04:33:42.95 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:33:44.15 | Dan | Vice Chair Janice. |
| 04:33:49.06 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 04:33:49.19 | Dan | Yes. |
| 04:33:49.43 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:33:49.45 | Dan | Thank you. Oh, sorry, Chair Feller. |
| 04:33:52.01 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:33:52.03 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 04:33:53.23 | Dan | A motion carries. |
| 04:33:54.71 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. So that completes our section six on tonight's agenda. So moving on to item seven, I would move to adjourn this meeting. All those in favor. |
| 04:34:11.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:34:11.69 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 04:34:12.01 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 04:34:12.28 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, everybody, for all your hard work. Thank you. Thank you. Good night, everyone. |
| 04:34:17.42 | Unknown | Good night, everybody. Good night. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. |
| 04:34:21.47 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 04:34:22.86 | Unknown | Bye-bye. Allah, |
Stacy Nemo — Against: Stacy Nemo shared slides arguing the project blocks public and private views, is out of alignment with the Marinship Plan's goal to minimize mass, and has inadequate storm drainage given subsidence and sea level rise. She claimed the effective height is 39 feet due to the raised grade. ▶ 📄