| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | pandemic. So welcome to everybody that's here. With that, we will, Brandon, could you call the order? |
| 00:00:09.31 | Director Phipps | Good evening, Chair Luxenberg, planning commissioners, staff, members of the public. this evening's meeting. |
| 00:00:14.95 | Kristina Feller | Recording in progress. |
| 00:00:16.60 | Director Phipps | The special meeting as chair Luxenberg mentioned in the sense that it represents the first regular meeting of the planning commission following the governor's offices rescinding of the state of emergency for COVID-19. With that in mind, it is great to be here at Sausalito City Council Chambers and even more great to see you all in person. With that said, Members of the public are still able to access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. And with that. I will move to call roll. Commissioner Saund. |
| 00:00:46.44 | Michelle Yellen | here. |
| 00:00:47.59 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:00:48.78 | Michelle Yellen | Yeah. |
| 00:00:49.90 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:00:51.04 | Michelle Yellen | here. |
| 00:00:52.28 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. here at Luxembourg. here. we have achieved quorum. All members are present. Thank you. |
| 00:01:00.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Do I get a motion for approval of the agenda? |
| 00:01:06.53 | Kristina Feller | So moved. Second. |
| 00:01:09.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, Director Phipps, can you call roll? |
| 00:01:12.69 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:01:13.98 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:01:14.74 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:01:15.67 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:01:16.75 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:01:17.76 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:01:18.70 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Thank you. |
| 00:01:21.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:01:21.54 | Director Phipps | Motion passes. |
| 00:01:23.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda is public comments for items not on the agenda this evening. Director Phipps, can you give instructions for people that want to give comments either in person or on Zoom? Thank you. |
| 00:01:36.03 | Director Phipps | Certainly. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:01:36.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Finally. |
| 00:01:37.70 | Director Phipps | This is the time for 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 to be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment in person, please fill out a speaker card and bring it to staff so that we can call on you when it is your time to speak. If you would like to make a comment virtually in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. Thank you. |
| 00:02:28.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is there anybody in the chamber that wants to talk about items not on the agenda this evening? Seeing none, let me check on the Zoom. I'm not seeing any raised hands in Zoom. Can you confirm that, Director Fitz? Seeing none, Sheriff. Okay, thank you. With that, we'll move on to... Item four, approval of the Planning Commission minutes. |
| 00:02:53.22 | Kristina Feller | I'd like to make a motion to approve minutes as as printed. |
| 00:02:57.81 | Nastassya Saad | second. |
| 00:03:02.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director Phipps, can you take a roll? |
| 00:03:02.52 | Director Phipps | Director of State. Yes, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad? |
| 00:03:05.96 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:03:05.98 | Director Phipps | Yeah. Commissioner Graff? Thank you. |
| 00:03:07.55 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:03:07.78 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:03:07.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:03:07.87 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. |
| 00:03:09.32 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:03:13.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Item five on the agenda, we have communications. Director Phipps, can you give an update from the planning department? Thanks. |
| 00:03:25.57 | Director Phipps | Certainly. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:03:25.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and I'm not sure. |
| 00:03:27.63 | Director Phipps | Um, first communication item that I'll start with this evening is related to CDD staffing. I would first like to take the opportunity to introduce you all to CDD's new code enforcement officer, Mr. Paul Van Hook. Mr. Van Hook comes from city of Foster City, where he formerly held the role of temporary code enforcement officer. He has experience providing both code enforcement and fire related services to multiple jurisdictions along the peninsula. And we look forward to working with him in CDD to build off of the code enforcement foundations that have been strengthened by our four leaf consultants, who you will be hearing from later on in this meeting. So with all of that said, I will now pass the mic to Mr. Van Hook so he can introduce himself, Mr. Van Hook. The floor is yours. |
| 00:04:21.54 | Director Phipps | And if we could, yeah. |
| 00:04:22.03 | Paul Van Hook | Yeah, sorry about that, guys. Thank you, Brandon. It's nice to meet you all virtually, I guess. But yeah, I've basically, to give you a synopsis of my career, I've worked in municipalities my entire career. I started as a seasonal employee for the city of Campbell as a laborer when I was in college at Chico State and worked as a maintenance worker for the city of Mountain View. I was a firefighter paramedic for Santa Clara County Fire where I did life and Safety inspections, fire inspections. I also worked for Palo Alto Utilities as well too. being a field service rep, responding to any and all utility emergencies, and then did code enforcement for the city of Foster City as well, too. I look forward to working with all of you. Some of my goals are to just reduce the number of active code enforcement cases, as well as cost recovery, you know, for the city. It seems like there was, A little length of time where there was quite a bit of attrition here. And, you know, some things kind of got put on the back burner. And I'm here to kind of take charge of that. I've been working with 4Leaf, the consultants, to kind of organize these things. uh, I'm sure that my numbers will reflect that, you know, we are moving in the right direction in the code enforcement division. |
| 00:05:59.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. At this point, we'll have questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Graff, any questions from Court of Forestry? |
| 00:06:09.61 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:06:11.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:06:13.46 | Kristina Feller | No, I'd just like to welcome you to the team and thank you for being here this evening. Thank you. |
| 00:06:17.51 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you, Commissioner. |
| 00:06:18.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:06:19.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Saad? |
| 00:06:21.62 | Nastassya Saad | No questions. Also, thank you and welcome. Thank you. |
| 00:06:26.54 | Andrew Junius | Welcome aboard, Patrick. |
| 00:06:28.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:06:29.30 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:06:30.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Paul, welcome aboard as well. The only comment I would like to make is with regard to cases, as you will see tonight, we have a number of cases where there are conditions of approval. And when those conditions are somehow the applicants failing to meet those conditions, we're going to be looking to you to do code enforcement on those issues. And those are particularly important to this commission. So I'm just making you aware of that. |
| 00:06:50.09 | Allie Murphy | Thank you. |
| 00:06:57.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | My name is Welcome Award. I met you prior, but thank you for your presentation this evening. |
| 00:07:02.72 | Paul Van Hook | Thank you, commissioner. It's good to see you again. And I absolutely will look forward to... resolving those issues. And it was nice to meet all of you. |
| 00:07:15.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're gonna go to the presentation now? |
| 00:07:18.17 | Director Phipps | Now, Chair, I have a couple communication items and commissioners may have communication items as well. So if it's okay with you, I'll go on with my communication updates. Thank you. |
| 00:07:28.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:07:28.50 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:07:28.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 00:07:29.02 | Director Phipps | That makes sense. |
| 00:07:30.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was skipping ahead. I jumped on the screen here. |
| 00:07:34.64 | Director Phipps | Well, it's good to be excited this evening. Back in person. I think that's a good thing. So I appreciate that chair. Next item of communication regarding the ferry landside presentation. Director McGowan and I have had the opportunity to discuss scheduling and based off a need for a formal public hearing on this item. We plan to place the item on the Planning Commission agenda currently scheduled for March 29, 2023. So look forward to digging into that item a little bit further and getting planning commission comment and feedback and recommendation. Final communication item regarding staffing. We do have a number of ongoing solicitations. We currently have open solicitations for the role of building official, permit technician, senior planner, and associate planner. I have interviews scheduled for the planning positions next week, and I look forward to providing you all with positive updates as related to positive results from those interviews. That concludes my communication items for this evening. Thank you. |
| 00:08:37.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you director Phipps this point a city attorney rudin do you have any updates that you need to provide. |
| 00:08:46.99 | Mary Wagner | No, no updates at this time. |
| 00:08:49.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you very much. With that we'll go to report outs from subcommittees. The first is the objective design and development standards subcommittee. That's Commissioner Fuller and Vice Chair Junior. |
| 00:09:04.10 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. We do not have an update from our meeting two weeks ago. We are anticipating that the should be prepared for a presentation later this month to the planning commission. And after that, it would go to the city council. But it's all being finalized at this time. And so there's nothing new other than a potential date this month. |
| 00:09:31.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. If I could just ask, given the volume of information that we'll provide, if you could give it, send it to the rest of the commissioners in enough time to review it prior to the more than the normal period of time to review that, that would be helpful. |
| 00:09:48.17 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I'll work with CDD Director Phipps to make sure that we can get that. circulated with plenty of time for review. It is a very large document. |
| 00:09:58.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much, Commissioner Fowler. The next item is the California Housing Legislation Working Group. That's Vice Chair Junius and myself. Vice Chair Junius, if you could give an update, that would be appreciated. |
| 00:10:09.50 | Andrew Junius | I appreciate that, Chair Luxembourg. There's always a lot going on in Sacramento with respect to housing laws. I think probably one of the most important things that is moving its way through the system is an extension of SB 35. SB 35 actually has a sunset date. I'm not exactly sure what it is, but it's a year or two out. And I think in light of the state's desire to increase housing production. The legislature is considering making that law permanent. So we will be tracking that pretty carefully. And then just some interesting statistics regarding the housing element process in the Bay Area. It's been kind of fascinating to see as the Sausalito Housing element process has finished up and is currently under review by hcd it turns out there just aren't that many Jurisdictions within the bay area that have actually got over the finish line of the 109 jurisdictions actually only four have made it across the full finish line Um, That does not include Sausalito, but Sausalito is one of the groups that's actually approved a housing element and submitted it to HCD within the deadline of January 31st. So that's good news. Um, There are about 59 or 60 jurisdictions that have submitted an unadopted housing element, which is, I think, going to be problematic for those jurisdictions. And there are actually 12 jurisdictions in the Bay Area that I will not name. really don't seem to be participating at all in the housing element process. That's going to be interesting. There have been a variety of lawsuits filed against jurisdictions that have not that that some interest groups don't believe are in compliance. So we'll be tracking that as well. And it's gonna be an interesting year ahead. for housing element compliance. Thank you. |
| 00:11:49.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius doing the math. So we're part of the group that subtracting out the 59 and we're part of the third |
| 00:11:55.94 | Andrew Junius | We're part of the 34 group. 34, okay. We're in second place. So we're not doing so bad as first of all Salido. |
| 00:11:57.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No duds. Oh, Give it all things considered. I think that's a good group to be in. I agree. Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda, the Ferry Landslide Working Group. Is there further updates other than what Director Phipps just provided? |
| 00:12:17.87 | Kristina Feller | No, we have not met as a working group. We're waiting for that to come back to the Planning Commission, and it sounds like that will be March 29th. |
| 00:12:25.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's that's correct. The next item is housing element working group. It's Commissioner Feller and Commissioner Saad. We've renamed that because the HEAC has finished their work. So is there any further updates at this time? |
| 00:12:41.08 | Kristina Feller | No further updates from two weeks ago. Just again to recap what that update was. We're waiting for any final comments to come from HTD back to Sausalito. And pending whatever those comments and communications might be, we'll be poised and ready to respond accordingly. |
| 00:13:01.93 | Director Phipps | And if I if I may, Commissioner, pursuant to your comments, as well as dovetailing off of Vice Chair Junius's communication items, just want to provide the update to the Commission that we have and confirm that we have formally submitted our revised housing element to the state. The state is now taking a 60 day review period to provide additional comments to City of Sausalito. We do anticipate comments greater than zero from the state. After receiving those comments, we will properly address them and promptly adopt a compliant housing element. |
| 00:13:40.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's the plan. Thank you. Thank you, Director Phipps. Next item is parklets. That's Commissioner Fowler and myself. I can start with that. I understand that Director Phipps had met with the city council and they're proceeding to do some work along with the city attorney's office. And then they will be coming back to the working group probably sometime in the next month or so. Commissioner Keller, any additional comments on that? |
| 00:14:10.85 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. No, no additional comments. |
| 00:14:14.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is the master plan working group, Commissioner Feller and Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:14:21.43 | Kristina Feller | So we have met as a working group. We do not have any further updates from two weeks ago. We are hoping that the city council We'll respond to the multiple communications from the planning commission to support our efforts for for a master plan for the city comprehensive master plan. That's an important element and mission critical as we've called it to the work of the planning commission here in Sausalito Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:14:51.27 | Nastassya Saad | Nothing, nothing to add. We do intend to meet hopefully in the next few weeks and continue our work pending. Of course, city council hopefully supporting our efforts, but we will continue to move forward. |
| 00:15:02.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, that's an important effort for this for the whole Commission. So we want to make sure that gets forward and scoped and gets funded so. With that, are there any other communication items, Commissioner Feller? |
| 00:15:16.53 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to let everybody be aware that Director McGowan has reached out to the Landslide Task Force and and has requested each of us to participate in some of the work that Miller Pacific is doing. And I was the representative for the Planning Commission for that task force. So I will be participating with those efforts and I will keep the commission apprised. |
| 00:15:47.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Should we add that to this for the next meeting? Director Phipps, if you could add that to the list of report outs from subcommittees for the next meeting. Are there any other comments from any of the commissioners? |
| 00:16:04.15 | Kristina Feller | Sorry, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I just had one other request, and that is for the last several months, we've wanted to have the Sea Level Rise Task Force come and present. to the Planning Commission, so much more of our work intersects with the great body of work they've done and their mapping skills and so on. And so I think it would be really valuable if in agenda setting yourself and Vice Chair Junius could maybe find some time on our agenda when it makes sense to invite the Sea Level Rise Task Force to present to the Planning Commission. Thank you. |
| 00:16:38.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fellow. We will try to schedule that as well. With that, any other comments from any of the commissioners? Don't need to raise hands in Zoom. This is different. Thank you all. With that, we move on to item six, new business. And now we have our code enforcement update that I was jumping the gut on before. So with that, Paul, if you could come back to the Zoom and do your presentation about code enforcement. |
| 00:17:08.83 | Director Phipps | And thank you. Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. Item 6A is an update from our code enforcement staff and Mr. Van Hook will be in attendance for this meeting, but more as an observer. We have Orlando Givens, code enforcement manager from Four Leaf present in addition to Jordan Crawford. She is the city's contracted Four Leaf code enforcement officer who will be passing the torch to Mr. Van Hook by the end of this week. So Orlando and Jordan, the floor is yours. |
| 00:17:39.01 | Orlando Givens | Thank you so much, Director Phipps. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you and to the commission this evening. I have a PowerPoint presentation on my laptop. which I'm not sure if you good folks there can see, but if someone can give me the ability to share my screen, Or if it's available to you, I would like to just run through just a couple of quick slides to give you a bit of a background on exactly what it is the Code Enforcement Division does. |
| 00:18:10.48 | Director Phipps | Mr. Givens, you should be good to share. All right, let's take a look. We do have a live stream on our end over here. Fantastic. We'll be able to see whatever it is you share and project. |
| 00:18:20.65 | Orlando Givens | Fantastic. How are we looking, folks? Looking good. We're looking great. Excellent. Okay. As I said, my name is Orlando Givens. I am a code enforcement manager. WITH FORD LEAF. We have had the honor and the privilege of assisting the city of Sausalito during its transition phase in a number of areas, including code enforcement. Director Phipps asked our team to put together just a few brief comments for the Planning Commission so that the Planning Commission has a clear understanding of exactly what it is the Code Enforcement Division does. So that's exactly what we have done, and that's exactly what we'll do this evening. Okay, let's see here. There we go. So what will you learn today and why? What are the most common cases that the code enforcement team handles? What are the standard operations of a code enforcement division? How are our cases managed? And how do we generally handle our most frequently received case, which is work without permit? With whom does the code enforcement team collaborate? We don't operate as an island. We have a number of partners that we work with to get our jobs done. We'll give you a brief update on the department metrics, and an update on current and go forward initiatives. |
| 00:20:02.64 | Orlando Givens | What you won't hear this evening. Are any specifics on any active or recently closed case? And we've got some pretty specific reasons why we won't do that in this forum. The potential for the liability to the city of Sausalito is fairly great. for bringing information that could be construed as private, in some cases, into a public recorded forum. So we really do want to protect the privacy of our constituency in the city of Sausalito. If the commission has any specific questions about a specific case, or an address that you kind of drive by on your way to and fro. and you're wondering what's going on with that, what I would recommend is that you follow up individually or even collectively with Paul through Zoom or email or something along those lines in a non-recorded format. |
| 00:21:08.63 | Orlando Givens | So what are the most common cases code enforcement handles? As I mentioned, work without a permit is our most common case. And that can mean a number of things, but a lot of times it's where something was done by someone where they should have come to the city and gotten a permit, but they didn't. And we find out about it usually because someone notifies the city. And then we open a code enforcement case. And we'll walk through some of those procedures here in a moment. The next case from a volume standpoint is property maintenance. And that can be overgrown vegetation, that can be trash and debris on the property, That can also be a failing fence that has a surcharge behind it. That can be peeling paint on the side of a home. or dilapidated conditions. The next case that in terms of the number of cases received is short-term rentals. I'm sure each one of you on the commission and Director Phipps is very aware that Sausalito has a number of short-term rentals. And we do get cases on those from time to time. and they are adjudicated through our area. Finally, in terms of the most popular cases are the zoning and planning issue cases. And I know that that's something that's near and dear to this commission's heart. And so I specifically wanted to mention those cases as being they are definitely on our radar and definitely something that we see quite a few of. Just some examples of some property maintenance there on the left, and clearly work without a permit on the right, just to give you just kind of an overview. So what does a typical code enforcement practice look like? What is, how is a department set up and what does it do? The city of Sausalito is a complaint-based code enforcement division. So that means that our team is generally not out in the vehicles looking for violations. We generally wait to have a violation reported to us. Now, there are instances where we will act on a proactive basis And that usually is because there's some sort of an exigent circumstance. We see something that is of an imminent threat that requires our immediate attention That does give us the authority to be proactive. but, most generally, Um, someone is waiting to enter the room, should I let them in or should, does someone else have control of the room? |
| 00:24:14.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Someone else has control of the room. |
| 00:24:15.77 | Orlando Givens | Great. Okay. I'll just let that go then. |
| 00:24:17.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll just let |
| 00:24:18.44 | Orlando Givens | Um, So generally speaking, we are complaint based. So once we have a complaint, we will go through an investigation period to verify the validity of that complaint. I'll go into that a bit more later on. And that leads to our response. And our response may very well include noticing either to the violator, the property owner, the tenant, whoever that may be. That noticing will detail a level of corrective action needed. And that corrective action will take us in two directions. One, and our preferred direction, of course, is compliance. And that's what code enforcement is all about. We're about getting properties back into compliance when they have stepped out. However, occasionally we are unable to gain compliance initially. and we must engage in some escalated enforcement. measures. And we'll go over what some of those look like a bit |
| 00:25:29.50 | Orlando Givens | Say hi to Jordan, who is there with you in the hall, and that's her looking at a property that my guests, all of you know about. Uh... Again, we are complaint based. So complaints generally come in by phone. in person, online, or either from an internal customer. And an internal customer might be someone like, our building inspectors may be out in the field and perhaps they are inspecting one area of a property and see where the homeowner has exceeded the scope of their permit and they may very well come back and let us know about that and that will trigger a code enforcement case. So that complaint, as I mentioned, leads to a response. And that response, first of all, starts off with our investigation period. And we're going to gather evidence long before we ever go out into the field. We're going to spend quite a bit of time going through the records of that property and making sure that we understand exactly what is there and what we may see when we go out into the field. Then we'll do an inspection. And that inspection will, uh, allow us to gather additional evidence And we will engage in some joint enforcement efforts if needed. More on that later. That will then lead to noticing. And please know that in the noticing process, one of the things that we pay very close attention to. and that does Uh, uh, lengthen the time in some cases of getting a property into compliance is the process, is due process. we have to give property owners due process of law. and allow them their constitutionally guaranteed rights. And there are some very specific areas there that we must adhere to as we go through our jobs. Hopefully that leads to some corrective action. where we will provide violators with a reasonable time for compliance. And once again, that will either lead to compliance or a form of escalated enforcement. And by escalated enforcement, I may mean something in the way of administrative citations, We have the code enforcement area has the lawful authority to write a citation. If we are unable to gain compliance through our initial efforts, And we wish to escalate those efforts further. And those citations are essentially a fine on the property, much like a ticket. There are other legal avenues that are available to us, including recording the property, what you perhaps have heard the term clouding the title, we have the ability to do that. And in the most severe cases, the city has the authority to temporarily take possession of the property. abate the violations and then return that abated and now compliant property back to its owners. And that process is known as receivership. So how do we handle the most common case that we get? which is work without permit, as I mentioned a moment ago. Like I said, a complaint is received. We will have an initial conversation with the complainant if they are available. And then we're going to do some pretty thorough research in the office. We're going to search for existing code enforcement cases. Are there, is this, is the complaint that we've received a known complaint and has a code enforcement case already been open? Or is this a property that has had other complaints recently or in the distant past? Are there other areas that we can look at there? We're gonna determine who that property owner is. And we've got a couple of ways that we can do that. Our GIS system and county records are two to speak of, that will kind of inform us who that property owner is. Because our responsibility is to address the property owner or the occupant if the occupant is the violator. We can also look into Google Maps. Google Maps is a wonderful service that's completely free and available to anyone and gives us kind of an historical picture of the property. As I'm sure you guys know, the Google car drives by a given property a few times over the last several years. And we could kind of see how that property has changed over time. The violator says, hey, you know, I haven't done any work here. And you drive by and you see that three years ago, there was an old electrical panel on the side of the house. And last year when the Google car drive by, it's a brand new gray electrical panel on the house. How did that happen? |
| 00:30:40.18 | Unknown | Did that happen? |
| 00:30:41.53 | Orlando Givens | So those are the kinds of things that we're looking for. We're also gonna search through the zoning in the planning area to make sure that the property is compliant there. We're also going to research the permits to see what has been issued, expired, is in final status, or permits that are even in process. Maybe they just got a little ahead of their skis and there's a permit in process, and we just simply say, hey guys, let's hold up on that until you have that permit in place. Now, once we have done our initial homework in the office, it's time to go out into the field. And our initial inspection is generally from the public right of way. And if we are able to verify the complaint from the public right of way, then we can acknowledge that complaint and move forward with the case. We're going to document that initial inspection with photographs as we document every inspection with photographs. Thank you. However, sometimes we may or may not be able to document the validity of a case from the public right of way. If we have any questions in that regard, we're going to attempt what we call a knock and talk, where we literally knock on the door and ask to speak with a reasonable person that is there. We're going to request consent to inspect any private property. We don't just go walk in on private property. There's some fairly strict rules about that. all of the code enforcement team are well-versed on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and rights to privacy. So we know exactly what we can and cannot do in terms of the gathering of evidence. |
| 00:32:33.84 | Orlando Givens | I guess. MISSED ONE THERE. There we go. Work without permit continued. We're going to prepare a notice of violation once we have confirmed that a violation exists. Then that's going to detail specific code sections at issue and the specific violations noted. We're going to post that on the property. We're going to send it to the violator and or tenant. both by certified and regular mail. We're gonna work with the owner or the occupant to bring that property into And we're going to once... when we have a work without permit case. one of the things that may very well happen is that they'll send in plans to get that permit issue. Now, Here's an interesting part of the process. At that moment, when those plans come in, the only person in the building who knows what that property looks like is the code enforcement officer. So one of the procedures we have in place is when the plans are received, before they go to the plans reviewer, The code enforcement officer reviews them, not necessarily as a plan review, but simply to verify the validity of the plans versus what we saw in the field. that new water heater that they put in without a permit, Is that on the plan? The kitchen that they relocated, do they show where the old kitchen was and where the new kitchen is? So those are the kinds of questions that really only the code enforcement officer can answer. And that's why this is an extremely important step. |
| 00:34:17.23 | Orlando Givens | Once the permit is issued and inspections are called for, we will re-inspect the parcel to see that compliance is taking place. And once the permit is moved to final status, We are notified of that, and we'll close the case. As I mentioned before, code enforcement is not an island. We work very closely with multiple departments. So some of the folks that we collaborate with on a day in and day out basis may very well be the South Marin Fire Department. Sausalito Police Department. County of Marin Environmental Health, Adult Protective Services, Children's Protective Services, Public Works. outside agencies such as Build It Together and Habitat for Humanity and those that address issues with the unhoused or underhoused. going through some of the complaints that we have received and some of the work that we've done just since January. My understanding is that we have 21 active work without permit cases since January. We've had 31 first inspections. Now one might ask the question, why do we have more first inspections than active cases? We did have a bit of a backlog before Jordan joined the team in January, and she's been able to bring that down quite a bit. And I'm extremely thankful for her hard work. Jordan has done an absolute, absolute excellent job in my, in my opinion. of helping the city of Sausalito manage its code enforcement division. Follow-up inspections where we have had a previous inspection and now we're going back out. to look at a property again. Thank you. We may have been out there a month or two ago And we may need to go back out and re-verify the complaint, the validity of it, or see if there's been any improvement. So, we definitely want to track our follow-up inspections. On the building property maintenance side, you can see the numbers for that, short-term rentals, and then planning and zoning cases with the totals. And this gives you also just kind of a single screenshot of what I've been saying in terms of the sheer numbers of cases we get in each category. We've abated and closed five commercial cases, 34 residential cases. So we've taken 39 cases off the books since January. Current code enforcement initiatives underway. One of the challenges that code enforcement was facing was that complaints would come in in a fairly ambiguous nature. And so we are redesigning the complaint form to make sure that we are as much information as possible at the initial phase. at the complaint phase, I should say. And you've already met Paul Van Hook, your new code enforcement officer. Paul, we're extremely glad to have you on the team, and I know you're going to do great things for the city of Sausalito going forward. Significant improvement of case detail and accuracy. Jordan has been outstanding in improving the quality of the data. in the systems at the city. And we're deeply grateful for that. Also significant improvement in case intake. case adjudication and resolution as the numbers we just went through. share, show. Thank you very much to the commission, to Director Phipps, and to each of you there in attendance this evening. And we are happy to answer any questions you may have. I am here, and Jordan and another one of our colleagues is there in the room with you. |
| 00:38:31.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Givens. That was a very thorough presentation. We really appreciate that. We've been asking for this update for a while, so we thought that was excellent. With that, I'm going to ask the commissioners if they have any specific questions of Mr. Givens or Mr. Van Hook or the other staff members from Four Leaf there that are on Zoom. I want to remind everyone that we're not to talk about any specific addresses or problems. If you are aware of any specific addresses or problems. If you have aware of any specific cases, just email or call Mr. Van Hook and also and also Director Phipps, depending the nature of what the issue is. With that, I'll start with Mr. Graff, Commissioner Graff. Do you have any questions? Thank you, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:39:19.46 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Gibbons, and I'd like to thank Director Phipps for prioritizing this as a very important issue that I know this commission has been very eager for, and we really, really thank you for all your hard work and prioritizing this for us. So, Mr. Gibbons, I did have a couple questions, and thank you for the presentation. I just wanted to understand a couple things. The first is in your the assessment of what's permitted or what isn't, are you coming across violations with conditional use permit or minor use permit as well? And how is that categorized in your different areas there? |
| 00:40:05.63 | Orlando Givens | Commissioner, that's a fantastic question. Let me reiterate that we are a complaint based organization. So our team is not out looking for those violations. But if we receive a complaint of a violation of a conditional use permit, I believe that there is at least one that I know of in house currently. then the first thing that we're going to do is we're going to reach out to somebody on your team and just kind of confirm that this is indeed a violation. and we'll look to see exactly what the CUP says and attempt to do our investigation to verify whether or not a violation exists. I can tell you that that is absolutely a case that we would pursue. when a complaint is received, and it would be something that going forward you will see the Planning Commission and code enforcement working together on very closely. |
| 00:41:09.25 | Kristina Feller | Great, I appreciate that. Thank you. I know you've been a... Bit of a problem here, both mainly on the commercial side. Yes. And the retail side. So I appreciate you having an eye out for that. We will as well. |
| 00:41:16.54 | City Attorney Rudin | Yes. Yes. |
| 00:41:23.57 | Kristina Feller | The other question is sort of similar, but more specific to the Historic Preservation Commission. I'm just curious if any of the violations that that you are coming across crossover with HPC and and yes, how some of the means and methods perhaps are infringing upon the historic nature of some of these projects. |
| 00:41:36.72 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:41:36.97 | Orlando Givens | Thank you. |
| 00:41:37.18 | Unknown | I'll be right back. |
| 00:41:37.19 | Allie Murphy | Thank you. |
| 00:41:45.41 | Orlando Givens | Commissioner, that's a fantastic question. Um, When you have historical property issues, code enforcement has to tread very carefully. And a lot of times that may come into play where we have dilapidated conditions on a property that has been designated of historical significance. We're going to want to see that property brought into compliance, but we're also going to want to make sure that that compliance process is historically sensitive. So as we've we will identify property as being historically significant in through our research. And I mentioned the research process in office ever long before we ever get out into the field. And that should be, generally speaking, uncover that historical significance of the property. So then we're going to compare that with the violations noted. So do we have just some trash and debris on the property? Okay, that's easy. But what if we've got some dilapidated conditions? What if we've got, say, a collapsing front porch? Now we've got some issues. So how do we get that front porch to be current code compliant and historically significant? that will take some collaboration with your team and with the historical board. |
| 00:43:15.69 | Kristina Feller | Sure, I appreciate that. Thank you. |
| 00:43:18.02 | Orlando Givens | Yeah. |
| 00:43:18.48 | Kristina Feller | And sort of my last comment or thought on this, and maybe Director Phipps, this might be directed your way as well. is it might be worthwhile for code enforcement just to review the draft of the of the parklet program to make sure that they feel comfortable that they could enforce what has been defined in there, because that will certainly be in there in their court once it's approved. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:43:47.00 | Orlando Givens | Commissioner, may I speak to that point for just a moment? |
| 00:43:47.11 | Allie Murphy | Bye. |
| 00:43:50.54 | Orlando Givens | Yes, please. Thank you so much. I wanna make sure that in the city of Sausalito, that code enforcement I'm not sure if code enforcement has the authority to for enforcement actions in the public right of way. A lot of times that's public works department. And a lot of parklets really exist in the public right of way, not necessarily on private property. |
| 00:44:22.33 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I understood that. I think the request would be if you could coordinate with Director Phipps Ah, great. Yes. To review... the draft and maybe make comment internally as well, since some of those will be encroachment permits as well. |
| 00:44:40.14 | Orlando Givens | Oh, yes. Okay. Now we've got something. Yes. Be happy to. |
| 00:44:40.15 | Kristina Feller | Oh, yeah. |
| 00:44:45.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Commissioner Saad, questions on the presentation. |
| 00:44:50.89 | Nastassya Saad | No, thank you for the presentation. No questions. |
| 00:44:54.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Question, sir. Genius. Questions? |
| 00:44:56.69 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller, and thank you for the presentation. I'm curious. In the rare case, I know this is probably rare in Sausalito, in the rare case that a property owner does not agree with the violation. would like to I assume there isn't a pure |
| 00:45:10.04 | Orlando Givens | There is absolutely an appeal process. And that's actually where city council gets SEL, not CIL, city council gets involved. Um. And we will undergo The thorough appeal process, the appeals process is spelled out in the municipal code. It's also like a lot of one of the things that gets appealed the most, as you might imagine, are the administrative citations. When we when we hit the pocketbook, sometimes folks are less than pleased with that. Uh, and, uh, so we actually put the appeals process, uh, explain explanation of the appeals process right on the back of the citation. And so, so that they know what to do there. Um, yes, uh, there is an appeals process that is clearly spelled out. Um, and it is something that, uh, that we're very familiar. Thank you very much. |
| 00:46:07.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, Mr. Givens, I want to thank you for your presentation. Are there any other questions or comments from the commission? With that, I appreciate that. At this point, Director Phipps, do we need to take public comment on the code enforcement new business item, I believe? |
| 00:46:26.53 | Director Phipps | I don't believe it's required, but I defer to a city attorney on that. uh, |
| 00:46:31.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | City Attorney Rudin, do we have to... Yes. Yes. |
| 00:46:33.99 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:46:34.33 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 00:46:35.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I knew that was coming. At this point, anybody that wants to have public comment on our code enforcement update item, if you could raise your hand in the Zoom application or I guess come up to the podium if you're in the room. I'm not seeing anybody in the Zoom application. Are you director Phipps? Seeing none, sure. Okay, I see no one in the room. With that, we will close public comment on this item. We're gonna move on to item seven, which is our public hearing. At this time, I would like to pull the commission for any ex parte communications related to projects on the agenda this evening. With that, I will go to commissioner Graff. |
| 00:47:30.07 | Richard Graef | No explanation. |
| 00:47:30.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | communications. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:47:34.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. No ex parte communications. |
| 00:47:37.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:47:39.43 | Kristina Feller | Um. |
| 00:47:39.70 | Nastassya Saad | no ex parte communications. |
| 00:47:41.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair jr. |
| 00:47:43.55 | Andrew Junius | No ex parte communications, but I do need to recuse myself from the first one we have. 60 Woodward as I am within the 500 by my home on for Laura Lane is within 500 feet of that home so I'll be recusing myself. And then, Unbeknownst to me, but hours before the hearing, I realized that the next item on South Dakota Boulevard Um, Dorman Associates is a client of my law firm. So I will also be recusing myself on that matter as well. So I'll be heading back. |
| 00:48:15.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. We will come get you. You'll go into the conference room adjacent to the chamber. Thank you. At this point, I'm gonna have Director Phipps explain the protocol for our public hearings, if you could, Director Phipps. |
| 00:48:34.19 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair, and happy to. Regarding regular public hearings, we will begin the item with a staff presentation. Following staff presentation, there will be questions of staff from planning commissioners. Following the question period, there will be an applicant presentation, 15 minutes per team. There will be questions provided by the commission regarding the applicant and their presentation. Following that, there will be a public comment period of three minutes per speaker. The applicant will then have a rebuttal period that they can use reserve time if applicable. Finally, there will be a planning commission discussion, deliberation and decision. Thank you, Trent. |
| 00:49:18.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. The first item on our agenda this evening is 60 Woodward Avenue, which is a design review variance, tree removal permit, and encroachment agreement. And Magna Gonzalez, our contract planner, will be doing a presentation. And she's come up on the screen. Ms. Gonzalez, if you could do your presentation, it would be appreciated. |
| 00:49:43.55 | Magna Gonzalez | Hi, good evening, commissioners. Can you grant me access to co-hosts, please? |
| 00:49:52.51 | Director Phipps | Tonight you should be good to go. Thank you. |
| 00:50:04.44 | Magna Gonzalez | Okay. As you previously mentioned, I am presenting a project for 60 Woodwork. The applicant is Allie Murphy with Eastwood Development. on behalf of the property owner, Helena Saladova. The project record is 2022-00155. The request is for approval of a design review permit with height and review. A variant. a Trudio Immoable Permit and an encroachment agreement. |
| 00:50:34.95 | Magna Gonzalez | Here's a picture of the site plan. The design review proposes to CONVERT THE EXISTING WORKROOM INTO A GYM, A MEETER ROOM, AND A BATHROOM. It also proposes to demolish an existing detached garage standing in the building. AT THE at the property line on Woodward Avenue and build an attached garage adjacent to the residence. It also, the true removal permit is to remove A southern magnolia. which is currently located behind that detached garage. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A TRUE AN ARBORS REPORT INDICATING THAT THE TREE IS IN FAIR CONDITION, BUT DUE TO ITS CURRENT LOCATION, very little soil and the growth is kind of stunned because of the proximity to the to the DETACHED GARAGE, THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE THAT TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTING THE NEW attached garage. and replacing it with a Japanese maple, which will be located adjacent to the upgraded driveway. THE ENCOURAGEMENT IS TO improve the driveway, the current driveway has a 12 foot width and does not meet current Southern Marin Fire District requirements. the new driveway would have a 17 foot |
| 00:52:04.86 | Allie Murphy | on. |
| 00:52:06.09 | Magna Gonzalez | APRON AND IT WILL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 16 FEED WHICH ALONG THE WHOLE DRIVEWAY MEETING FIRE Um, The variance is to INCREASE THE BUILDING covered. Originally, the request was for 2.8%, which is to cover the additional conversion of the square feet and the attached garage and the driveway. but the applicant found during HER CALCULATIONS THAT IN 1990 THERE WAS A A variance was approved to grant an increase from the 35% that's allowed by the zoning THAT WOULD BRING THE TOTAL TO 39%. BUT ON THE CALCULATIONS, THEY FOUND THAT THE ACTUAL FOOTAGE OR BUILDING COVERAGE ON THE SITE, IT'S ACTUALLY 40.9%. So the variance would address that discrepancy in between what was approved and what is existing previously. and what is existing now and what they are proposing. This is the project summary table THERE WILL BE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE SETBACKS but all of them will still be met. there won't be any changes to the actual footprint of the house because the building is already there and they're only proposing to convert the workroom into the other spaces like I mentioned the gym as well as a media room and so forth. As you can see, the proposed garage is actually gonna meet it's going to have a bigger setback than it is now. And it's not going to be, just standing in front of the property as it currently is and it's not very functional to the property owner IT WILL HAVE A 27-FOOT SETBACK. from the front, from the rear, it will have a 57 foot setback. From the right side, it will have a 31 foot setback. And from the left side, there wouldn't be any change. AS I PREVIOUS, ALSO THE NEW PROPOSED GARAGE WILL MEET THE SAME HIGH REQUIREMENT THE SAME HEIGHT THAT IS, UM, ASSISTING WITH THE RESIDENTS, WHICH WILL BE 20 BUT 3 INCHES. As I previously explained, the building coverage, there was a discrepancy from what was approved before and what is currently existing on the site. So the applicant submitted a variance TO ADDRESS THAT DISCREPANCY AND ALSO FOR AN INITIAL REQUEST OF 2.8% FOR THE FOOTBALL Um, The zoning allows for 45% floor area ratio. The project exceeds 80% of that 45% granted Therefore, high-derm review is required, and we submitted findings for that as well. The impervious surface is below what it's allowed. and THERE WON'T BE ANY CHANGE TO THE PARKING. because there's currently two available parking spaces in the detached garage and they're proposing two parking spaces in the new attached garage. These are some of the materials that they are proposing. They're not proposing to change the colors or anything. They're gonna be consistent with what's currently on the site. the new garage. We'll also have the same color schemes. As you can see the doors brown, it will be consistent with the, existing theater shapes and everything will be just the same colors, but just upgraded. The project is exempt from CEQA, subject to section 15301 and section 15303. THE PROJECT MAKES THE FINDINGS FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW, HEIDENED REVIEW, the variants. preservation of trees and views. and encroachment review and agreement. Therefore, staff recommends that planning commission adopter a solution to approve the design review permit with height and review. The variance? THE TRUE REMOVE PERMIT AND THE ACCOUNTAGE for the proposed project subject to the conditions of approval. Alternatively, the planning commission may continue the hearing for additional information and or for project revisions. or direct staff to prepare a solution for denial stating the specific reasons. any one or more of the findings cannot be made. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions of Applicants present, her name is Ali Murphy, and she has prepared a presentation as well. |
| 00:56:52.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez. At this point, we'll have questions of your report from the commission. Start with Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:57:07.22 | Richard Graef | I'm sorry. I had a question, but this new diagram answered it. It was about the property line. But, um, Uh... Not really, not at this point, thank you. |
| 00:57:23.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. Commissioner Felder. |
| 00:57:27.26 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Magna, for the presentation. So I have a couple different questions. The first is, can you, go back to the drawings and walk me through exactly where the encroachment agreement is needed. |
| 00:57:44.15 | Magna Gonzalez | Yeah, give me just a second. |
| 00:57:45.03 | Unknown | Second, second, share my screen again. |
| 00:58:02.36 | Magna Gonzalez | The encroachment agreement is needed. There's already an existing encroachment agreement because of the driveway. that it's currently on the... Forgot me. |
| 00:58:13.09 | Kristina Feller | Um, Magna, if you're using your cursor, can you move it slower? It's a little hard. |
| 00:58:20.02 | Magna Gonzalez | to see. |
| 00:58:20.90 | Kristina Feller | Amen. |
| 00:58:21.12 | Magna Gonzalez | Yes, I apologize to on the right hand side of the presentation. on the lower corner. The encouragement agreement is to expand the existing driveway. As you can see at the very bottom, I'm sorry, it's hard to see my, my cursor. If you see the north arrow, if you follow it directly to the right hand side, the approach is proposed to be 17 feet. They're going to perform that work within the right-of-way. The property line is all the way over here. WHERE YOU SEE THE PL INDICATING THE PROPERTY LINE. the driveway. within the public right-of-way. |
| 00:59:15.83 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, okay, thank you for that. And I had sent you an email question ahead of time regarding whether or not Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed this or if you have had dialogue or issued this to them based on the vintage of this project, I'd like to understand or get some sort of reading from them or certification from them. |
| 00:59:43.69 | Magna Gonzalez | No, I have not sent it to them. Part of the reason was because the Detached garage is not older than 50 years. And the project is not subject to CEQA. They're not proposing to add any additional square footage to the residence. BUT I CAN DEFINITELY REACH OUT TO THEM AND HAVE THEM PROVIDE FEEDBACK. |
| 01:00:07.69 | Kristina Feller | But yeah, I think that that would be the appropriate step here. I wouldn't feel comfortable moving forward with this without having them review that. And they might, say it's not not worth coming to their commission, but I think it's rather important that we go through that process so we can be sure. Okay. Um, And then can you review the arborist report a little bit? I didn't... I didn't really find that to be an arborist report. I don't even know what I would call it, but it's not really what we're used to seeing. So maybe you've had a dialogue with the arborist or you... can make some determination through that dialogue. Could you give us a little more background? |
| 01:00:56.79 | Magna Gonzalez | Yes, he indicated that although the Christine Southern Magnolia is in fair condition. Um, the likelihood of it thriving in the future is not, great due to the location. It's really close to the existing detached garage. ON ONE OF IT ONLY HAS ONE CROWN AND IT TILTED BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO IT. HE ALSO MADE MENTION THAT THERE'S NOT VERY MUCH SOIL THERE. So I wouldn't be able to grow as others would if it wasn't so close to the, |
| 01:01:33.16 | Kristina Feller | But it's the existing garage, which is going to be replaced. Is that correct? |
| 01:01:38.26 | Magna Gonzalez | Yes, but in order to replace it, the project proposes to Add the... garage to the house. It would be within that same area. So it requires the removal of Um, the tree. THE EXISTING GARAGE, IT'S IN A VERY AWKWARD LOCATION Um, It has a driveway. It's standing by itself. then there's this, lower portion where the tree is located. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE DRIVEWAY AND CREATE THE DRIVEWAY AND CREATE THE the attached garage. |
| 01:02:15.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you point, Ms. Gonzalez, can you point out on the map on the screen where exactly the tree is? |
| 01:02:23.61 | Magna Gonzalez | Yes. Um, |
| 01:02:23.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:02:25.98 | Magna Gonzalez | So can you see my cursor hovering over this area where it says, like, 16 FEET WISCUS. |
| 01:02:32.22 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:02:33.17 | Magna Gonzalez | the garage is around here so the garage AND THEN THE TREE IS IMMEDIATELY BEHIND IT. |
| 01:02:41.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the tree is in the driveway that's being proposed. |
| 01:02:45.10 | Magna Gonzalez | Yes, that's why they're proposing to remove it. Otherwise, they wouldn't propose to remove it. |
| 01:02:45.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:02:50.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The tree that's gonna replace it would be where? |
| 01:02:53.99 | Magna Gonzalez | It would be next to the driveway. My cursor is to the right hand side of the driveway. within the public right-of-way. THERE'S AN N INDICATING THAT THERE'S A NEW TREE. That's where the new one would be. the Japanese maple. |
| 01:03:08.23 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:03:12.06 | Kristina Feller | Okay. I think I'm going to stop there for now, Chair. Thank you. I might have some more later, but thank you. |
| 01:03:20.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:03:26.07 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Magda, just to go back to the... the report, I had asked in email and you did follow up. Thank you for sending that over, but I wanna make sure that my fellow commissioners, we all have the same thing because what I see in the packet is a, two-page attachment for the tree. for the arborist report, and I believe you sent me something that has three pages Thank you. |
| 01:03:57.15 | Magna Gonzalez | YES. |
| 01:03:58.33 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. you |
| 01:03:58.89 | Magna Gonzalez | THIRD PAGE JUST REITERATES WHAT WAS PROVIDED ON THE FIRST AND SECOND PAGE. IT INCLUDES A VALUE OF THE TREE, WHICH WAS INCLUDED ON THE FIRST PAGE and the condition of the tree. |
| 01:04:10.52 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, and then can you just confirm, is the city, is staff accepting what we have as a... arborist report because agreeing with Commissioner Feller, it doesn't seem like a full report. It almost seems like correspondence |
| 01:04:27.49 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:04:27.92 | Nastassya Saad | Does staff accept that as an arborist report? |
| 01:04:30.01 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 01:04:30.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:04:30.62 | Magna Gonzalez | I did because it did provide the condition of the tree. It provided the value to remove it. findings for the removal as well. THE FINDINGS WERE PROVIDED SEPARATE, AND THOSE WERE ALSO PROVIDED TO YOU. but it's a separate attachment. NOT AS PART OF THE ARBORIST Okay. |
| 01:04:51.83 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Forgive me, Commissioner Sada. I'm not sure I understood what she meant. The arborist made the findings or somebody else made the findings based on the arborist report? |
| 01:05:04.23 | Magna Gonzalez | No, we make them, we just ask them to provide that information to support the removal of, that they're requesting. So these are your findings, not the arborist? Correct. They're conjunction with what they provided, but they're my... my findings. Thank you. |
| 01:05:20.97 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:05:21.82 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:05:21.95 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. Thank you, Magda. I'll leave that one for a moment. I might have a question for the applicant there, but, um, Do you, can you confirm I'm looking at attachments just so I understand what I'm looking at. 10 and 11 and 12, those are, you know, the design review findings, variance findings, encroachments. Are those, did that come from the applicant? |
| 01:05:47.53 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. Yes, part of the submittal for a permit within the city is that they provide findings for those. Yeah. |
| 01:05:57.24 | Nastassya Saad | Right. Okay. I just wanted to confirm that that was from the applicant. And then do we know if Southern Marine Fire has had a chance to review the newest plans, which I think were January 23rd? Yes, they did. And do they have any additional I think the conditions that we see in the packet are from the original plans from November 15th. I think that's what they were responding to. Do you know if they, do they have anything? |
| 01:06:26.26 | Magna Gonzalez | Bye. |
| 01:06:26.77 | Nastassya Saad | further. |
| 01:06:27.04 | Magna Gonzalez | to add. |
| 01:06:28.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:06:28.49 | Magna Gonzalez | They do not, no, they said the approval was subject to the original condition. Thank you. |
| 01:06:33.41 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you. I think those are all my questions at this time. Thank you. |
| 01:06:37.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. I have just one question. I thank you for correcting the staff report and reissuing it per the comments that we had sent you in advance and deleting the variances that weren't needed. Has the geotech report, which is attached, been added as a conditional approval that the recommendations in that report would be a condition of approval. |
| 01:07:07.93 | Magna Gonzalez | No, it has not. We typically don't ask THEM AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, THEY'RE PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK AS PART OF THEIR REVIEW. And any conditions that they issue are the ones we attach to the project. |
| 01:07:24.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think we have in the past, but other commissioners, correct me if I'm wrong, if there are issues regarding geotech and soils and structure, we do add conditions to the approval to make sure that they're implemented, I believe. |
| 01:07:39.43 | Magna Gonzalez | Okay, if you would like me to modify the conditions to add the recommendations, we can do that. |
| 01:07:45.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. At this point, if there's any other questions that commissioners, we will get those commissioner fell. |
| 01:07:52.66 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair Magda we had at least at the time that I printed my material we had two public comments that had been written in, can you confirm that we only have two or were there more comments that that came in after I happened to print today. |
| 01:08:09.86 | Magna Gonzalez | No, as far as I know, that's all we've received, yes. |
| 01:08:12.89 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, Okay. And then Um, All right, I'll wait for the other questions maybe to the applicant. Thank you. |
| 01:08:26.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. If there's no other questions from the commission of the staff, if the applicant could come up and do their presentation. You have 15 minutes to present. There'll be a timer that will show up on the Zoom screen, I believe, if you can give your name and address for the record and you have 15 minutes if you wanna reserve some of that time after we open up for public comment, you might wanna do that and that way you can rebut anything that if there's any public that responds. So at this point, the floor is yours. |
| 01:09:00.92 | Lucas Eastwood | Okay. |
| 01:09:01.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:09:01.68 | Lucas Eastwood | Um, Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Lucas Eastwood. I'm here to discuss the application for a variance on 60 Woodward Avenue. application number 64194. 08. Um, So as I mentioned, I'm the builder, I'm the project sponsor. My clients purchased this home with the intention of moving into the residence. and occupying the home. So I have my presentation sort of divided into five points. The first point is demolition. We're proposing to demolish. Can you put up slide number four, please? Or photo number four? Oh, sorry. Slide one. Listen to her. We're proposing to demolish an existing detached street-level garage which was constructed in 1990. and extend the driveway to a newly attached two-car garage. the demolition of the existing detached garage will significantly increase pedestrian and vehicular visibility on Woodward Avenue. and I'll see you next time. The garage. That would be the next two slides, please. The newly proposed garage will maintain two off-street parking spaces Bicycle storage. and recycling. the roof line of the garage, is consistent with the existing roof line of the home. The appearance of the garage will diminish the overall visual impact from the street as compared to the current elevated garage at street level. We have placed the proposed threshold. of the garage flush with the main living of the existing home to facilitate vehicular and rescue vehicle access. the driveway, an attached garage, will facilitate accessibility for the home to the home for generations to come. regardless of health conditions. Furthermore, we're committed to maintaining the overall aesthetic of the existing home and have designed the garage in a visually consistent manner. |
| 01:11:19.28 | Unknown | and |
| 01:11:21.00 | Lucas Eastwood | The driveway. I go to the next, please. Oh, perfect. We're proposing to reincorporate the driveway that was constructed in 1956. as part of the original home construction, which included a two-car garage. a two car attached garage. However, it was later abandoned in 1990 when the detached street level garage was constructed. This is likely due to the driveway pitch, which was over 25% in grade. We believe that the property will greatly benefit with a code-complying driveway at 20% in grade, extending to the new garage. Due to the significant natural grade of the site, a portion of the driveway will be greater than 24 inches above natural grade, thus adding to a modest increase in building coverage from a technical standpoint. So sort of the essence of the variance is the portion of the driveway that's going to be over 24 inches, which is why we're asking for the additional lot coverage percentage. Um. Do the significant natural grade of the site a portion of the driveway. I already said that. And lastly, the new driveway will utilize the existing 17-foot curb cut. |
| 01:12:44.43 | Unknown | and, |
| 01:12:46.13 | Lucas Eastwood | um, Trees. We're proposing to replace one Southern Magnolia tree with a Japanese maple, the Magnolia is located directly behind the existing street level garage in the defunct driveway. There are three existing Japanese maples on site, adding the fourth Um, will be an attempt to offset the loss of the Magnolia. So the variance is to increase the building lot coverage from 40.9 to 43.7%, an increase of 2.8%. in 1990. A variance is granted to relocate the garage from beneath the house to the street level. We are now proposing to demolish that street level garage extend the driveway to a new attached garage. A portion of that driveway is greater than 24 inches above natural grade. thus adding to the building coverage increase. Um... In conclusion, access to one's home is paramount. It allows a family to gather an age in place. We believe this is a sound project. that adheres with local design standards. This project will greatly decrease the street presence and increase the function of an otherwise excellent home. We hope you'll find this project an easy one to approve. I and my team am available for any questions. Thank you. |
| 01:14:11.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your presentation. This will have questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:14:11.47 | Lucas Eastwood | Thank you. |
| 01:14:19.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. And, um, Let me ask you, from what I'm seeing from the Southern Marin fire conditions, they mention that They mentioned that some of the shrubbery needs to be removed. Could you clarify, because I believe in the staff report, at least it says that there is no other landscaping outside of the tree. Do you know what the intention is there around some of the other dense bush and |
| 01:14:51.73 | Lucas Eastwood | You know, I don't know if we have any comment on that. The only two comments that I am aware of that they wanted us to make to ensure that the driveway had a 16 foot width. Originally, we proposed a narrower width. And second, they wanted to ensure that there was a turning radius. So we incorporated both of those comments into essentially the driveway section. I can look back at my team to see if there was more comments regarding the shrubbery in the area. |
| 01:15:23.54 | City Attorney Rudin | I'm curious how we let you out. There. |
| 01:15:27.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Come up to the podium and present. |
| 01:15:28.98 | City Attorney Rudin | on Zoom. |
| 01:15:29.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And. Thanks. |
| 01:15:30.38 | Unknown | Thank you, the architect. For the drawings to progress to this point, it was really the the making sure that the driver become a switchback. So they wanted a 27 foot minimum turning radius. And then the wider driveway, it was further access. So even though the original house didn't have access to for the fire, once you created the driveway, then it had to be completely code-combined. But for the shrubbery, it seemed like more that was a comment for when we submit our drawings for building permit, but there wasn't actually any specific thing about trimming the shrubbery. So we had produced a vegetation management plan. We called out all the plant types. But there was no specifics on any piece of shrubbery to be removed at this time. But certainly, we would. |
| 01:16:13.66 | Allie Murphy | Bye. |
| 01:16:23.89 | Unknown | anything they felt was a fire hazard, we would address as they saw the bed. |
| 01:16:28.98 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. And then in terms of your tree removal, I did. Who might have reached out for that report? I'm just curious and a bit stuck on it because it doesn't seem very comprehensive. |
| 01:16:52.61 | Lucas Eastwood | Sure. |
| 01:16:53.49 | Nastassya Saad | Can you comment on that? |
| 01:16:55.63 | Unknown | That was Ellie. Thank you. |
| 01:16:57.88 | Allie Murphy | you |
| 01:16:57.89 | Nastassya Saad | No. |
| 01:16:58.11 | Unknown | Yeah. Joanne. |
| 01:17:00.22 | Lucas Eastwood | Bye. |
| 01:17:00.78 | Allie Murphy | So I'm Allie Murphy, part of the applicant team Yeah, I had a positive experience working with this arborist on a project nearby in Mill Valley. And. they, Made the report. And I identify just the single tree as being significant, the 11 inch magnolia. |
| 01:17:22.77 | Lucas Eastwood | And I think from what I'm gathering, it just seems like you guys don't have enough data on that and you're used to a more thorough arborist report, right? So- |
| 01:17:31.17 | Allie Murphy | And that's the feedback we're getting right now. Had that been, I guess, when we submitted it, we could have asked the arborist to go and get more information. So that's something we can do. But it sounded like it checked the boxes and requirements of an arborist report when it was submitted and accepted. |
| 01:17:48.30 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I appreciate the clarification also. Nice to meet the whole team. And then, I'll pass it to my colleagues. I think that's all I have for the moment. Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. |
| 01:18:00.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Graff? |
| 01:18:06.76 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:18:06.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:18:06.98 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:18:07.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 01:18:07.62 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:18:07.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:18:08.02 | Richard Graef | Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:18:08.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:18:09.64 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And thank you for the whole team and Ms. Reese Wood for... presenting and walking us through some of that. So thank you. But maybe just to close the loop regarding the arborist report, yes, we are accustomed to a comprehensive arborist report that enables us to make the findings for the removal. If there are further questions after this hearing about what that might look like, I know that the Community Development Department has many examples of really solid and comprehensive reports. And those could be used as a benchmark perhaps in your communications with the arborist. I also wanted to just understand because there were some revisions to the agenda because this project actually is a heightened design review. And so there are additional findings that the commission needs to make under a heightened design review situation. And I want to make sure that you are aware of what those were and those have been reviewed with you. |
| 01:19:17.14 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah, yeah, it did. We did trigger that heightened review because we're we're past the 80% threshold of the 45%. And yeah, we we went through the checklist ad nauseum uh, sent our findings to planning and, you know, it was a dialogue sort of back and forth. But yeah, we're aware that it triggered that. Okay. And, you know, have paid close attention to that. Can I say one thing about the tree? |
| 01:19:45.09 | Kristina Feller | Of course. |
| 01:19:46.00 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah, so the, you know, the, the, The health of the tree is... I don't want to cast it aside, but I do want to just kind of make the point that the topography of the site, you know, it has this, elevated garage and the back of it's built on piers, probably 10, 12 feet. It's got these posts. And the tree is right against the back of this garage. if the tree was alive and, and, and flourishing, um, you know, it would still be an obstacle for this project because it does sort of impede that vehicular access down the hill. That said, we will get further findings on the health of the tree. and try to present that in the best way we can, whatever the best method of communication is. And it just so happened that the tree, because it was planted so close to the garage, And it's really... It's almost like touching the back of the garage. I'm not sure if there's a photo that articulates that. That was something the arborist pointed out as, in terms of its long-term viability, it didn't have much long-term viability because of its proximity to that structure. There is a potential that if the structure came down And we were able to get rid of all the concrete in the driveway that was just kind of abandoned. that could potentially revitalize that tree um, But again, it would still be in that vehicular |
| 01:21:20.96 | Unknown | you |
| 01:21:21.02 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:21:21.19 | Lucas Eastwood | right of way. So it's sort of a cumbersome |
| 01:21:21.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:21.34 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 01:21:25.18 | Lucas Eastwood | Mm-hmm. Tree. |
| 01:21:26.80 | Kristina Feller | Sure, I understand and appreciate the comments to that. And just to double back with you, I'm glad that Uh, that you have gone through the checklist of the heightened design review, because there's, quite a lot of additional findings that the commission has to make and I just wanted to make sure that you have had the opportunity because the change to us was made very late. So I wanna make sure you've had the opportunity to be fully familiar and aware with it, aware of what all those findings are. |
| 01:21:56.51 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:21:57.41 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:21:57.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:57.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:21:57.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:58.50 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate that. Thank you. Um, And then because of what you're proposing on this site and sort of the nature of that neighborhood. Could you just remind us or point out to the commission exactly where some of this exterior lighting is? And is it only a downcast exterior lighting like around the garage or is it landscape lighting? I wasn't completely sure where it was and I just want to make sure that ambient lighting is lowered, of course, because it's a lovely neighborhood. |
| 01:22:33.64 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah, no, exactly. So, yeah, there's really – it is downlighting. There is quite a – complicated footpath that's made of these sort of four by four posts that are just kind of laying on top of one another. And we were planning to sort of keep that. It follows the natural grade. It's almost like a landscaped stair. And so certainly some lighting will need to be provided to just ensure safety, but it is possible to do that. with just that downward trajectory, just like just a little bit of you know, ambient lighting, And, you know, possibly along the driveway as well. But really just that footpath is really the only place where I see that it's just for your pure safety concern, there's going to have to be, you know, pretty consistent lighting down that path. But it can be done with a, you know, a minimally invasive. |
| 01:23:20.43 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:23:34.84 | Lucas Eastwood | you know, light temperature and direction. |
| 01:23:37.85 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Good. I think that would be preferables and that would look lovely. And you mentioned that you are the builder and project sponsor. So can you just shed a little bit of light for the Commission here |
| 01:23:46.70 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 01:23:51.40 | Kristina Feller | about some of the sequencing? Are you envisioning that you would Can you demolish everything you need to first, or are you proposing to phase this, or will your client be living in the home as you're doing the work? I want to get a better understanding of that. |
| 01:24:12.56 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah, I can speak to that. So it's, you know, it's all in the project is probably a 12 to 15 month project. You know, it would start with demolition of the garage, you know, would immediately go into, you know, excavation. of the driveway. And then there's a little bit of excavation within the home itself. So it is a full It is a full renovation. you know, really, I would say down to the studs, but the sort of the key walls, none of them are moving. And from the exterior, it's a pretty, none of it will change substantially outside of this garage. But really the idea is to go in standard sort of construction phasing, you know, demolition, excavation, concrete framing, but kind of in one fell swoop. And no, it's a little bit too invasive of a project, I think, for anybody to live there. And that would only probably extend the duration. of the project in the grand scheme of things. |
| 01:25:15.77 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I appreciate that description. That's definitely helpful. The only other thing that I would ask, since it sounds like you have to go back to your arborist anyway, is through all that demolition and new work, if there are other to vegetation trees in particular that need to be protected. as you are demolishing or building new Typically we ask for arborists to weigh in on that as well, and tree protection plans are very common. Thank you. |
| 01:25:47.28 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 01:25:47.60 | Kristina Feller | and standard practice, frankly, for any projects like what you're proposing here. And so that's going to be a very important piece to understand on this development. |
| 01:25:59.44 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah, we understand working in this type of topography and really that it has to be surgical. You know, we've done projects on, you know, half acre lots where we have, you know, 30 trees that fall under the tree protection plan. You know, so we are used to that, you know. And yeah, we'll find the right consultants. you know, get them on, get them onboarded. Certainly not trying to come in here and scrape the lot, really trying to try to keep it a minimal project, which is why In fact, even the staircase that we're talking about, which has kind of become part of the topography, like, you know, we're going to leave that rather than, you know, cutting it, putting in a new concrete stair with, with rails. Really it's, it's, it's kind of like, we're trying to take this house away from the street. and congregate it down in the actual house site. Obviously, it does come with a decent sized driveway, which is sort of unavoidable. But yeah, I do understand that procedure. |
| 01:27:04.58 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great. Thank you for that. Um, Chair, I think those are my questions for the time being. Thank you. |
| 01:27:11.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. I just have a couple questions myself. The curve in the driveway is that due to reducing the slope or is that an aesthetic idea? |
| 01:27:23.23 | Lucas Eastwood | Thank you. |
| 01:27:23.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 01:27:23.26 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah. |
| 01:27:23.58 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:27:23.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to do. |
| 01:27:24.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:27.53 | Unknown | It was both at the same time. So it's a courtesy architect. So it was really, it brought down like not a full percent, but it, Cheers. And then also, with a 16 foot. driveway didn't want a runway going down from the street to the garage so with a little bit of shade. was a positive and it wasn't a A hindrance for the fire department because it was over a 27 foot radius. |
| 01:27:55.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. I mean, I thought it looked like, I mean, obviously the slope before, because you went to one story lower, that's why the slope was as steep as it was. So this reduced the slope, but then, I mean, for a fire truck, curves aren't the best things, but I thought it was going to be too steep. |
| 01:28:12.01 | Unknown | No. Yeah. |
| 01:28:15.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:28:15.09 | Unknown | Yeah, it would still be considered like virtually a straight. It's not a switchback. That was their concern. They just wanted to make sure it didn't switchback. |
| 01:28:21.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | didn't switch back. |
| 01:28:23.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:28:24.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Commissioner Pollard, do you have a further comment on the curve? |
| 01:28:28.38 | Kristina Feller | I do not. Thank you. |
| 01:28:29.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, good. Uh, second thing is the, the garage doors on the lower level. Yeah. Once you put up this structure in front of it and above it, are you, are you going to side that and eliminate those doors or those doors going to still be there? |
| 01:28:45.55 | Lucas Eastwood | Oh, the garage doors that you see in the existing- Go to the media room or whatever. In the existing home. Yeah, so no, that'll become a permanent structural wall. |
| 01:28:49.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the Thank you. |
| 01:28:55.33 | Lucas Eastwood | and the new garage will be in front of it. So really those garage doors that you see, that entire building facade actually, the garage kind of abuts that. So that wall now becomes an internal just framed wall essentially. |
| 01:29:10.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, I just, obviously those doors probably weren't weathertight or whatever and need to be something. So you're gonna, it'll become a permanent |
| 01:29:18.25 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah, and it's actually, we're going to end up replacing the foundation in that section as well. because I think the ceiling height down there is like probably a little bit less than eight feet. |
| 01:29:29.76 | City Attorney Rudin | Okay. |
| 01:29:30.13 | Lucas Eastwood | So that'll actually get excavated and that'll basically be, I don't wanna say new construction, cause it's not, you know, new means and methods to close that existing opening for sure. Good. |
| 01:29:41.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. And then lastly, this is gonna have a fire sprinkler system, obviously, because it's over 50% of you doing more, bringing it down to the studs. So a fire sprinkler system is required. |
| 01:29:55.37 | Lucas Eastwood | Thank you. All right. |
| 01:29:55.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. You're aware of that. Okay. Yep. With that, are there any other questions from the commission before we open it up for public comments? know. And I was gonna make a similar comment about the need for the arborist report. In my view, you're taking a tree out that's in the way of what you're doing. So that I understand, but the tree protection plan part of that, I think is very important. So that we have that can that'll be codified as part of the community development department's review. |
| 01:30:23.17 | Neal Toft | Agreed. |
| 01:30:29.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. With that, we will open this up for public comment, both in the chamber and on Zoom. In Zoom, if you want to raise your hand, in the chamber, are there speaker cards? Did we go with speaker cards, Director Pips? |
| 01:30:46.72 | Director Phipps | We have made them available. at the entry to the chamber. |
| 01:30:52.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chair. |
| 01:30:53.19 | Director Phipps | but I have not received any. |
| 01:30:53.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but I have not read it. I haven't received any. So I will take, I'll take hands. You can, we can go with hands. If you wanna speak in the audience, just raise your hand. Okay, why don't you come up and Give your name and address for the record. |
| 01:31:09.44 | Andrew Draper | Thank you and good evening. My name's Andrew Draper and with my wife, Yeah. Francis Collins. We own a house, 73 Marie Street. And that house shares a common property line with 60 Woodward. The property line is on the west. of the plans that you have reviewed. And I have just three concerns that I'd like to raise relating to noise, privacy, and light. Noise is an obvious issue, and I would just like to ask, whether the construction will be Thank you. confined to normal working hours that's five days a week with no work on Saturday and no work prior to 8 a.m. in the morning or after 5 p.m. I think that would be reasonable. The property. |
| 01:32:07.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:32:10.10 | Andrew Draper | We'll. five days a week. |
| 01:32:12.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of. |
| 01:32:12.74 | Andrew Draper | after 8am in the morning and no work after 5pm. |
| 01:32:15.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. We have standard hours, but we'll check what those are. |
| 01:32:20.53 | Andrew Draper | Thank you. |
| 01:32:20.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to go. |
| 01:32:21.04 | Andrew Draper | you The second issue is light. Our house has a dining room with a lot of windows that face the west facade of 60 Woodward. Essentially, we look straight at their property. Um, Outside of the dining room, it's a small patio area. with which is a little dark as is. And I asked whether the architect could do an evaluation of the impact of the proposed construction on the light on that, into the dining room and the the patio area. And then the third point is privacy. I believe that the plan showed two additional windows on that west face. Those windows will overlook the patio area and potentially look into the dining area. So I asked whether those windows could be made opaque. I don't know what view you see from there, whether you would just look straight into our building or you would look over the roof, but if that could be a consideration. |
| 01:33:38.90 | Richard Graef | Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? that |
| 01:33:42.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:33:42.43 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:33:42.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you for your comments this evening. |
| 01:33:43.19 | Richard Graef | Okay. |
| 01:33:43.27 | Andrew Draper | Yeah. |
| 01:33:45.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Additional comments from those in the chamber? Comments from anybody on the Zoom application? |
| 01:33:57.33 | Director Phipps | Director Phipps, I'm not seeing anybody. Seeing, yeah, I agree, Chair. Seeing them on Zoom. |
| 01:34:01.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, I'm going to close public comment. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry, I missed your hand. Could you come on up and give your name and address for the record? Thank you for coming this evening. |
| 01:34:15.37 | Michelle Yellen | Hi, I'm Michelle Yellen. I'm a long-term neighbor. I see the house from my house. I'm at 61 Marie. |
| 01:34:25.49 | Kristina Feller | Could you speak into the microphone? Because this is being recorded and people are on Zoom as well. Thank you. |
| 01:34:30.03 | Michelle Yellen | sure sorry about that not used to speaking in public um and uh I'm a friend of the past owners, so I've known this house for a really long time. I really respect the fact that they're saving... the walkway. because it's just a charming way to enter the house. THE DISTRICT The former owners, I can tell you, they stopped using the garage, they had four kids. and they had a station wagon and they couldn't get down the driveway. And that's why they built the other garage. But it's very, obtrusive, it's right on the street. It's not a very nice looking building. And I just think it's going to be a really nice addition to the neighborhood, the way they're going. |
| 01:35:25.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. you for your comments this evening anybody else in the chamber uh that would like to speak on this project yes uh come please come up You can give name and address for the record and also speak into the microphone, please. |
| 01:35:40.67 | Helena Zoladova | My name is Helena Zoladova. I am the owner of 60 Woodward and I just wanted to let you know that we actually really like the house. for what it is today is just not very practical. For us, my husband has had a couple of back surgeries. So having an access from, you know, avoiding steep stairs in the future and having access from the garage to the house It's just something that we really need and value, but we actually really like it the way it is and don't plan to... you know, make any big changes other than that garage and what's happening on the inside. |
| 01:36:15.65 | Christine Scarpino | Yeah. |
| 01:36:21.19 | Helena Zoladova | So thank you for considering it. |
| 01:36:22.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:36:29.19 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:36:29.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:36:29.44 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:36:29.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. At this point, I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to turn it back over to the applicant to have response to anything they heard in the public session. And also the owner can also join in on that because they're part of your team, basically. |
| 01:36:53.60 | Richard Graef | And if, |
| 01:36:54.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Zoom team can put up back the whatever time we had left him. |
| 01:36:54.60 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:37:02.77 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah, okay. So first of all, thank you for that feedback. you know, just as a high level comment, you know, Those hours are pretty close to our standard working hours. In terms of the privacy, I do understand that concern. I don't know how big of a deal it'll be considering we're We're five feet off the property line and you guys are 16 according to the plan. So there's a good 20 feet of separation And there is pretty much just one bedroom window that will be facing that direction. And then if I'm not mistaken, Um, the new light that would be the new light would be, I guess, from that, it would come from one bedroom window. So none of the living space is facing that direction. We're going to be talking about it. |
| 01:38:09.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that. |
| 01:38:09.78 | Lucas Eastwood | I'm not sure. |
| 01:38:09.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 01:38:10.05 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah. |
| 01:38:10.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I guess the question was, would that be on opaque glass or would that be clear glass? |
| 01:38:15.14 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah, I mean, at this point, I think we probably keep it clear glass, I think The privacy concern of the occupant of the bedroom is probably just as much relevant as the privacy concern of the dining room. And I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't want somebody 20 feet away to tint their glass for me. I would just close my blinds. I'm, I'm, I'm, hopeful with common sense, I think people would be closing the blinds and not just leaving the light on. And, and blasting it, nor hanging out in the bedroom, looking into the dining room. But I do understand it. And I think in terms of, Just working and spending my entire career working in, relatively high density environments. You know, we are used to creating relationships with neighbors, making concessions, community outreach. So I'm open to an offline conversation about how to mitigate these things if there is any mitigation factors. And then certainly we'd adhere to whatever the published working hours are. I don't actually know what they are here, but 8 to 5 sounds pretty reasonable. Monday through Friday. you. |
| 01:39:34.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Any further, further comments? Any further comments at this point? No. No, the owner has a comment. Yes. |
| 01:39:42.52 | Lucas Eastwood | No, Commissioner. |
| 01:39:43.20 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah. |
| 01:39:51.45 | Helena Zoladova | I actually met with the immediate neighbor on Woodward to the West in person when we first drew up the plans. And they raised some concerns about privacy. And once they understood what the plan was, they were delighted because their privacy had improved. Because currently the bedroom windows that face the existing garage facing back towards Woodward And that there's basically a courtyard and they didn't have any privacy because of that. So they are excited and in support of this project because this solves that for them. And also the existing garage that's at the street level actually towers over them and cuts all of their light. So, you know, I didn't solicit a letter, but I had an in-person meeting and they were delighted. His name is John. |
| 01:40:49.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. All right. Any further comments from the applicant team? Okay. |
| 01:40:56.91 | Lucas Eastwood | No, Commissioner. |
| 01:40:57.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. All right, thank you. At this point, we'll bring it back up to the dais. And what I would like to do, can I bring up attorney, city attorney Rudin online here? |
| 01:41:13.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh uh mr rudin i want to understand what we can and can't do uh with regard to this historic issue can we uh if we wanted to approve it this evening i'm not saying that's where we're going but if we did if the historic commission were to determine this wasn't a historic resource then that would not change anything can we condition a an approval on that? Or do we need the historic commission approval first? Because before we get into a conversation, that's sort of a key point. |
| 01:41:49.46 | Mary Wagner | Um, Yeah, no, that is a key point. And what is what is the basis for the historic commission to find that this is a historic resource? Have staff looked at that? |
| 01:42:04.71 | Richard Graef | Commissioner Saad, who's formerly in the historic commission, give that explanation. |
| 01:42:08.44 | Nastassya Saad | So any property that is over 50 years of age would have to have a historical resource determination. given that this was, I think, built in 1956, was mentioned from the driveway, The garage may be newer, but the overall property is over 50 years. the first step should be a historic resource determination by HPC, which I believe is usually advisory to us, but that is the... The first phase. |
| 01:42:47.00 | Mary Wagner | But this property is not listed on any local, state, national historic register. Um, |
| 01:42:54.12 | Nastassya Saad | So the historic resource determination would, so it's not listed, correct, but that historic resource determination would come from the HPC as a final determination before moving forward. |
| 01:43:12.28 | Director Phipps | If I may, Commissioner, so I think that we talked about a historic resource inventory. We mentioned that. That is one of the steps that staff uses to assess historic resources as a first step. The second step that you mentioned, Commissioner, I think is correct. Question is, is the property over 50 years old? If yes, there is need for a historic resource determination to be made, but my understanding is that that historic resource determination does not need to be made by the HPC. It can be made by staff. |
| 01:43:50.11 | Kristina Feller | So has staff made that, I mean, |
| 01:43:52.96 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:43:53.23 | Kristina Feller | I don't mean. |
| 01:43:53.52 | Nastassya Saad | I may be correct and that's fine. I think with the commission, if I may speak for us, but do we have any information on that? Has staff made that? Because we don't see that in any in the packet. anywhere. I think is the issue. |
| 01:44:16.44 | Director Phipps | So I, I, yeah, thank you, sure. I appreciate that. It may not have been explicitly called out in the staff report. And if that is information that commissioners feel that they need to make a determination, you know, we're happy to dig into it a little bit further. I think that by default, if we have brought the item to the planning commission, um, we that determination is self-evident. |
| 01:44:42.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Fowler. |
| 01:44:44.31 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:44:44.38 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 01:44:44.42 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:44:46.05 | Kristina Feller | I mean, respectfully, this was a question that I emailed to Magda before this. before this hearing tonight and did not get, a sufficient response, so I'm not comfortable with it. at the stage that it is right now. And, you know, I am not a member of the Historic Preservation Commission, nor do I, So either staff needs to clearly make that determination, or HPC has to clearly make that determination. I'm not comfortable Um, at the state that we're in right now, making that determination myself. |
| 01:45:30.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I guess City Attorney Rudin, you concur that CDD can make that determination? |
| 01:45:38.13 | Mary Wagner | I don't see anything in the city municipal code that says that they can't. |
| 01:45:42.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, good. |
| 01:45:43.98 | Mary Wagner | Um, |
| 01:45:45.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so, well, let's have a conversation, putting aside the historic issue for the moment. Let's have a conversation about the rest of the project so we can figure out how we can move forward. So who would like to start? |
| 01:45:54.08 | Allie Murphy | Let's have a conversation. |
| 01:46:04.03 | Richard Graef | I promise you're going. |
| 01:46:05.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. Yes, putting aside historic information, findings. We've talked a little bit about the Arbor's report and some of the information that I think is still a little bit thin there. that we would expect to have a more comprehensive plan and report on that. And again, should there be, I mean, I'm familiar with this property and I drive by it all the time. I hike by it all the time, but I truthfully have not looked at it or poked around certainly on the site since it's a private property, if there are any other or any other vegetation that need that protection. So we would look for the expertise of an arborist to recommend a tree protection plan for the work that needs to be done here. As it relates to you know, windows or punched openings near neighbors. I very much appreciate the comments. It's something that we are very sensitive to. But in this particular case, I would not suggest opaque windows in a bedroom. I do not think that that is reasonable. for your enjoyment of your property. However, if there is some sort of window covering you can use and or any type of vegetation or fencing in between the two properties where that makes sense I've looked at the topography plan. I mean, there's a little bit of difference in terms of the topography, so that should help as well. And I would like to be sensitive to that. But I also think the setbacks are such that there's plenty of opportunities for privacy between to the soul. to me, that's something that can be handled. That is not a reason to deny this project or any other evening. Otherwise, I really don't have a problem with this project, and I think you've been very um, how you're gonna go about the demolition and renovation here. I would like Magda to review or put up on the screen all of the findings and just for the avoidance of any doubt, either on this commission or in the public or with the applicant exactly all those findings we have to make, for the heightened design review, for the encroachment, for the variance, and the tree removal permit. There are quite a number of them. So if you could do that, Magda, I think that would help us in our deliberations here to make sure that we are being comprehensive in our review and very clear with this applicant in terms of any additional information we may require. |
| 01:48:56.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Pelley, do you wanna go through these now or do you wanna get other commissioners comments? |
| 01:48:59.41 | Kristina Feller | I think we should get other commissioners comments, but I want to be clear that this is our roadmap for approving or denying or continuing. So there are quite a number of them here. I just want to make sure everyone's aware of the body of findings we have to make. So thank you, Chair. |
| 01:49:18.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Commissioner Graham? |
| 01:49:27.78 | Richard Graef | Bye. Thank you, Chair. Well, aside from a couple of technicalities regarding the tree and the tree and the arborist report, and a possible tree protection plan which seem to be such that we may have to continue this. Aside from that, what I would like to do is to compliment the team on A really nicely done design. I think it makes a lot of sense. The way it's handled architecturally and the details and materials, I think are all right on target. if it weren't for a couple of these uh Other issues, I would be... ready to approve this project. As far as removing the tree goes, to me, that's a no-brainer. It's right in the way. It has to go. and it's being replaced. That's pretty straightforward. And so, yes, I think it would be good to have a tree protection plan. I think it would be good to have a lighting plan that is missing. So I think, um, Oh, and the other question I had is, it said the magnolia tree would be replaced with a, The maple, right? But it says a five-gallon. I don't know how big. of a tree. may be very big. I don't know that we can specify or require anything a little more. mature than that. If so, I would like to see that. Otherwise, again, my compliments. I think it's a great project and |
| 01:51:24.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:24.22 | Allie Murphy | Hmm. |
| 01:51:29.79 | Richard Graef | And if we can't get through the details tonight, then I hope it would get approved at another date. Thank you. |
| 01:51:40.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, Thank you, Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:51:44.67 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you to the applicant as well and to the homeowner. I love your narrative and it makes, of course, a lot of sense and it's a Great thing, Commissioner Feller and I are coming from the housing element and we did a lot of work there and just interesting to see people wanting to age in place. And of course, we support that. And so that's a that's a wonderful thing, not to belabor too much. I think you guys understand the the tree removal, the robustness that we're looking for, I will Also, just call out from the historic Um, the preservation commission process for that determination packet. Staff can definitely make that that finding, but we will look for that and it is a requirement. So not to add too much more to your plate, but it should be it should be a requirement to have that historic resource determination. And if that proves that there is no no historic resource, then staff can definitely forward that onto HPC and to us as well. Um, So I believe we will be looking for that. I personally didn't see a landscape plan. And if I missed that, yeah, I think if it's just that tree, I think, sorry. |
| 01:53:02.53 | Allie Murphy | the middle. |
| 01:53:04.02 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, sorry. so in terms of just having with that updated tree removal, for any tree protection, but I think I'm also coming from what I'm seeing from Southern Marin Fire. So their recommendation in terms of removing some of the denseness, I think we want to make sure that we end up asking for some type of landscape plan that includes that. I believe that's Pretty much it also just for the record, you know, the hours of operation are listed in Section 12 of the code. So I think that's all straightforward as well. I would be ready to support that once we get I think this information and get another chance to review. I think it's a great project and probably make a motion to continue at some point. Thank you. |
| 01:53:57.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. I also concur with Commissioner Graff. I think this is an excellent project. I think the team has done a good job. I am comfortable with CDD's conclusion that it's not a historical resource, but it would be helpful in the future that we get a document that says that as part of the packet, even if it's not going to historic, and then you can file that with the source for their information. I think the, the, I agree with commissioner graph, the tree that's coming out is in the way of what's being built. And the, and I agree that the tree that's probably been putting us probably a little too small and we can require a slightly larger tree, but the rest of it is not, I don't think the landscape plan is significantly changing i do think you need to the team needs to look at what is being required by fire fire department because i think some of the landscape will actually come out because it might be too close to the house so i think a and then i think there are probably some trees uh that may or may not need to be protected. So part of the arborist, for me, the more important arborist report was what needs to be protected, not so much that this one tree, whether it's in good shape or not, it's clearly in the way. So that we get that tree protection plan. I would be comfortable, which is probably not the majority of the board, but moving ahead tonight with an understanding that we get the documentation from CDD that it's not a historic resource and that we require a tree protection plan that gets submitted because there will be a lot of time between now and when the building permit moves ahead and lots of time to prepare that plan and can submit it to us for information. But I might not be on the majority on that. With that, do you want to go through the findings part that we maybe should do the findings issues so to see if there's any other issues? |
| 01:56:01.95 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, if Magda can just summarize all the number of findings for each of these findings. permits and requirements. That would be great. This is for the record only. |
| 01:56:16.46 | Magna Gonzalez | I'm sorry, do you want me to read just a few of the findings throughout the different sections, the design review, the height and review, |
| 01:56:23.09 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:56:23.12 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 01:56:23.29 | Kristina Feller | variants. |
| 01:56:23.70 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 01:56:24.20 | Kristina Feller | Magda, if you could summarize the number of findings for the heightened design review. then summarize it for the variants, summarize it for the encroachment, summarize it for the tree. |
| 01:56:33.52 | Magna Gonzalez | Okay, we were able to make the findings for design review number one through No. |
| 01:56:39.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:56:40.03 | Magna Gonzalez | Bye. |
| 01:56:40.09 | Kristina Feller | to how |
| 01:56:40.71 | Magna Gonzalez | many. |
| 01:56:40.96 | Kristina Feller | to be able to get the |
| 01:56:41.03 | Magna Gonzalez | findings. |
| 01:56:41.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:56:42.02 | Magna Gonzalez | do we have to make? |
| 01:56:42.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:56:43.12 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 01:56:43.48 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:56:43.56 | Magna Gonzalez | for the height. Oh, I apologize for the design review. It is 13 for the height and review. |
| 01:56:43.97 | Kristina Feller | Oh, |
| 01:56:49.08 | Magna Gonzalez | It is seven. for the variant. Amen. for the tree removal. THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT SECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE. Okay. and the encouragement agreement Sex. |
| 01:57:09.30 | Kristina Feller | Okay. So we have about 36 different findings. Okay. I would be comfortable making a motion to continue this to a date certain if we can make a date certain, Director. Um, pending the additional information that we've discussed here on the dais, which includes arborist information, tree protection plans, historic, some formalized historic certification of whatever kind is needed, or paperwork. And I believe that that's a... |
| 01:57:48.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do I have a second? |
| 01:57:49.02 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:57:49.07 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 01:57:49.20 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:57:50.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:57:50.05 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 01:57:50.17 | Nastassya Saad | second. |
| 01:57:51.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, before we go further, a couple questions. Director Phipps, how quickly do you think you're going to have a historic, could you have an historic, let me ask it differently, can you have an historic thing completed in time for our next meeting, which is the 15th, which means you have like three days because it has to be posted and stuff. |
| 01:58:11.45 | Director Phipps | Thank you for the question, Chair. And let me just clarify from commissioners. |
| 01:58:16.49 | Unknown | Oh, |
| 01:58:16.86 | Director Phipps | What exactly would you like to see from staff as related to this determination? |
| 01:58:24.22 | Nastassya Saad | Isn't the requirement that the applicant has to and provide a historic a I'm forgetting all my words now. Historical Resource Determination Information Packet to staff. And then they do have the remit to make that determination based on what's provided by the applicant and then often forward their own recommendation to HPC. that then concurs or does not and then that comes to us. |
| 01:58:56.47 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you for clarifying Commissioner. My understanding is that that level of information in connection with potential historic resources is only triggered when an item is heard before the Historic Preservation Commission. In this case, there was no Historic Preservation Commission trigger, so we would not be required to put together that document. If... commissioners would like to require that I'd like to defer to city attorney as to the feasibility or the appropriateness of such a request? |
| 01:59:32.94 | Mary Wagner | I don't see any basis for requiring it for this project. |
| 01:59:37.68 | Director Phipps | What I'm very willing to do is follow up with our Historic Preservation Commission Chair, Vicki Nichols, and have a discussion with her and follow up with commissioners as related to the results of that discussion. |
| 01:59:53.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | in that conversation and documentation of that could occur prior to in the next few days to make them March 15th or are we talking March? I'm trying to work on a date. Is it March 15th or March 20, 29th? |
| 02:00:10.21 | Director Phipps | So, Assuming commissioners are willing to accept evidence of that discussion, with historic preservation chair. It should not take a lot of time to come to that conclusion and to be able to provide that information. |
| 02:00:24.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. So the second question, and I would like to ask the applicant is, you need to get an arborist report done. How quickly can that occur with a tree preservation plan? |
| 02:00:40.62 | Lucas Eastwood | Commissioners, if we're talking about potential dates, I think giving us a little bit of a longer runway. reducing that is probably better. We're not trying to get a shovel in the ground tomorrow. I think we have relative certainty around what's happening here. get our ducks in a row, get that produced, and come back and just be able to kind of sail through. |
| 02:01:01.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So from whatever date you were able to get that to us, I believe, Director Phipps, you need about 13 days roughly from that date to a meeting. So how quickly do you think you can get that? And we could be talking about a date in April. And if that's okay with you, that's fine with us. But, I mean, we're sensitive to the fact that you want to get going and you want to get this done. So, but we don't want to give you not enough time to get the work done and then we're not getting anywhere. So. |
| 02:01:34.81 | Lucas Eastwood | Sure. Yeah. Unless there's going to be sweeping changes in the commission in the next like six weeks, I think that's probably an appropriate time. That gives us a full month. And then that gives staff two weeks. |
| 02:01:46.48 | Pam Himka | Thank you. |
| 02:01:46.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Um, Commissioner, Director Phipps, what are our dates? And you know our dates in April, I think I do. |
| 02:01:57.11 | Director Phipps | I'm cruel. Thank you, Chair. I am just pulling it up. And what I am seeing is April 12th and April 26th. Do you concur? |
| 02:02:06.55 | Richard Graef | Uh, let me check my calendar. |
| 02:02:12.77 | Kristina Feller | That sounds right. |
| 02:02:17.75 | Director Phipps | And I am referencing the calendar brought to the commission. |
| 02:02:22.34 | Kristina Feller | That's correct. April 12. |
| 02:02:24.55 | Director Phipps | Fantastic. So, fantastic. So, I would be willing to accept a continuance to April 12th or April 26th, depending preference of commission and application. |
| 02:02:24.98 | Pam Himka | Thank you. Thank you. April 26th. |
| 02:02:26.71 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:02:37.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We'll ask the applicant, do you have a preference on those two dates? Realizing you need something two weeks before that. |
| 02:02:43.99 | Lucas Eastwood | We'll take the later date in April if that's available. |
| 02:02:46.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:02:46.51 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 02:02:47.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:02:47.35 | Lucas Eastwood | Thank you. |
| 02:02:48.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | April 26. |
| 02:02:48.26 | Lucas Eastwood | April 26th. Thanks. |
| 02:02:48.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:02:49.04 | Lucas Eastwood | Thank you. |
| 02:02:49.23 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:02:49.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I'll look for amendment to the motion to a date certain of |
| 02:02:49.65 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:02:53.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | April 26th. April 26th. I'll second. And you'll second that. Okay. |
| 02:02:53.55 | Kristina Feller | 27. |
| 02:02:53.85 | Lucas Eastwood | Thank you. |
| 02:02:53.90 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:02:55.20 | Lucas Eastwood | All second. |
| 02:02:55.72 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:02:57.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, And is there any further discussion at this point on, I think we're clear. Let me just clarify for the record. What we have in our terms of condition are that work can only occur between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. weekdays and between 9 o'clock and 5 p.m. on Saturdays. And I'm hearing from the developer, the contractor is not planning to work on Saturdays, but that's what the requirements would be. I think those are by our ordinance, but obviously, you know, if you want to work out with the neighborhood, something other than that, that's what the requirements are. |
| 02:03:38.64 | Lucas Eastwood | Understood. |
| 02:03:39.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. and nothing on Sunday and nothing on city holidays. Okay. Okay, with that, are there any other questions, comments? Okay, I'll look for a roll call vote on this. Thank you. |
| 02:03:58.02 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:03:58.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair. |
| 02:03:58.77 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Saad. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Graff. Yes. Commissioner Filler. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. And if I may, Chair, just want to thank Commissioner Saad and yourself for, and actually all commissioners present for their sensitivity to historic resource determinations. You know, historic resources in the city of Sausalito are extremely important assets. And it's important for us to be sensitive to any project that may impact them. So I just want to thank commissioners for their attention to detail and sensitivity to potentially very valuable community resources. Uh, |
| 02:04:41.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. With that, we're going to move on to item 7B, 626 Sausalito Boulevard is a design review permit, variance, tree removal permit, an encroachment agreement. And this one is also my, that's Gonzalez. And at that point, I will turn it over to you to do your presentations. |
| 02:05:05.93 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 02:05:06.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:05:20.26 | Magna Gonzalez | The second item that I'm presenting tonight is a project proposal at 626 Sausalito Boulevard. The applicant is Andrea Motilano with Dorman & Associates. on behalf of the property owners, Shema and David Kupp. The project record is 24. |
| 02:05:38.09 | Nastassya Saad | I don't hear very well. You can you. Try your microphone just a little closer. |
| 02:05:44.22 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 02:05:44.32 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 02:05:44.40 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:05:44.94 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:05:45.03 | Magna Gonzalez | Can you hear me now? |
| 02:05:46.41 | Nastassya Saad | much better. Thank you. |
| 02:05:48.05 | Magna Gonzalez | All right. Would you like me to repeat and start over again? |
| 02:05:52.08 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, please. Bye. |
| 02:05:53.72 | Magna Gonzalez | The second project that I am presenting today is a proposal for 626 Sausalito Boulevard. The applicant is Andrea Motovano with Dorman Associates. submitted the application on the behalf of the property owners um shaman david um cup The project record is 2022-00051. The request is for assigned to SIGN REVIEW PERMIT WITH HEIDERN REVIEW, A VARIAN, a TREUM permit and an encroachment agreement. Right here you have the plan. The proposal is to convert Well, the design review permit with height and review is to convert EXISTING CROSS SPACE INTO HABITAL SPACE. It's a total of 154 square feet. and also to square off three square feet of wall. IT WILL ALSO BE ADDING NEW SITING AND A NEW ROOF. The variance request is to exceed the existing building coverage and the floor air. TO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO. the conversion of the 100 foot 55. 55 foot square feet from TO HABITABLE SPACE. THAT TRIGGERS THIS CONVERSION, as well as squaring off the wall. So the proposed flora air ratio is for an increase of 5% from what is currently existing, which is 2,111 square feet and I will bring it up to 2,269 square feet They are also proposing two decks on the rear side of the property. AND THAT WILL INCREASE THE the coverage building coverage by 2%. um, |
| 02:07:55.79 | Magna Gonzalez | There's a discrepancy on what was approved before or what's allowed on the parcel. and what is currently existing on there. So the variance addresses that discrepancy on there as well. The tree removal permit is actually just to trim or to prune a coast live oak. identified as number 62, the applicants have provided NARP births report detailing the condition of all the trees, of all the protected trees on the property. as well as PRESENTING PRELIMINARY PRESERVATION GUIDELINES AND establishing tree protection zones and requiring coordination with the construction crew when it comes to pruning the tree and conducting any construction onsite. to minimize any impact to that tree or the other trees on the property. The Encoachment Agreement is to expand the existing parking space There's currently only one parking space on the street and applicants proposing too. although they are not your standard required parking spaces. they would be able to accommodate a compact car and it would be more of a benefit to the to the street and the neighbors. because That street is pretty narrow and it's difficult to maneuver. |
| 02:09:28.56 | Magna Gonzalez | They are also proposing to add a roof to the existing porch. and part of the encroachment agreement aside from expanding it and expanding it towards the house. not towards the street. is to replace, to add a trellis and replace an arbor that's existing on there. They will also be repairing two existing retaining walls that have the potential for failure, they provided a geotechnical report SUPPORTING THIS INFORMATION. And they are also proposing new retaining wall. Other than that, they're not proposing any other modifications or to expand any more of the, Um, WITH ANY MORE HABITABLE SPACE. THIS IS A PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE. AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, There are some changes to these setbacks, but they're very minimal and they will still meet the required guidelines for the zoning. THERE AREN'T ANY CHANGES WHEN IT COMES TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT and the building coverage overall is a 3% increase we take into consideration the discrepancy from what's allowed Um, on the zoning and what's currently existing. as well as a floor error ratio, which triggers heightened review approval. And with the parking, the change would be from one on-street parking, which is currently available to two parking spaces. |
| 02:11:09.01 | Magna Gonzalez | These are the materials that they are proposing. They're proposing a wide siding, wide retaining walls, a white arbor. I saw the exterior light. aluminum FIBER GLASS CLAD WINDOWS. as well as a door composition shingle. |
| 02:11:35.52 | Magna Gonzalez | The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act subject to sections 15301 and section 15303. The project makes the findings for the design review, the hyatem review, the variants, PRESERVATION OF TREES AND BUYS AND THE ENCROACHMENT REVIEW AND AGREEMENT. |
| 02:11:57.65 | Allie Murphy | Thank you. |
| 02:11:57.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:57.73 | Allie Murphy | and, you know, |
| 02:12:00.73 | Magna Gonzalez | Staff recommend that the planning commission adopt a resolution to approve the design review permit with height and review. the variants. the tree removal permit and the encroachment agreement for the project as proposed. SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ALTERNATIVELY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE HEARING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND OR PROJECT REVISIONS or direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial stating the specific reasons any one or more of the findings cannot be made. I also want to indicate that I just received A COUP LATE COMMENT I FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE DIRECTOR AND City Council. |
| 02:12:42.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr Gonzalez you also you got a question I know from Commissioner Feller and you send a couple extra drawings earlier today, I believe, and can you put those up on the screen, please. |
| 02:12:56.79 | Unknown | Yes, give me just a second. |
| 02:13:19.57 | Magna Gonzalez | I will move to the two pages that I added at the... |
| 02:13:23.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Please go to the first of the two pages. That's the one. So my question just for everybody's edification, this was sent today. The red circles are piles, I believe. And my question is, it only goes to the one parking space to the west. So doesn't it need structure to support the parking space to the east? |
| 02:13:53.46 | Magna Gonzalez | Yes, I haven't finalized the drawing. waiting to obviously obtain approval to finalize the review and they will base it on the approved plans. If this project is approved today, they will update it based on that. This was just a preliminary draft. |
| 02:14:13.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. And also the area between the new trellis and the front steps there, there's no section or something that shows what that's, there's a big drop. And I was curious of what the riser locations are. Do you, have you seen a plan that shows the risers on that? That might be a question for the applicant. |
| 02:14:37.64 | Magna Gonzalez | I have not seen those plans, no. |
| 02:14:40.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see, okay, with that, why don't you leave that drawing up on the screen? We can have questions from the commission, Commissioner Saab. |
| 02:14:53.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Magda. Can you please pull up any part of the plan that would show the tree that is being proposed for pruning? Yes, Kimra, just. |
| 02:15:10.04 | Unknown | like, |
| 02:15:26.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:26.59 | Magna Gonzalez | It would be this one. on the lower portion on the map. |
| 02:15:32.97 | Nastassya Saad | And just for the record, is that tree 62? Is that one? Yes. Okay. |
| 02:15:38.81 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:15:44.43 | Nastassya Saad | arborist report, I was... In terms of the recommendations, actually, let me ask this for the permit, for the pruning, are those recommendations also from you? Is that from staff? similar to the last project, Thank you. |
| 02:16:05.15 | Magna Gonzalez | No, that's based on from the arborist. The arborist presented and staff support that recommendation. |
| 02:16:11.51 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 02:16:12.85 | Magna Gonzalez | Um. |
| 02:16:14.48 | Nastassya Saad | And then did staff, did you have any follow-up to anything else that was mentioned in that arborist report? Because there were some call-outs for some other trees. Did you have any discussion with the applicant around anything more? This was a more robust report, so there's some more information in there. |
| 02:16:37.58 | Magna Gonzalez | Yeah, there was discussion regarding THIS SPECIFIC TREE BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDED EITHER PRUNING OR REMOVAL OF THE TREE. The applicant indicated that they do not intend to remove any of the trees. They actually want to preserve them, so they just want to prune this one. |
| 02:16:53.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Commissioner, can I ask a follow-on question? Next to the deck there, that other tree is hitting the story poles. So are they gonna trim that one also? |
| 02:17:06.26 | Magna Gonzalez | There isn't any proposal for it. But I mean, it would make sense, yes. |
| 02:17:14.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Clarity. Maybe the applicant can give clarity on that one as well. I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'll continue. |
| 02:17:20.89 | Nastassya Saad | No, that's okay. Thank you. I had a similar comment. And then In terms of the plan, was I looking correctly? Are they changing for the, I think it was the first floor level. Are there going to be two bathrooms on the first floor level? Is that correct? |
| 02:17:45.86 | Nastassya Saad | I was having a little bit of... |
| 02:17:46.47 | Magna Gonzalez | Yeah, they're going to they're going to add a bathroom as part of the crawl space conversion. Okay. |
| 02:17:55.08 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:17:55.19 | Magna Gonzalez | you |
| 02:17:55.24 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:17:57.22 | Kristina Feller | There's a powder room and a bathroom on the proposed first floor. I think that's what Commissioner is asking. |
| 02:18:03.16 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. That is, and it is larger drawing might be easier on the eyes. |
| 02:18:09.72 | Kristina Feller | It's on A2. |
| 02:18:14.03 | Richard Graef | In three. Thank you. |
| 02:18:19.49 | Nastassya Saad | So, yeah, I think A3 for the lower or plan |
| 02:18:24.13 | Unknown | or, |
| 02:18:24.32 | City Attorney Rudin | Bye. |
| 02:18:25.67 | Nastassya Saad | So there's Bath three. So let me just make sure I'm following this. So that crawl space that's in the top left, I suppose, for your cursor's sake. So that is what on the right hand side, upper right, that's what's turning into that bathroom. Is that correct? I'm sorry, I'm muted. Yes, correct. Okay, because that, And that powder room is also existing. I'm seeing what looks to be two bathrooms. I just wanna make sure I'm following the plans. Seeing that shaded gray at the upper right. And I could ask this for the applicant as well, but I just wanna make sure Thank you. |
| 02:19:10.25 | Magna Gonzalez | The shaded area is all crawl space. So yeah, it's going to be a powder room and a bathroom. Okay. |
| 02:19:18.39 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:19:19.87 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 02:19:19.97 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. And I think those are all my questions at the moment. And... |
| 02:19:27.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad, Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:19:36.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:36.26 | City Attorney Rudin | Another question. |
| 02:19:36.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:19:38.69 | City Attorney Rudin | you Thank you. |
| 02:19:39.75 | Richard Graef | The only question I had was, relative to the parking. And what I was wondering was, is there any intent to have that be exclusive or is that, for the public. what's the intent and Maybe that should be. be answered by the applicant. |
| 02:20:02.85 | Magna Gonzalez | I would like to add a comment to that. The Department of Public Works has included that it cannot be TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. It does have to be for the public. because it's within the right-of-way. |
| 02:20:17.52 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:20:17.55 | Magna Gonzalez | Yeah. |
| 02:20:17.75 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask a follow on question to that? Sorry, Commissioner Graff. Go ahead. I think I read, though, that the size of the |
| 02:20:19.61 | Magna Gonzalez | Sure. Go ahead. |
| 02:20:27.73 | Nastassya Saad | would not be for... like full vehicles, it would have to be a more compact vehicle with, is there a requirement then if it is for the public to note that so it, you know, inappropriate sized vehicle doesn't attempt to use that space? |
| 02:20:44.15 | Magna Gonzalez | Um, |
| 02:20:44.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:20:45.16 | Magna Gonzalez | I mean, we could require them to add a sign indicating that. But yeah, the applicant is aware that they don't meet standard Um... vehicle dimensions for a parking space. |
| 02:20:58.57 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you, sorry, Commissioner Kraft. |
| 02:21:04.75 | Richard Graef | Bye. Well, that's it for this part of the discussion. |
| 02:21:10.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:21:10.69 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 02:21:15.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. First and foremost, I'm delighted to see some movement on this property. It's such a, it's, it's a great property that I think it needs some TLC and it looks like through these plans, it might, might be getting some. So I'm really delighted about that. Um, I do have a couple questions and comments, and Magda, you'll see a bit of a theme here, but I actually think that this project... probably has an older vintage to the one we just heard. So I'm going to ask again about any historic reviewer consideration. I'm not going to beat that. like a dead horse. So I'm just going to put that out there. otherwise I'm assuming that this is still being proposed, even though it looks like there's a separate, apartment like area on the lower floor that this is still a single family home. Is that correct? |
| 02:22:10.92 | Magna Gonzalez | That is correct. Also to address your comment regarding the historic It was taken to the Historic Preservation Commission January 19th of this year. And they determined that this site is not a historical significance. |
| 02:22:27.32 | Kristina Feller | Okay, great, thank you. I think, okay, I did see that in there. Thank you for that. And then, this You know, I walk I walk by this property almost every day or every day I can extract myself from the office to actually go for a walk. And, you know, the the elevation at street level versus the elevation of the front door, there's quite a drop. And so I'm a little unclear I've seen the, if you could even call it a storyboard for this entryway Um, at the front door, this covered area at the front door. But I'm not really clear about this trellis because there's not a lot of space to actually, and maybe this is what Chair Luxenberg was referring to, to get from the street down to the front door. So how are you not going to kind of, you know, as you're going down little stairs, not hit your head on the covered area over the door. Like it's, it's a very small area and very steep. So have you really looked at those elevations? Cause the trellis piece is, is not really story-polled. It's just the front covered area. So I'm a little unclear about that. Um, But I also have to, have you visited this property? So you know that... that this intersection, even though you're up in the hills, it's actually a very, very busy area. And it's very easy to almost get hit by a car there because there are a lot of blind spots. So I really want to understand these parking areas and why um, you know, if this is not for this property, why this encroachment permit? Because I'm not really comfortable with this here. |
| 02:24:24.62 | Magna Gonzalez | Well, it technically cannot be designated for specific property because it is within the right-of-way. It should be for everybody according to the comments that I received from the Department of Public Works BUT WITH THE PROPOSAL, HOW THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BRING bring the encroachment back towards the house It would align more to what the neighboring property has, a 79. Sunshine, I believe it is. and it allows a little bit more little bit more of a wiggle room for them to park. Although it doesn't meet standard parking requirements for a standard vehicle. Um, It would it would be. able to create a more easier parking space. AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN WITH THE STEPS AS WELL, THE But it makes sense. I visited the site and I walked down on the porch the area itself is pretty small, but it's functional. Thank you. |
| 02:25:27.29 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, And, you know, what is the, I mean, I know the applicant will speak here, but what is the, really the purpose of the trellis? Is it just to, announce where the front door is so you don't park in front of it? Or why is it really there? |
| 02:25:45.35 | Magna Gonzalez | I believe it's just aesthetics and yes, to direct towards the entrance of the property. |
| 02:25:53.82 | Kristina Feller | Okay. You know, I noticed in the package there was some comparison to another property on South Slito Boulevard further down South Slito Boulevard that has sort of this, I'll call it like a paved parking area in front of the house. And respectfully, I'm not sure that that's a really good comparison because... that the property I've just referenced is nowhere near an intersection and a busy one because everyone's trying to get to Spencer and the highway at this right at where this house is, where this property is. But the, There's also a couple driveways that it's all converging in one place. It's actually really. For a small little town, it's actually quite a busy little area, and it's easy to almost get hit. So I'm just not really fully on board yet with that. I'm not fully understanding why that needs to be part of this project if it's not designated to this property. So otherwise, I'm, like I said, delighted to see some TLC coming the way of this property. So I'm happy about that. So thank you. |
| 02:27:09.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Actually, I have some following questions related to that as well. Can you go to drawing A5? |
| 02:27:27.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Keep going so you can see the trellis. It's in that drawing. The one below materials pallet. Yeah, right there. So my concern is when you say that it's not a standard parking space, my issue is it's seven and a half feet wide. So usually compact spaces are shorter. So you have shorter cars. Most of the cars are generally the same width in in a lot of respects and um i also walk by this uh house a lot but one day it was pouring rain i went and i actually drove and i parked where the where that current area is and um obviously it's it what hasn't been expanded by the 18 inches but the cars kept coming by and they could barely clear where I was and where the car on the other side, there's parking on the other side. So my one question is, was there any discussion about putting it back another six inches on the wall so that you could, I'll give you the three questions, moving it back six more inches, and maybe this is for the applicant, so you could get a normal eight-foot width. The second is there's no section from that trellis down to that front door is a significant drop. What are the risers on the stairs for that? And then the third is with the trellis there at this intersection you're trying to park and and so you got two spaces they have to both deal with the fact you're in an intersection and you have this trellis without the trellis you could just have something that marks the thing so that you know they when they when they back in the parallel park. They don't have to worry about hitting the structure, but then don't park where the entrance is. But, you know, it makes it harder to park in this space that's already too small when you have this trellis there that separates the two spaces. So did they talk about why the why any reason why the trellis was there? I mean, this will probably be a question for the applicants. |
| 02:29:35.47 | Magna Gonzalez | No, that discussion wasn't had. the discussion about expanding it further into the house or, um, removing the trellis for easier parking. |
| 02:29:47.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so I'll ask that of the applicant. And then there's a question of, so the space on the left does not have soldier piles and doesn't have anything to support it. And it has the same drop as to the right of the trellis. And so you're not sure why they, you said it was a preliminary draft, but why wouldn't they have put a structure in for all of it? |
| 02:30:16.85 | Magna Gonzalez | Yeah, they... And for me, they hadn't finalized the drawing. They would finalize it once they obtain approval from the planning commission. Thank you. |
| 02:30:27.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I thought it's a chicken in the egg problem if if if we don't have a proper structure. I mean, there's certain things that get get taken care of in a building permit, but if if they don't have an adequate structure, it can't get approved by the planning commission. So it ends up we continue something and we're trying to get to a point where we're not continuing items and you get all that stuff in advance. |
| 02:30:27.57 | Magna Gonzalez | Um, |
| 02:30:50.70 | Magna Gonzalez | Understood. |
| 02:30:51.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. With that, are there any other questions before we go to the applicant? Yes, Commissioner Phillips. |
| 02:30:58.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. Magda, you mentioned that you got some late mail regarding this. Of course, we're sitting up here on the dais, so we're not in front of our emails. Can you just let us briefly tell us what the public comment is since we're going to be hearing public comment here after the applicant presents anyway? |
| 02:31:18.88 | Magna Gonzalez | Yes, I'm sorry, I really haven't read it through it because I was presenting the previous project. |
| 02:31:25.67 | Director Phipps | If I may, Magda, and... Commissioner Feller, my understanding is that the individual who provided that public comment is also in attendance at this meeting. And given the opportunity, once we get to public comment, they have indicated that in the absence of having it vetted prior to this meeting, they could just make that same comment during public comment. |
| 02:31:48.95 | Kristina Feller | Excellent. Thank you, Director Phipps. Thank you. |
| 02:31:51.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any other commissioner comments before we go to the |
| 02:31:55.32 | Richard Graef | I just wanted to say that I have the same questions about access. After really looking at this and thinking about it, I think I understand what the impact here is. |
| 02:32:04.21 | Allie Murphy | Thank you. |
| 02:32:08.82 | Richard Graef | is that there's a stairway that would encroach into that parking pad Oh, I see. Into it. And it starts almost out of the street. There's no section, but I'm imagining a section through here, and it's got a steep stairway. So they bring the access is really right out in front. |
| 02:32:30.35 | Allie Murphy | Thank you. |
| 02:32:30.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:32:30.43 | Allie Murphy | Thank you. |
| 02:32:32.09 | Richard Graef | I believe this structure is to protect somebody common. in and out of that And the trellis is not even designed yet. It's to be determined. It's just a decorative thing, I think. But now I think I understand the circulation. And I think I understand the... the Mm-mm. the need for sort of a protection. |
| 02:33:01.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So there's no platform under that trellis before you got to the stairway. It's just immediately going to the stairs. |
| 02:33:06.49 | Richard Graef | Yeah. If we saw a section, I think we'd see that, but I looked everywhere. |
| 02:33:14.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, that was what I was asking for now. No, that makes, now that you say that makes sense. Okay. |
| 02:33:19.35 | Richard Graef | You can sort of see a step there. Yeah. If you look careful. |
| 02:33:22.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, not very clear. |
| 02:33:25.14 | Richard Graef | likely recessed. So yeah. |
| 02:33:30.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, with that, I think we'll, one more question. |
| 02:33:34.00 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Forgive me, Chair. You know, Magda, again on A5, the proposed remodel at the rear, there are a bunch of stairs... |
| 02:33:35.20 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:33:47.32 | Kristina Feller | leading from what looks like the street all the way down beyond the home. are these new stairs? Is this part of a landscape plan of some kind? |
| 02:34:01.15 | Magna Gonzalez | Those are existing dads. grant access to the property below it. When it was subdivided, it was part of the easement that the property below has access through those stairs. So that's existing. |
| 02:34:14.13 | Kristina Feller | So that's accessible. Okay, and and with does anything about this project trigger any upgrade or remodel of the stairs that's required by this applicant? |
| 02:34:26.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:26.92 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 02:34:27.07 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:34:27.22 | Magna Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 02:34:28.20 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Chair. |
| 02:34:30.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. With that, we're looking for the applicant to, is the applicant in the audience? |
| 02:34:38.38 | Andrea Montalbano | Yes, I'm here. |
| 02:34:39.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | on Zoom, okay. You have 15 minutes to do a presentation. You can reserve some of your time for after public comment if you prefer, if you want to. With that, I will turn it over to you. Do you need to have access to share your screen? |
| 02:34:59.41 | Andrea Montalbano | Yeah, I think I can. Am I able to share? No, I need access. |
| 02:35:04.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | team can we provide access to the applicant? |
| 02:35:14.81 | Kristina Feller | So, |
| 02:35:15.03 | Andrea Montalbano | says it's disabled. |
| 02:35:21.09 | Andrea Montalbano | Okay. All right. Well, good evening. Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk tonight and present this project. I just want to go over a couple things. First, I want to talk about the tree permit. |
| 02:35:36.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Before you, can you give your name and address for the record, please? |
| 02:35:39.38 | Andrea Montalbano | Sorry, my name is Andrea Montalbano. I work for Dorman Associates. We're the architect. And so for the tree permit, we actually, I went back and forth with Magda and we actually don't think we'll need any pruning, but because some of the trees are close, we thought it would be better to put the permit in just in case we do need to prune the trees. So actually this is the actual permit and the text on it says minimal pruning as required to reside the existing house, install a new roof, and rear balconies. There are a few locations where branches are within a couple of feet from the walls and roof. and could possibly get damaged if not pruned. So because we don't know when this is starting, uh, we, know that I just want to make sure, are you seeing, you are seeing my screen with this form, correct? |
| 02:36:33.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We are seeing the form. Okay. |
| 02:36:35.07 | Andrea Montalbano | Okay, great. All right, so that's the tree. And the tree inventory report, of course, talks about the health of the trees and how to take care of the trees. The next thing I wanna talk about is the actual- |
| 02:36:46.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We can stop the clock for a second. Some of those trees are over the top of those decks. Are you saying that they don't care that they go over the tops of the deck? |
| 02:37:00.94 | Andrea Montalbano | If they don't interfere with the installation of the deck, then we would leave the trees. You know, trees grow, they change by the time construction happens, if branches are in the way. we would then prune those branches according to the according to the arborist's recommendations and having an arborist on site at the time to monitor the pruning, that would be required. |
| 02:37:29.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. All right. Continue the clock. Thank you. |
| 02:37:32.48 | Andrea Montalbano | Okay. So here I just want to show that how kind of extraordinary this site is. So back in 1899 or so, these two lots were created. And so it's if you look around at the size of these other lots, It's... Pretty unique. There's some smaller lots over here. There's this one kind of half lot over here. But in general, this is a pretty unique situation, especially since this project is very old. Um, Now this is the front of the property. the image, the parking area that we're all talking about. And so right now there is this one parking space that does not meet the requirements for a parking space. This trellis and stair does exist. It starts here and then there's just retaining wall with nothing. So basically the idea was to create to push this wall in by 18 inches. and then bring that basically all the way across, but to keep the stair down. So we wanted to align it with the front door. That's actually the front door right there. Sweet. If we align the stairs directly with the front door, we get kind of a compact space over here, a normal size space over here, They still don't meet maybe the full width of the eight feet, but they are better than it is now. And one thing I just want to show here is the, photograph I have of the existing wall, and you can see why it is so important for us to uh, to do this. The wall is in. The wall is, this is the wall. So it's made up of brick. Stone. It's been soil. It's really the geotech said, I don't know how it's standing up. It's very scary. So we need to absolutely replace it. It's dangerous. And so we just want to expand it a little bit. I'm going to move on to these drawings. So this is the cover page. This is our subject property. This is the house below. And that is what this easement for these stairs are. This easement, it's a legal easement. It's recorded on the deed. It is also one of the reasons why we moved this, the entry over to align with the front door so that it's, it gives these people a little more privacy. um, This is also, you can see the comparison of the existing parking versus what's proposed. And this is the, you know, the existing stairs. They basically start at the street and begin to step down. they actually, we're actually starting them in further. Now, we don't have a section going down these stairs, but we had to create the stairs to work. That's kind of how we decided where they go. Um, so they do work, they do meet code and, um, the commissioner who spoke last, he was correct. The idea of the trellis is not only to mark the entrance, but it's to keep people from driving over a curb and driving into the stair. So when you see something that's eight feet tall, you're not going to you know, because these parking spaces are a little tight, you're going to avoid that. So, So that was the idea there. Now, I want to go over the the area that we're adding. which is, again, this is that it's a crawl space area. We're not digging out. It's just very raw, unfinished space. And we're just kind of finishing the space. So it's going from crawl space to finished space. And then at the Uh, the only area we're adding is right here. So it's just right now that originally it was just a kind of a bay window or something, it doesn't really have a window, but it was just a, the corner was cut off, as you can see here. And so we're just squaring it off. And so the building was always pretty large. And then the only other thing we're adding, of course, is a This deck exists, we're just putting a roof on it, and then the deck in the back. And I just want to show you one image that we have from the neighbor. of these views. This is the best photo here. Okay, so now we're, Uh, Photograph from the adjacent neighbor, the neighbor on the west from their deck, looking at the existing building. This is that corner that's cut off. And we pushed the deck further away so that it wouldn't really, it would be less in their view. And then the neighbor next door On the other side, this wall is actually six feet tall. So that's where, like, would be right next to our decks. So they wouldn't really be competing. Yeah. and wouldn't really be interfering. So this is why we push this deck to this side, kept it tight, not only because there's a tree here, but because this neighbor over here kind of has a diagonal view. but I think you could see from that photo that it was pretty well preserved. And then we're, you know, kind of keeping the spirit of the building. We're using very traditional windows. We're keeping the shingles, redoing the shingles, but then painting them. We're keeping a very, this is, this railing. is kind of, it's a non-climbable railing. I mean, they have small children, the cups and they don't want their children climbing anything, which is one of the reasons we have these vertical bars. And also it allows for some transparency. Um, And if we used, you know, the only other thing that's pretty transparent is glass, and that would pretty much clash with this style of building. So, you know, we have our materials palette. We want to, the existing retaining wall up there is brick. You know, it's got these brick piers. And so we kind of like that. So we're going to clad the retaining wall in a brick and paint it white. And then we want to do a more, kind of a more solid railing. you know, the actual final design is to be determined. But, you know, it's something a little more of the period, a little more Victorian. This is a turn of the century building. And we did a very thorough analysis with the for the historic committee, and they agreed that it did not have any historic significance. So that is my presentation. And I would love to take your questions. |
| 02:44:39.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your presentations. You've got six minutes, 47 seconds to respond after we get public comment. And with that, I'll open it up to the commission. Commissioner Dura. |
| 02:44:57.18 | Richard Graef | Excuse me. Uh... I don't have any questions. My question was about the parking and I understand that. I had questions about the access and the and the section through and that whole arrangement there. And now I get it. So, Mm-mm. No customs. |
| 02:45:20.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner. All right. |
| 02:45:21.25 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:45:22.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you for Commissioner Graff. I mean, just to follow on his original question, you've done the risers on a section to get out to. So is there any platform under the trellis or immediately goes to a first step? |
| 02:45:39.14 | Andrea Montalbano | It immediately goes to a first step, yes. And one of the ways that we achieved the drop is right now you drop down further and then you step up two steps to the front door. So we've raised that so that you lose two risers. We need two fewer risers to get from the street down now so we could take two off. |
| 02:46:01.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. Yeah, obviously, because you've moved the entry, moved it to a shorter distance from the stairs to the front door. So the longer distance allowed the risers to do what it did. Correct. No. Okay. Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:46:15.26 | Richard Graef | I'm sorry, just looking at this again, on the subject. Mmm. I'm assuming that the front of this little gazebo structure is a gate. Correct. |
| 02:46:28.26 | Andrea Montalbano | It could be a gate, yeah, I think it might be |
| 02:46:31.72 | Richard Graef | I'll wait a second. |
| 02:46:31.75 | Andrea Montalbano | It's nice to keep |
| 02:46:32.19 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:46:34.01 | Andrea Montalbano | you know, Just to warn people. I mean, it is steps where, you know, maybe if the lights aren't on 24 hours a day, then, you know, it would be nice to kind of warn people there are steps there. Yeah. |
| 02:46:44.78 | Richard Graef | Got it. normally in a stairwell, you're gonna have handrails, On one or both sides. Correct. Yeah. Ordinarily, most of the Uh, more current codes and everything demand require that the handrails and extend beyond the first step so that as somebody who's approaching or coming up the stairs or down. They have something to hold on to. And, Right now, It might not be up to code, So, with the gate and no handrails showing I'm wondering if that whole thing is really quite cooked. |
| 02:47:34.53 | Andrea Montalbano | So actually, for single family residential, the handrails only have to stop at the at the nosing. It's a great idea and for ADA access for extensions. The posts, it is possible that we want to be aging in place and they want their you know, their parents and grandparents to come visit. So we probably will do our best to, when we get into the deep details, to have those handrail extensions, which just make it easier for everybody. And that actually brings up one more thing I would like to talk about, which is the retaining walls at the front. We did that the geotechnical The wall design that the civil engineer did was preliminary. And we definitely wanted to get your approval on this design before we spent the multiple thousands of dollars it would take him to do the wall. for the building permit, because if you say no, then we've wasted that money. And it's a lot of money. So we just want to you know, the building code, the building department, public works, they are going, especially public works, because it's in the public right of way, they're going to check all those calculations. They're going to check the geotechnical report. So there's no way that that is not going to be up to code and as I said, as it is now, it has to be redone. It's very, it's like a dangerous wall right now. So we want to get going on that. |
| 02:49:05.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just a follow on question to that. So the, I guess it's to the east, to the left of the trellis, when you're looking at the house, there will be piles to support that parking space also? |
| 02:49:19.08 | Andrea Montalbano | Yes, yes, absolutely. |
| 02:49:21.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And on the one on the right, The one on the left is compact, but the one on the right only has seven and a half feet wide. Can you move the wall back? another six inches to get that wider. |
| 02:49:32.42 | Andrea Montalbano | We could. However, you know, it's it's wider than it is now. And we just we wanted we were trying to also think about what it's like viewing from the house. So we would certainly take that. you know, into consideration if you insisted on that. We just, we don't want there to be looming against the House, so we kind of, you know, we split the difference and we said 18 inches. If it was, you know, two feet and we could get that full full return of a full car. I mean, as we know, you know, eight feet of width is typically for, um, you know, a parking space where you pull in and you have to open your doors to the side and there might be something there. So parallel parking usually sometimes is only, you know, six and a half and seven feet wide and not necessarily the eight feet wide. So we went a little narrower, but it is definitely a busy street. |
| 02:50:30.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, let me clarify that last comment. You have a wall next to this, space. So if somebody's in the passenger seat, they have to get out before they get in they're going to have to back the car out somebody's going to get in the car in the right of way of the travel right away. in order to get in the passenger seat. Am I missing something on that? |
| 02:50:53.74 | Andrea Montalbano | No, it is correct. And that's why we decided to widen it. But like I said, we kind of we didn't want to bring it too close to the house that it would make it uncomfortable to the house. So we chose this distance as the distance we felt was appropriate. |
| 02:51:10.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:51:10.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:51:10.58 | Unknown | But no. |
| 02:51:10.58 | Andrea Montalbano | But no, it's not a magical number. We could widen it by six inches, certainly. |
| 02:51:14.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you put a car there, given the car across the street and given the traffic on this street, it is tight. So any additional space is probably useful. And I know you, as you said, you were looking for some additional input this evening. Um, I have other questions, but let me go to commissioner Feller. |
| 02:51:34.52 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair and thank you for the presentation and some of this discussion has helped clarify a couple things for me so thank you for that. I love the project and I'm delighted to see a project happening at this property. I wanted to understand specific to the parking if the parking the solution that you've come up with here with the trellis and two, well, sort of two parking spots. is absolutely mandatory for your project because I really am not very much in favor of... of those two spots in front of the house and what you'd have to do to maybe move the wall. I think you know, certainly you need to probably have one there, but with that road being that crowded and people pulling out right at this intersection. I wouldn't really, I'm not a fan of that. And I just want to know if it's critical to your project that you handle it this way, or if you can get by with one, understanding fully, of course, that the current retaining wall is a lot of work. isn't being held up by much and would have to be replaced anyway. |
| 02:52:55.74 | Andrea Montalbano | Yeah, so we do have to replace the wall. And as you've said, it is narrow. And so we decided, well, if we have to rebuild the wall, we should make it wider. And then the question is, you know, are we going to keep it exactly the way it is, which is just one space, or should we make it 1.5 or 1.75? I mean, the length of 16 foot eight width and the width really to the return on one side is eight foot four. You know, that's a compact space is 17 by eight. So we felt it was better to, provide a second parking space. I mean, I don't see the harm, but Yeah. |
| 02:53:39.52 | Kristina Feller | My concern is that it, you're going to have, you know, it's sort of like the same situation when you go to a parking lot now and, you know, some ginormous people truck tries to park in a compact spot. They're hanging out, they're blocking traffic, they're getting in the way. |
| 02:53:54.47 | Christine Scarpino | Yeah. |
| 02:53:58.10 | Kristina Feller | They're banging into people's doors, whatever. it's not a really good recipe. And so I want to set this up for success and not, failure and consternation. I don't have any problems with this project, except I would really advocate for one Bonafide spot. and call it a day. The other thing I'm not really wild about is the trellis. I mean, you've gone to such great lengths to really create such a wonderful... revival of maybe the original architectural intent, you know, your windows, the siding. I mean, I really think it's lovely. But the trellis just looks like an afterthought. It doesn't look incorporated into the design. And maybe that's just me, but... I'm curious if you've looked at other at other treatments, trellises. |
| 02:54:56.01 | Andrea Montalbano | What? Well, I could say that if you look on the materials, I mean, it really was a placeholder. Again, to design it to the nth degree when we don't know if it's going to be approved is, we felt, you know, kind of unreasonable. But on the last page of the materials is kind of, that's a better picture. Um, of the trellis, kind of the thing that the owners had in mind, which is a little lighter. It's a little more whimsical. You know, it's probably... more to the kind of the idea of what you're saying of like a little more Here it is, I'm sharing my screen again. Um, So it's just more like a little garden trellis where the one in the in the model that we made is the little It's a little heavy handed, I agree. But it is a computer model and it's preliminary. But that was kind of the idea was we warn cars that you don't wanna drive over this curb by having the trellis. But what that trellis is, is probably a little more lighter in spirit that we would like to you know, finalize and develop. |
| 02:56:11.24 | Kristina Feller | Well, that makes a lot more sense. And I appreciate you explaining that. Um, And I mean, just so you know, I know there sometimes is a chicken and eggs scenario. But you know, you come to the Planning Commission to approve your design and your drawings. you know, there needs to be a little bit more than just sort of a placeholder completely understanding we're not looking for final construction documents here either. but from a design aesthetic or design, The photo is preferable in my, in my opinion, and I am only one, one commissioner here because the trellis that you have, it just looks out of place. So I'm again summarize the issue with the trellis and I would advocate for one. real parking spot and not pretend that you have to, because then you're going to get that SUV or construction worker trying to park there and they're going to create an accident in that intersection. |
| 02:57:11.53 | Andrea Montalbano | Yeah, that's an interesting point. I didn't consider that. I mean, the owner has a mini, so I guess, you know, she was hoping that she'd have the mini in that spot, but yeah, it's right. It's not reserved for them. So there is that possibility of someone trying to cram a giant truck into a compact space, which you see all the time. |
| 02:57:28.31 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. So thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. |
| 02:57:31.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:57:36.49 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. I think all of my colleagues have hit the parking and trellis points that I also wanted to make. So I actually just want to go back quickly to the, your tree arborist report. And I ask only because it was much more comprehensive than the last one. I think you probably heard some of our comments. And so it's calling out some of the, your, the other trees on the site. And I know there's a tree protection plan, but it's even going so far to say that, you know, a tree might not make it. I believe it's tree 64, on, I'm looking at page six. So I was just wondering, we don't have to get into all those details, but are you looking at any other potential now that you have a comprehensive look at what's happening on that site. Thank you. |
| 02:58:34.96 | Andrea Montalbano | No, not really, because we're really not... There is one tree that is basically growing out of the foundation of the house. And I think that one is probably the most likely... to be you know, in danger. But we are... It's some. You know, they love the trees. We love the trees. And we're just going to try to do our best to protect them and take care of them. And I think when the arborist report was done, the trees were in they appear to me, they were in worse shape. They have, you know, it's been more than a year And they have kind of recovered. They've leafed out. They look a lot better than they used to. So we are hopeful that if we take care of them and are cautious during construction, that they'll stay because they are kind of the most charming thing on the property. especially the ones below. Thank you. |
| 02:59:27.93 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you for clarifying. I don't think, I think you guys answered, asked my other questions, so I think I'm okay for right now. Thank you. |
| 02:59:35.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Before we go to public comment, can I bring Attorney Rudin up for a technical question? |
| 02:59:48.20 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. you |
| 02:59:50.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know where I this is a new idea that I'm not sure where I am on on the idea. So but I just want a legal opinion. This this project is is is go, you know, substantially renovating the house, probably more than 50% or whatever, whatever. And it requires two parking spaces. Would they need a nonconforming permit in order to reduce it to one because two is required? |
| 03:00:19.79 | Mary Wagner | That's if it was a new building. |
| 03:00:22.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If it was a new building, it requires two parking spaces. Is it preexisting non-conforming? Does it need a non-conforming permit? What, what we, I'm not saying we, I don't even know if there's support for one space, but I, before we even entertain the idea, I wanted to know what we need on the permit side. |
| 03:00:40.89 | Mary Wagner | Can I get back to you on that one? |
| 03:00:43.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. At this point, I'd like to take public comment. For people in the room, if you filled out a card or if you raise your hand, we can have you come up to the podium. For people in Zoom, if you'll raise your hand, we can call you from the Zoom application. I'll start with people in the audience. Anybody want to make public comment on this project? I see none. Let me look for... The Zoom application, I'm not seeing any, Director Phipps, are you seeing any? |
| 03:01:15.06 | Director Phipps | Seeing none, sure, but I'd like us to be sensitive to the late public comment that we received. Ms. Gonzalez, are you in a position to potentially read that public comment into the record? |
| 03:01:28.12 | Magna Gonzalez | Yes, give me a second. I believe that gentleman is also on the Zoom call. |
| 03:01:37.30 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 03:01:37.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, |
| 03:01:37.97 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 03:01:38.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:01:39.20 | Magna Gonzalez | Yes, Mr. Van |
| 03:01:41.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see somebody in the video. |
| 03:01:45.20 | Magna Gonzalez | Yeah. |
| 03:01:45.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Um, I'm not seeing a raised hand and I'm not seeing... Bye. |
| 03:01:50.68 | Director Phipps | Just to clarify, the raised hand is not a physical raised hand. It is a raised hand on the Zoom application. But I believe we may have identified... |
| 03:01:50.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's just, Just to clarify. |
| 03:01:58.14 | City Attorney Rudin | you |
| 03:02:00.99 | Director Phipps | the correct individual. |
| 03:02:02.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so the raised hand is in the reactions thing at the bottom of your screen. but you can raise your physical head just for simplicity right now. Okay, good, yes, thank you. Okay, yes, can we, Zoom team, can we unmute Mr. Heinecke and allow him to speak? He is unmuted. You can unmute yourself. |
| 03:02:27.32 | Unknown | you |
| 03:02:27.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you hear me? I have three minutes to make any comments that you would like. |
| 03:02:27.40 | Pam Himka | and, uh, |
| 03:02:27.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:02:27.50 | Pam Himka | Can you hear me? |
| 03:02:32.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, |
| 03:02:32.97 | Pam Himka | Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Pam Himka. I own 71 Sunshine Avenue. For the letter, I can read it briefly and then elaborate a little bit on it. So our home at 71 Sunshine Avenue is located downhill to the southeast of 626 Osloetal Boulevard. I included a couple of photos that show the view of the project from a couple of our west-facing windows. We are mostly supportive of the project as proposed and very much appreciate that the project won't require pruning or removal of any of the coast live oaks on the south side of the property as those trees help provide hillside stability, enhance the beauty of the natural environment, and serve as a partial privacy screen between our homes. While the preliminary staff report indicates the proposed decks will not impact the privacy of neighboring properties, we do anticipate that there could be a bit of an impact the privacy with respect to the rooms on the west side of our home. And we wonder if the impact could be mitigated through the use of solid panels or some other form of privacy panels instead of the more open railing design proposed for the deck. We also have some concerns about potential reflection and glare at certain times of the day if the siding is painted a bright white. and perhaps a less reflective color that blends in better with the natural environment could be considered. That's the content of the letter. The first paragraph of the letter where I speak to the trees, there's a little bit of a misunderstanding on my part because the arborist report lists tree number 62 as a tree on the east side of the property along the stairs, rather than on the back side of the property where it was identified during this meeting. So That said, I understand that the intent is to minimize the pruning of the trees to do it in a professional way. And we're very supportive of anything that can be done to preserve those trees and the privacy screen between the two homes. And as for the other items, I'm not sure what is open for discussion, but we do appreciate the way the current house kind of blends into the natural surroundings, as opposed to something like a bright white that's very different than the greens and browns and grays that you see with the house. trees like hillside So I don't know if any of those things can be clear, but |
| 03:05:03.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:03.48 | Allie Murphy | Thank you. |
| 03:05:05.96 | Pam Himka | I can stop here, and if you have any questions, please let them. |
| 03:05:13.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments this evening. Is there anybody else that wants to comment on Zoom? I don't see it. With that, I'll close public hearing and bring it back up to the dais. |
| 03:05:31.51 | Richard Graef | Any thoughts? |
| 03:05:34.63 | Mary Wagner | And Chair, I can answer your question on the changes to non-conforming structures. So to the extent that the fact that it doesn't have the what would be otherwise required under the zoning code for the number of parking spots 1062 and 50 of the city municipal codes still says that you can still make structural additions and remodels to non-conforming structures, as long as they do not increase or exacerbate the specific non-conformity. So, you know, given that this relates to a parking structure, or given given the nonconformity that we're discussing would be a, parking spot. I think that you know, what staff are proposing was likely fine. Additionally, I'm looking at the project descriptions looks like You know, the exterior changes are, you know, remodeling of exterior siding, installation of new windows, doors, and composite. shingle roof. And then the addition of the two new decks, I don't see anything here that really would absolutely require a non-conformity permit. |
| 03:06:41.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So even though they're adding square footage and bathroom, which might increase the number of people in the house and therefore require more parking, theoretically that you don't think it requires a non-conformity. |
| 03:06:53.74 | Mary Wagner | I think based on the text of the code, one can argue that it does not. |
| 03:06:57.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Okay, so that issues can be on the table with this. Yes, we can go back to the applicant who has, I think six minutes, what did we do? Zoom team, I don't remember the number. Yeah, that's what I thought. Six something, 6.30. Okay, you have additional six minutes and 30 seconds if you wanna respond to anything you heard from the public comment period or any other comments you would like to make. |
| 03:07:31.54 | Andrea Montalbano | All right, thank you. So I would like to first respond to the neighbor. So the neighbor's concerns were that And I should show you where exactly this house is. It's 71. And if I share my screen. |
| 03:07:49.19 | Andrea Montalbano | So this neighbor lives here. And this is the house, the subject house. So it's not, you know, it's one property away. And I just want to point out that when we look at the next door neighbor, their house is very light colored. And the house on the other side is also very light in color. And so we feel that the light color of the house that we are going for kind of does blend in with the neighborhood very well. As for the railing in the back, the view is really what this house kind of is all about and looking straight out is really It really would be a shame and I think a different kind of a, you know, I mean, you can just see there's the city right there. And so with the city being in that view, Um, to put the solid panels on their deck. kind of takes away from, I think, a lot of the property value um, However, you know, if, if, the planning commission felt really strongly that it was an invasion of privacy. We would certainly consider it, but I just want them, to realize that this house is, it's a small house. It doesn't have much outdoor space, but it has a big view. And it would really be a shame, I think, for the owners to lose any of that. And one other thing I just want to say about the parking space issue is it was brought up about about trash bins. And so if that small space, that compact space maybe had storage space for their bins, it may be you know, the kind of thing that just makes it small enough that maybe only when the owner comes, she can move the bins out of the way and she can park her mini there. Basically, if the bins are stored there, Maybe it would deter cars that are too large from trying to get in. But they do need some bin storage space. And right now, this is, it doesn't really work because this angled zone here allows the car to get out, but it doesn't really allow for a lot of storage space. So those are my... responses. |
| 03:10:19.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Can I just ask a question on that? Where in the plans now, as you've currently designed it, do you plan to put the bins? |
| 03:10:28.44 | Andrea Montalbano | Well, because of those two parking spaces, we were planning on putting them down below, so down the stairs. So they would have to bring them up the stairs every time that the trash is being collected. But at least that way it's off the street and you're not seeing them visibly Um, But I'm just thinking on my feet here that if people feel that it was would be, you know, that second smaller space is kind of to a disadvantage that we might be able to work in. a trash enclosure there. that they could be maybe permanently stored, but that would kind of solve two problems at once. It would make it less less palatable for larger cars to want to park, but still allow for that parking space for a very small car. |
| 03:11:12.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Currently they're stored down below. |
| 03:11:16.82 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:11:18.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, with that, we'll bring it back up to the dais to figure out where we go from here. |
| 03:11:18.96 | Unknown | with that. |
| 03:11:24.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Hands raised to who wants to start of it. |
| 03:11:28.90 | Kristina Feller | I CAN START. |
| 03:11:31.03 | Richard Graef | Commissioner Pellett. |
| 03:11:32.01 | Kristina Feller | I'm a huge proponent for the project. I support only one parking spot. If you've planned for the bins below, then obviously that works and you've determined that that works. I do not want to I'm really not in favor. I think you're creating a dangerous situation potentially. by trying to make a second parking spot there that is only only works for the owner's mini. because it's not going to be used for that. And so I think we need to... really focus on only one parking spot. So I would be supportive of this project with that condition, as well as a rethought of this trellis. We can either assign a working group or allow staff to work with this applicant on that. I appreciate the owner's comments at 71 Sunshine. I don't want to disregard those. Um, But I I also want to point out that 71 Sunshine is at a much different elevation than this house. So I see no reason that I can justify for the reasonable enjoyment for this applicant to change any design on that, on the railing or the balcony. Um, for the color of the home, actually. So with the minor modifications that I've mentioned about one parking spot and the trellis slash arbor, whatever that ends up being, I could make these findings. Thank you, Chair. |
| 03:13:16.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner, fellow commissioner Saad. |
| 03:13:20.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. I completely concur with Commissioner Feller. I would not be able to make the findings with two parking spaces. I was going to have trouble with that encroachment, but with the one parking space, I would definitely support... I would be able to make the findings. So that's where I am. |
| 03:13:42.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Greer. |
| 03:13:45.71 | Richard Graef | Um, Thank you, Chair. Well, I was at first really pleased to see an attempt to create two parking spaces where there was only one. And, I'm understanding now the potential problems with that. and also in hashing this out, I also see some real potential problems with the gazebo, so to speak, protruding, out like that it will get destroyed unless it's got huge concrete bollards in front of it so I'm leaning towards creating one really good parking space maybe offsetting this little entry feature. the remaining space for um, the storage or whatever. or landscape. Um, So, but in its present form, I can't make the findings. I kind of wish that this had been a study session because We really... there's so many issues involved here that I'm not sure. seem to be. Thank you. coming up. Um, Architecturally, this is not my cup of tea. I was looking at the site today, And it is a kind of a wonderful place with these old brick walls and the little and the plants and everything. It had a richness and a charm. that will be completely gone. with this remodel. Not that this, I don't want to be a handsome once it's done is just that kind of a shame to lose some of that, some of that rustic another gone, bygone age. uh... Thank you. Other than that, I think, you know, I don't have any problem with the roofing over the porch entry. And I understand the desire for symmetry in this design. It seems to me that, you know, there could be also a very... uh, an interesting that's offset our And that may be that allows, maybe for an easier transition from, this level down. Anyway, um, Uh... That's about it. |
| 03:16:48.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. You know, I was I was liking the two parking spaces because I thought it it allowed parking in a neighborhood that doesn't have enough parking spaces. So I thought that was good. Having said that, I'm hearing what the other commissioners are saying and the parking spaces don't quite fit. I mean, physically, the problem I'm now having is I concur with Commissioner Graff. You don't really need to perjude the stairway into the parking area if you don't make it centered if it's off center it right now right now it works and there's enough room to do that so as you've said this was a uh something that hadn't really been fully thought through and and we're at a point where we're trying to approve something that's not fully thought through which is frustrating because i think with a little bit of study uh a design can come up with but if we go to one parking space i concur with commissioner graph it should be off center and therefore you can get the stairs out of the parking space create a little bit of storage bin so they don't have to lift the trash cans up, maybe with some fencing around it. But the question is, do we do that by approving this project and then creating a little working group, which we've done before, but we only do that because it wasn't worked out before it got to us? Or do we continue with it? I mean, those are the two choices. And anybody's thoughts thoughts on that? Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:18:20.38 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, I think I think we could handle it either way. I think we should ask the applicant if there's a preference to actually architecturally design this rather than, um, and just continue this with those changes. I mean, again, I'm not hearing. Any issues with the rest of the project? that would probably be something we should ask the applicant because we can do it either way. |
| 03:18:49.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other before we ask the applicant that any other commissioner starts commissioner |
| 03:18:54.00 | Richard Graef | I would like to see it continued because I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done to resolve this whole front end here. the House not a problem. The other little variances and so on I don't think are problems. But I think this whole front end really needs to be thought out and brought back. |
| 03:19:16.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Sond. |
| 03:19:18.42 | Nastassya Saad | I agree with Commissioner Graff. it would be in the best interest of the project to come back to us with some more thorough... understanding |
| 03:19:31.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, let me go to the applicant. If we were to continue this, how quickly would we do? We can, if we were to continue something, we could do it to a date certain or a date uncertain. It would depend on how long you thought it would take to resolve this sort of, you know, this temporary, placeholder you put there with an actual design for it. |
| 03:19:55.66 | Andrea Montalbano | Well, I don't think it would really take more than a couple of days. I mean, we can get right on that. And I just want to point out that the stairs, they are... as planned, they do occur in the exact same place as now. So we weren't bringing them in, But I do appreciate, you know, making it a single parking space. and creating maybe an L-shaped set of stairs that brings you to the entry. I just don't think that that would take very long. So the sooner we can get through this, the better. We've been in this process for more than a year now. Through the Historic Planning Commission, it took us two times to get there and we had... Thank you. you know, several rounds of comments. So we are very eager to get this moving. So, |
| 03:20:39.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to clarify and Commissioner fellow also has a question. I don't understand the comment about the stairs are in the same place. The stairs you're proposing relocating the stairs from where they are. now to where you have them on the drawings. Is that not correct? |
| 03:20:56.32 | Andrea Montalbano | Yes, but they do not protrude into the street anymore. They begin at the same place. close to the street. as they do now. They look like they're deeper because we push the parking space deeper. But the actual location of that top step is the same location. |
| 03:21:14.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | education. if you do change this, can you relocate the stairs to get it out of the, in other words, bring it farther to the east, I guess, to the left? |
| 03:21:26.43 | Andrea Montalbano | Yes, we could bring it further east and we could probably, if we do an L-shaped center steps, we could bring that top step closer to, you know, further from the center line of the road. And I think we could turn it around in a week, I think. |
| 03:21:39.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I think that's what we're looking to get it out of. So a car doesn't have to worry about hitting the trellis or hitting whatever. Get the trellis stepping back if there's a trellis. There is a trellis now, but. There's an existing trellis, right? |
| 03:21:53.73 | Andrea Montalbano | It's not, yes, there is a Charles. Yes, there is. |
| 03:21:57.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So whether you have a trellis, you don't have a trellis, that's part of that design effort for the week. If it's gonna take you a week, if you wanted a date certain, it would likely be March 29th, 29th. Is that a date? We need something 14 days before that date for you to get it. So we need it by about the 14th or so. Thank you. roughly 13, 14. Maybe a little. |
| 03:22:27.57 | Andrea Montalbano | Yeah, that would definitely work. |
| 03:22:29.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm gonna confer with Director Fiske before I commit |
| 03:22:32.88 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I appreciate that, Chair. We would want to notice for the meeting on the 29th around March 16th. So to the extent that applicant could get us information by then, we would be supportive of a continuance. |
| 03:22:47.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What was the date again? March 16th. March 16th. On the notice provision, I think if we continue this to a date certain, you don't have to notice it again. |
| 03:22:58.38 | Director Phipps | Oh, you're correct. Thank you. But we would still want to get the- |
| 03:23:02.36 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:23:02.43 | Director Phipps | We would still want to get the information that way. |
| 03:23:02.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We will still be. |
| 03:23:03.04 | Richard Graef | We're going to get the information. week. Yes, March 29th. |
| 03:23:08.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Feller, did you have an additional question |
| 03:23:11.41 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, well, yeah, I mean, first of all, we want you to get through this process as quickly as possible, too. |
| 03:23:18.50 | Andrea Montalbano | Thanks. |
| 03:23:20.08 | Kristina Feller | It's good to see this project come to fruition. But the question I have for you is I just want to make sure that you understand what our comments are and have completely clear direction. So the next time you're here, it's smooth sailing with these last pieces and parts. |
| 03:23:40.92 | Andrea Montalbano | Yeah, I think I have a good idea of what you guys are looking for. I do. |
| 03:23:45.67 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I can make a motion to continue this to a date certain of March 29th with the modifications we're looking for for the one parking spot, reworking that front with the arbor trellis as you as you wish, and not just as a placeholder but an actual design. |
| 03:23:53.90 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:24:09.37 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:24:09.41 | Nastassya Saad | second. |
| 03:24:10.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And let me ask, was there any question about the arborist or was there additional information on the arborist information? |
| 03:24:17.37 | Nastassya Saad | No, it's clarified. |
| 03:24:19.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So are there further questions or from the rest of the commission? Oh. Uh, Director Phipps, can we take a roll call vote, please? |
| 03:24:28.02 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad. |
| 03:24:29.73 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 03:24:29.93 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Greff. |
| 03:24:31.36 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 03:24:32.32 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:24:33.20 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 03:24:34.20 | Director Phipps | Sarah Luxenberg. |
| 03:24:35.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. We will now move on to the next item on the agenda. Can you do me a favor and yeah. Thank you. get under the |
| 03:24:50.47 | Neal Toft | Do you want to take a little break or anything? |
| 03:24:51.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, we're just getting Andrew. Andrew had to recuse himself for those two items. So he's now going to come back in. Just have to wait to... |
| 03:24:52.61 | Neal Toft | Nope. |
| 03:25:00.93 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. Anything you have to say. Yes. Thank you. No. |
| 03:25:05.33 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:25:05.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 03:25:06.41 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 03:25:06.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:25:15.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:25:16.01 | Unknown | That was... |
| 03:25:20.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I could imagine. Welcome back. We can now move on to item 7C. 7C is 170 Gate 5 Road. It's a design review permit, a nonconformity permit, and Neil Toff, principal planner, will be doing a presentation on behalf of the staff. Neil, the floor is yours. |
| 03:25:43.42 | City Attorney Rudin | I'm excited. |
| 03:25:50.54 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah. These are there. additional elevations. Thank you. you You can put it up on the screen. |
| 03:26:22.82 | Neal Toft | If you can give me a second, I had printed my final comments, but |
| 03:26:28.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's fine. Go get them. Thanks, Neil. |
| 03:26:28.31 | Neal Toft | that's fine. Uh, |
| 03:26:33.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and you can look at these and things. |
| 03:26:48.73 | Unknown | and |
| 03:27:04.69 | Kristina Feller | For anybody listening in on Zoom or at home, we're just waiting for the principal planner, and we have full-size drawings here that the applicant is sharing with us. We'll start in just a moment. |
| 03:27:35.92 | Neal Toft | Hey. Thank you, Chair. and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Neil Toft. I'm a principal planner now with the city of Sausalito. Um, project before you tonight. is application design review permit and non-conformity permit 2018. dash 00405. or 170 Gate 5 Road. The applicant and property owner, Dan Morgan, is requesting Planning Commission approval of a design review permit and nonconformity permits. for place an existing 3,200. 40 square foot. industrial building with a new industrial building of the same size and footprint. as the previous building. Project site is a 21,750 square foot parcel. located in the Marineship Industrial District. As such, the site is governed under the policies programs of the industrial land use designation of the general plan. and the marine ship specific plan. The site is currently developed with two industrial structures and a two-story office building. with 19 parking spaces located entirely on the site. The current structure is located near the rear of the site. behind and adjacent to a more recently improved industrial structure of similar footprints. size. While the property has a driveway at the north corner, To access Gate 5 Road, the site also utilizes a shared driveway on the adjacent parcel. And this is where the, um, they really get access to the two industrial structures. Now the existing building is a simple corrugated metal structure with a large slider door. for access, but virtually no windows. The new building would be constructed on a two-foot concrete cap to raise the finished floor above flood levels. The structure is proposed to be taller than the existing structure. barely meeting the 30 foot height limit above existing grade that surrounds the building. When raising the building level, a new ramp and landing area would be installed at the front entry, including a removable railing in order to access the loading at the roll-up door. the structure would be, present a more contemporary industrial aesthetic, would be composed of gray metal siding and bronze roofing with an assortment of vertical windows. around the building, the front facade facing southeast It's composed primarily of glass and metal framing. The applicant is also proposing new landscaping planners at the front entry and landscaping improvements around the west and north perimeter of the building. And the project includes an on-site trash enclosure in the northwest corner of the parking lot. In the staff report, Staff identified several policies and programs of the general plan. as well as a marineship plan that apply to the project. One of the primary themes of these documents is to maintain the area as a working waterfront for general industrial uses as well as marine the arts, rain uses and the arts. Retaining the industrial use on the site is consistent with the intent both the general plan and marineship plan to maintain the area as a working as opposed to primarily office use. While the building may stand out somewhat as a new structure, the project presents both architectural quality and innovative solutions. to perpetuate the industrial uses on the site. In regard to the industrial marineship district, the applicant is not. proposing to affect any General zoning regulation changes, except for the change in height to the building. However, as we discussed in the staff report, the existing site slightly exceeds the 40% site coverage limit. and exceeds the.40 FAR limit at 0.56 FAR. Further, the site does not provide adequate on-site parking of 32 spaces for the existing combination of uses. industrial and office uses. As such, the replacement of the building, a primary component of the developed site, is subject to the requirements. of section 10.62 governing non-conforming uses and structures, and I'll discuss that in a minute. Um, Further, the project is subject to a design review permit Considering the findings for design reviews, staff notes that the area is characterized by a combination of one and two-story industrial buildings. many of the one story buildings being tall with high ceilings and large interior spaces to accommodate industrial uses and activities proposed structure will be tucked into the rear of the portion of the property surrounded by similar structures. While the peak of the proposed building will nearly maximize the permitted The gable roof reduces the perception of both. and complements the scale of the adjacent structure. THE PROJECT REMAINS with the scale structures and buildings in the surrounding neighborhoods. In our report, staff concluded that the project does not impact views light or air enjoyed by surrounding neighbors or the general public. Now I will note that since the staff report was issued, staff was made aware of concerns from the neighbor at 90 Gate 5 Road. There was a letter. It was provided as late mail. It's on the agenda. Bye. And in viewing that site today, And. It is noted that the adjacent site contains expansive one story industrial structure that runs along much of the North property line However, the site It does contain an open yard space at the west corner. Uh, kind of adjacent to the rear of the existing industrial building. That's the subject of the project. of the project. This yard area has a great elevation about one to two feet below that of the project site and is largely used for vehicle and equipment storage. The rear of the existing building the project site building is very apparent from this vantage point And the increase in height would increase the obstruction of light and air from that curtain. current building. So while staff has provided findings for design review approvals, The Planning Commission should determine whether the increase in height to the structure constitutes a significant impact to an industrial storage yard area and whether modifications to the project are warranted in order to better comply with the design review findings. I note that it appears that the two property owners in my discussions with each of them have had discussions on this issue. including potential mitigation measures, but they have not reached any conclusions on those. In regard to the nonconformity permit, The replacement of the industrial building served to maintain the industrial use as a major component of the site. While the project does not necessarily replicate the prior building, It retains the footprint. addresses the matters of flooding and sea level rise. does not create additional impacts from the use. retention of the industrial building and landscaped areas preclude the possibility of additional parking on the site as well. So the continuance of the non parking nonconformity may be justified as the. that unlimited parking may incentivize keeping less intensive parking use in the industrial building. Staff concludes the record requisite findings can be made to approve a nonconformity permit to maintain the nonconforming coverage and floor area. condition. and away further parking requirements. However, while the height increase in height does not exacerbate any of the specific nonconformities The approval of the nonconformity permit is contingent upon approval of a design review permit. A couple other items in regard to CEQA, The historic preservation committee reviewed the historic resource determination information on July 21st of last year. At the time the commission determined the subject property does not satisfy. qualifying criteria. for consideration as a historical resource. As such, we recommend it's categorically exempt from CEQA under the category that replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose and capacity. I'd like to apologize. The staff report did fail to mention that the applicant did engage with the sea level rise task force. to assess the project relative to potential impacts of sea level rise. And on January 15th, of this year, the task force issued Sea level rise project assessment, finding it is consistent. with the task force. Task Force's recommendations on state planning guidance. And those materials, however, those memos and materials were attached in the staff report. And this is also referenced in the resolution that we provided. So in conclusion, given the new information provided by the director, by the neighbors, Staff recommends the commission determine whether design review permit and a nonconformity permit can be approved for the project as proposed. We have provided an attached draft resolution which provides findings and conditions of approval On conclusion, the planning commission approve the project as proposed. are subject to very specific modifications. Continue the hearing for additional information and or project revisions. or direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial stating the specific reasons any one or more of the findings cannot be made. So do you have any questions? |
| 03:38:16.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Neil, thank you very much for your report. And yes, we're going to go to questions. Before we do that, if I could just get two clarifications. One, I'm very confused on this height part. The height limit is 32 feet. but they're proposing 43.7 And I realize the finished floor is 12.4, but can you run me through the calculation that says that that meets the height requirement I mean, I understand it's an averaging, run me through the math of how 41 43.7 would be within the 32 foot height limit. |
| 03:38:58.47 | Neal Toft | I'm not sure where are you getting 30 to 40, 40, |
| 03:39:01.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Or do you? is on the little drawing. Is that the elevation? |
| 03:39:08.69 | Neal Toft | That's an elevation number, not the height of the feet. |
| 03:39:10.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | not the elevation above sea level that's not the height limit. is the peak 32 feet. |
| 03:39:15.97 | Neal Toft | I don't know. |
| 03:39:17.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. from |
| 03:39:19.36 | City Attorney Rudin | 31 11. |
| 03:39:20.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 31 11. |
| 03:39:25.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | from the ground outside of where the cars would be. |
| 03:39:29.91 | Neal Toft | That's what they're showing. Conceptually, that's about the height of it, yes. |
| 03:39:31.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that. Thank you. All right, that was first question. The second question, Just to clarify, there is a planting plan in the set of drawings that was online. It is not in the paper set. And I couldn't make heads or tails of how it worked or what it was. But was that a mistake? Or is that, I don't see it in the print drawings at all. |
| 03:39:47.52 | Allie Murphy | And I really- |
| 03:39:58.32 | Neal Toft | Well, I did ask to, I'm not sure if they provided, maybe they did not provide the planting plan in the drawings. We can certainly put it up on the screen. |
| 03:40:07.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, if you could put that up, can you just orient me to where's the parking lot side as opposed to the other side? The parking lot side is to the right, correct? In that drawing? |
| 03:40:22.07 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. I'm sorry. |
| 03:40:24.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's the irrigation plan. I know, but that's the irrigation plan. The planning plan is the one I'm asking is on the right. |
| 03:40:32.23 | City Attorney Rudin | of. you Prime Minister Thanks. and Bye. And those who are willing to walk in that place too. parking area of us This is the verse of the change. Yeah. Yeah. |
| 03:40:54.87 | Allie Murphy | Thank you. |
| 03:41:01.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You got it. |
| 03:41:04.91 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. of the |
| 03:41:08.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's what I thought. So can you just point out where the roll-up doors are? There's some sort of planning process. |
| 03:41:15.78 | City Attorney Rudin | There's a small plan that's probably that we can do. |
| 03:41:23.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But if you look at this drawing here, that would be where this door is. the plan that would be where this door is and then the role of doors |
| 03:41:34.38 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:41:35.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know. There's no room. |
| 03:41:36.33 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:41:37.06 | City Attorney Rudin | Yes. There is some Yes, sir, I'm going to suggest an instrument |
| 03:41:42.91 | Unknown | Mr. Ramos said, |
| 03:41:46.14 | City Attorney Rudin | the detail on the end of the plan. Is this not a long door? |
| 03:41:51.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:41:51.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:41:53.07 | City Attorney Rudin | of having this thing about Thank you for firing his agent. |
| 03:41:57.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so the planting that goes in front, it doesn't look like there's room for planting in the front. Yes, okay, so all right, so I was going crazy and tried to maybe this is backwards or whatever, no, okay. So we'll get some more questions on that, but I'll hold my questions still after the other commissioners at this point. I just wanted a clarification on the height and that planting area. With that, I'll start with Commissioner Saad questions of staff. |
| 03:42:27.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. And thank you for clarifying for the landscaping. I too was having a similar question. Can you, these drawings are very helpful that we have in front of us now on paper. Can you explain the existing grade just for the record so we're all aligned? on on what the grade is currently. |
| 03:42:49.70 | Neal Toft | Well, I think the way to explain the grading plan me is not very explicit or clear about grading itself. It's more of an improvement plan. But the basic premise is that the footprint of the building will have a concrete is basically being raised and the grade around it is, not being raised and except for like the front patio area. that front. Um, landing and Um, ramp way. and potentially a rear sort of landing as well. I think if that's shown in the and the grading plan. But you may ask, The applicants know exactly what they want to do. or they should have a pretty good idea. |
| 03:43:42.35 | Nastassya Saad | I'll wait for them on that then. Thank you. |
| 03:43:45.00 | Neal Toft | But I do say the, grading plan I would prefer to have, and this is because this is a plan that actually had been a sort of approved as a final, was set for hearing, uh, late last year. And then when, That was held off. It went through the Sea Level Rise Task Force. So this has been a project kind of in the process since 2000, 18, early 2019. It's been through several iterations. the But ideally a grading plan would be at one point included a very simple graphic of just or, kind of showing graphically what areas are being cut, what's being filled, and what the differential is. and you can't quite read that out of this plan. And then with the elevations, It's at such a scale that it's hard to tell. There's not a good idea. what I call a really great section through each of the. But I think that's a good thing. I believe that the main intent is to really just create a cap and then have the finished floor raised up about two feet. from that. from the existing grade. |
| 03:44:57.09 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. I'll save that for the applicant. I appreciate that. That's the struggle I was having in terms of trying to read that. And then let me ask you, from what I was reading in the sea level rise task force, Could you repeat what you said is, are they, Is staff and the Sea Level Rise Task Force aligned? Because the way that I was reading this report was that there were some concerns around carbon emissions and the concrete and that they, you know, there's samples from other properties. Can you just clarify that a little bit? |
| 03:45:37.68 | Neal Toft | Well, I think, I'm not sure I'd say we're aligned. The Sea Level Rise Task Force is reviewing the reviews the project for I guess, consistency with what they're viewing as the best model, practice model for applying sea level rise, potential sea level rise in these areas. None of this is really codified. So it's a process that It's really the applicants are engaging with them. they're looking at the modeling numbers, comparing that. I'm not a hydrologist. So... the basis that the sea level rise task force did conclude. at it. and some of their concerns they raised, there was an addendum that the applicants actually provided, and they could probably describe that a little better just. you know, how they're kind of addressing those concerns. |
| 03:46:36.69 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. |
| 03:46:37.33 | Neal Toft | Because I think one of the concerns had to do with further sinking. Exactly. |
| 03:46:43.02 | Nastassya Saad | Exactly. That's what was called out. |
| 03:46:43.81 | Neal Toft | That's what we're doing. Yeah, the weight of the cap and the potential sinking and then the use of concrete. |
| 03:46:51.25 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, thank you. Okay, I will too say that for the applicant. Those were all my questions, Chair, thank you. |
| 03:46:57.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad, Commissioner Greff. |
| 03:47:04.58 | Richard Graef | No questions at this time. |
| 03:47:07.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner O'Greth. |
| 03:47:10.29 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair and Neil, thank you for the presentation. I'm for the moment looking at renderings and the drawings that you just provided us before your presentation. Can you just walk me through those a little bit. Should we assume that this is a light industrial project with office space to support that light industrial work and that this is a roll top door at the front of the project sort of at the main entrance? Is that? that was referenced before. So can you confirm that? |
| 03:47:52.14 | Neal Toft | confirm that it's a, I'm I'm not sure you're asking to, that this is an industrial project or do we? |
| 03:48:00.48 | Kristina Feller | You said it was office and light industrial. And I will look down here. It's the office space can only support light industrial. It can't be an office space. |
| 03:48:02.79 | Neal Toft | Oh, yeah. |
| 03:48:08.44 | Neal Toft | Well, there's existing office space on the site. There's the two-story building at the front of the property right off Gate 5 Road. |
| 03:48:18.58 | Kristina Feller | Do you wanna show me what you're referring to? Okay, can you bring up the site plan? |
| 03:48:20.30 | Neal Toft | Okay. |
| 03:48:24.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Maybe to help Neil clarify, I think what he's saying, there's three buildings on the site and that's, it's not, they're not proposing that for this particular building. |
| 03:48:28.54 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:48:33.20 | Kristina Feller | Right, that's why I'm trying to... We went through these calculations and spent a lot of time on them with the general plan and through planning commission. So I wanna make sure we get this right. |
| 03:48:48.33 | City Attorney Rudin | Yes. Yes. |
| 03:48:50.12 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 03:48:53.92 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 03:48:55.84 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. This one is. |
| 03:48:59.15 | Kristina Feller | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:48:59.52 | Unknown | Thank you. Mm-hmm. |
| 03:49:02.73 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 03:49:04.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:04.11 | City Attorney Rudin | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:49:04.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:04.52 | City Attorney Rudin | God bless you. |
| 03:49:06.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:06.37 | City Attorney Rudin | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:49:06.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:09.63 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. It's... historian. It hasn't been an industrial kind of but then clearly his construction and looking at the occupancies and the |
| 03:49:24.04 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I want to talk about this project only that is in front of us, though. |
| 03:49:29.42 | City Attorney Rudin | My point is, this is all... |
| 03:49:31.04 | Kristina Feller | I understand that. I understand that. So can you point out on these renderings, if this is in a light industrial building. do we have an idea what the use in there might be specific to it? Or because I'm trying to figure out if you, if you're raising this building on a plinth, how are you getting any kind of, equipment in and out that one may or may not find in light industrial use. |
| 03:50:00.42 | Neal Toft | Well, they're proposing And, They probably have a better idea of what their Um, know, target sort of tenant occupancy is, but they are proposing a roll up door |
| 03:50:14.61 | Kristina Feller | But just basic function. I'm not talking about the tenet, basic function, a permanent railing in front of this door that you're talking about. |
| 03:50:23.80 | Neal Toft | They have a note on it saying a removable railing, like an operable railing. |
| 03:50:29.25 | Kristina Feller | but then you're up, it's on a plinth. What can you explain to me? |
| 03:50:34.39 | Neal Toft | Kind of like a loading bay, I guess, would be the concept. |
| 03:50:39.20 | Kristina Feller | So is it ramped not just down what I'll call to the right, but also towards us? Is it... |
| 03:50:46.12 | Neal Toft | It's not ramped towards us. It would be like a, it would be sort of like. |
| 03:50:46.14 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. It would be, |
| 03:50:51.40 | Neal Toft | Maybe this higher, so a little lower. |
| 03:50:54.05 | Kristina Feller | So I'm just trying to figure out how it functions. So I know you've spent a lot of time going through the project and working with the applicant. So and you're recommending an approval. So I want to make sure we're we are clear with how this functions. |
| 03:50:54.17 | Neal Toft | I'm just trying |
| 03:51:08.23 | Kristina Feller | So can you explain it? |
| 03:51:10.72 | Neal Toft | I could only explain that you have a large roll-up door |
| 03:51:19.85 | City Attorney Rudin | and As I said, all they have is a detail for the notes and that's what we want to do. Thank you. |
| 03:51:29.17 | Neal Toft | They have no tenant proposed. Very little interior detail. It's a vanilla shell sort of approach. to the to the years Other than that, |
| 03:51:41.74 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:51:44.00 | Neal Toft | indicating it's for industrial use. |
| 03:51:47.17 | Kristina Feller | I'll ask the applicant when it's time for that. It just seems a little odd that you have such a huge roll up door there and, nothing that large could get in or out of it based on the width of that ramp or having permanent railing. So I'm just curious about the function of it. But let me move on with some of the other questions I had. So, You know, they're power lines that run alongside, I'll call it the west side of the building. And in fact, the story polls were sort of down today when I went by again, but we've had some terrible weather, so it's not totally surprising. But those power lines are really, really close. And so is there Is there any discussion with PG&E to help underground part of that or is there an easement on this applicant's property by PG&E where those power lines are because I mean they're really, really close to this. |
| 03:52:58.20 | Neal Toft | I think the applicant had and I saw in the record and this had been reconciled some time back that the applicant had worked with Public Works on the question of doing undergrounding. and whether Um, the project qualified for one that would have to be required to underground And I believe their conclusion and it's reflected in the conditions was not after some back and forth on it was that it would not be required to underground. They would meet an exception. But I can Find out more because I don't remember the detail on that. |
| 03:53:35.97 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, look, I think that this is a really interesting project. I mean, I'm just... The height of this building... just kind of coincides with exactly where those power lines are. So what I don't want to have happen, because there also seem to be very loose power lines like saggy. When I say loose, they're very saggy. I don't want them ending up on this building. um, So I just want to be mindful of that. And that's not necessarily the, applicants fault that it's that way. Clearly, I mean, they're not their power lines, but I just want to be mindful of the conditions that we're dealing with. here and ensuring that we're setting this up for some success. Can you go back to the parking again? You say there are 19 existing spots. Am I repeating that correctly? |
| 03:54:31.86 | Neal Toft | That's what I counted on the site plan. |
| 03:54:32.31 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay. And that doesn't include Any. anything designated for loading dock or loading area or anything like that. It's pure parking. |
| 03:54:44.45 | Neal Toft | Yeah, those were parking, including ADA. Thank you. space. |
| 03:54:47.42 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. And that, but this, the project as a whole would require 32 in my, remembering that number correctly. |
| 03:54:56.63 | Neal Toft | That's a calculation I arrived at. after you multiplying the Um, The office space has office demand and the two industrial buildings as industrial demand. |
| 03:55:10.87 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And then I just, I wasn't sure I completely understood a comment that you made, so I wrote it down and maybe I heard it wrong. Correct me, but You were talking about the neighbors and there have been discussions about some mitigative measures. Was that regarding... height or am I remembering what you mentioned correctly? |
| 03:55:32.00 | Neal Toft | I think it was discussions on impact, but I wasn't party. I'm, I heard, some from one and some from another and not necessarily a So I was kind of, the point I was getting at in the, presentation is I do understand they've had conversation. I think they both indicated they've had conversations on it. and they're aware of the that. the project and the potential various issues. and whether there were some solutions or mitigations. But- I've had to advise, of course, what the city enforces is what the city approves and plans. |
| 03:56:16.38 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, Okay, I think those are my questions for now. I appreciate it, Neal. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. |
| 03:56:26.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler, Vice Chair Juniors. |
| 03:56:30.18 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Neil, thank you for the, The report it's clear enough to me. I do. I do want to talk a little bit and ask you some questions about the nonconformity permit. So it's pretty clear that the footprint's not changing, right? And so I think that's probably the main... thrust here in terms of the nonconformity. Um, You know, I'm familiar with the concept. I'm not that familiar with this, the local rule here in Sausalito. So there's no issue at all with the nonconformity of increasing the height. That's completely within the discretion of the city to approve that. There's no limitation on the height. |
| 03:57:08.15 | Neal Toft | Yeah, it's not, I mean, it's not going to be exceeding the height. It's not the height that's the nonconformity, particularly itself. The language that's applied, you know, the language of the nonconformity permit section is It's challenging because it's using a lot of different parameters. to kind of draw a conclusion of what your process is. Um, but the There seems to be suggestion in there that you can substantially renovate. within a site like this and not necessarily replicate. and that by the, you know, the design review process provides the you know, the backdrop or default of, whether or not those types of renovations or changes are really acceptable. Um, So I think it's within the purview I would note the Certainly, There's need to raise the building just, to begin with in order to deal with level rise. There's a number of other policies and things that could end up driving that better than just doing it through a nonconformity permit. changing height limits or something. But the fact that it's nonconforming because of the site coverage, in the floor area. and the parking are not necessarily are not necessarily driving the issue of the hype. |
| 03:58:38.06 | Andrew Junius | Thank you for that. I completely agree. And I think I think it is interesting that We are not. suggesting here that the that it's the footprint that can't increase. And it's probably, I would also probably say in confirming here, this is still, even though it's a tall building, it's still a one story building. It's a big volume, right? |
| 03:59:00.37 | Neal Toft | Yeah, from what I can tell from our code is the stories are really defined by the floors that are installed within the buildings. Thank you. |
| 03:59:08.27 | Andrew Junius | Exactly. |
| 03:59:08.84 | Neal Toft | Okay. |
| 03:59:09.13 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:59:09.33 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 03:59:09.35 | Andrew Junius | So, yeah, I'm pretty comfortable. It's an unusual situation, but I do think it fits squarely within the nonconformity parameters. So I appreciate that. Thanks, Neil. |
| 03:59:17.87 | Kristina Feller | Can I ask a follow-on question, Vice Chair? Is part of the nonconformity, though, the issue with the parking, not just the footprints? |
| 03:59:27.00 | Neal Toft | Yes. Well, and I certainly applied it that way. because the site is non-conforming in terms of parking. Um, But the non-conforming permit has some particular language about waiving parking standards. So it sort of treats parking a little differently It has a very specific standard or finding for waiving parks. |
| 03:59:51.81 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:59:56.09 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 03:59:56.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just have a couple questions, some of which probably for the applicant. So going back to this issue of use, it's some type of industrial use. We'll ask the applicant, it would be helpful to understand the use to figure out if it needs the 31 feet, 11 inches. Because if it's one kind of industrial use, maybe it does. Maybe a couple feet could come off of that might solve some of the, mitigate some of the issue. So I'll hold that question. The other question is the role from the latest drawings, which are new today, it looks like the roll-up door is like opaque glass. And are the rest of this open glass you know if this is I mean this looks like it's sort of opaque roll up this whole pain thing is a roll up door you believe from what you understand |
| 04:00:52.59 | Neal Toft | Yeah, it wasn't detailed very well. So I'm kind of nodding like, |
| 04:00:59.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll ask you that. And then you think that this railing is physically easily to remove and you could back up a truck that has a high level and just take stuff right off the truck like a loading. |
| 04:00:59.65 | Neal Toft | you know. |
| 04:01:12.99 | Neal Toft | Well, I would have liked to have seen more. Again, it's not very detailed. And I don't know how much these things may or may not work. Like it's certainly possible that it's functional and could work. you know, at the back of supermarkets, et cetera, you do have loading bays for, know, product and things. But I think the point made by Chair Feller is Is that different from an industrial building where you really need to something kind of a greater ramp to be a to be getting in there. |
| 04:01:45.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You know? |
| 04:01:45.76 | Neal Toft | you know? |
| 04:01:47.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then the landscape, there appears to be no landscaping in front, even though the landscape- Not in the drawings, yeah. Yeah, on that drawing, but that's a question. I'll ask that of the applicant. Let me see what I've got here. |
| 04:01:53.22 | Neal Toft | Not in the drawings, yeah. |
| 04:02:06.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, those are the questions I have. So at this point, there are other questions from the commission. |
| 04:02:11.80 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I would just ask, Neil, I mean, these are very, very helpful, what we keep putting up here, you know, showing like this. If you can just make sure that they're also posted to the agenda for everybody watching on Zoom or at home or in the future for reference. They're really very helpful. So thank you. |
| 04:02:29.69 | Neal Toft | We'll get them attached in the record. And the other thing I would certainly offer regarding use is you know, you're approving a design and a structure Um, And there can be an intent to accommodate a specific use. And that might be, you know, a important point. that sways decisions or so on. But remember uses come and go. And what you're really approving is a building for industrial use. And it'll ultimately be up the city to review for the occupancy permits And. enforcement of, you know, use types and things like that. So |
| 04:03:12.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, thank you. I understand that. It's just it affects our sort of thought process on the height, which is really what we got. |
| 04:03:18.59 | Richard Graef | I got you. Thank you. |
| 04:03:20.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | is |
| 04:03:20.36 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:03:20.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of it. |
| 04:03:20.74 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:03:20.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So. With that, we'll look for the applicant to make a presentation. Applicant has 15 minutes. If you want to reserve some time, so if there's any questions, public comment, you'll have time to respond to that as well. If you name an address for the record, that'd be appreciated. |
| 04:03:40.26 | Dan Morgan | Good evening, commissioners. My name is Dan Morgan. My address is I office at 150 Gate 5 Road. the office building. Um, I wanna give you a little bit of history about how this came about. I have, work on several buildings in that area. And I love the Marineship because I don't get the opportunity to come visit you for design review projects. So, and that's the case with 160 Gate 5 Road, which is the smaller of these two buildings. Um, But the foundation on 170 Gate 5 Road is so bad, it's cracked, it's failed, and it's got a grease pit for working underneath cars. And the high point, I agree that the elevations are a little bit wonky because one of the reasons is the floor from one corner to the high point, to the low point is 18 inches out. So, when the city said you got to get an elevation certificate, I said, well, which end of the building should I get that from? |
| 04:04:43.78 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:04:44.12 | Dan Morgan | It's part of it's in the floodplain, part of it's not. So anyway, the determination was made to remove this building and replace it. That doesn't make any sense to put a new foundation under an old building. and, And to do that, my desire was, well, gee, if I'm going to replace this building, I, I want the most utility I can get out of this property. I don't have a specific use in mind. Um, I want to build it and hope they'll come, but there's nothing like it. There will be nothing like it. And the height is important Um, I can go a couple of feet, but I want the most utility I can get out of this building. And the roll up door is big. the, I'm going to design the structure My permit for this will be just A metal building. When I get a tenant, I will come back for a, with the tenant improvement. package and It'll be suited for that tenant. But the building is going to be be able to have a crane if need be. Um, for an industrial use and I have no idea. The only... a year or two ago, talked to the whiskey brewery, and they were thinking of a distillery there. I don't know if that's, That's a possibility, but that would be... a nice use. Um, That's the history. I'm gonna let Adam, my architect who designed it, answer all the hard questions that you have. Because I've been with this so long and it's changed so many times. It's been hard, a little hard to follow. So Adam Gardner with WHA is the designer. |
| 04:06:20.15 | Chris Kalina | Thank you. |
| 04:06:20.56 | Dan Morgan | with that. Let him take over. |
| 04:06:24.45 | Adam Gardner | Thank you, Dan. Good evening, commissioners. Adam Gardner with WHA Architects. We're based in San Ramon. I grew up in Marin, done a lot of work over here. and have done several projects for Dan in Renship As you mentioned, some of them are facade remodels and things like that. So this is kind of a fun project The 160 gate five, the building adjacent was remodeled a few years ago. Um, So we kind of use that as a cue. to come up with a similar material palette, but different colors and different aesthetics. As Dan mentioned, the use of kind of I took some notes as I'll see if I can hit most of those or all of them. Dan touched on the height again. 32 feet is allowed. It's measured from existing grade. There's a formula where you take points around the building and create an average grade. So we did it. We just did the math. to come up with 32 feet. So it says 3211, you know, an inch below, but we're at 32 feet. Staff report mentions 30 feet. It's 30 feet above the finished floor of the building. So there's a two foot differential between the ground and the floor, and that has to do with the overslab that's going to be built to essentially cover the existing slab that, as Dan mentioned, is sloping. So it's about a six inch thick slab. in one corner and then it'll be about two feet or a foot and a half in the other corner. So once that slab's built, Then we're building a 30 foot tall structure on top of that. and then 30 feet to the peak. So the roof slopes down at four and 12. It's about a five foot differential from the peak to the wall. So the wall's about 25 feet high. above the existing above the new slab, 27 feet, about the ground. The existing building adjacent It's noted on one of our plans in Little Tiny Type, it's 21 feet tall to the peak. So this new building will actually be 11 feet taller than the existing building. So in terms of scale. So it's not twice as tall, it's about a third or 50% taller, if you wanna think of it that way. Can I just ask a question? |
| 04:08:26.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:08:27.00 | Adam Gardner | Thank you. |
| 04:08:27.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There was supposedly an 18 inch differential. So what in your calculations, where did you, when, |
| 04:08:27.27 | Adam Gardner | and, |
| 04:08:37.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | since the ground slopes or something, |
| 04:08:40.08 | Adam Gardner | The interior slab of the existing building slopes about 18 inches from one corner to the other. |
| 04:08:40.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:08:44.74 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:08:44.89 | Adam Gardner | So imagine that one corner is essentially a grade. |
| 04:08:44.94 | Richard Graef | Bye. Thank you. |
| 04:08:47.89 | Adam Gardner | Okay. The other side, well, actually it's below grade. The other corner is sticking up a little bit. So when we pour the new slab on top of the existing slab, it'll be level. and there'll be about a two foot differential NEWS LAB. to the low point of the existing slab. which is essentially great. Thank you. |
| 04:09:06.27 | Neal Toft | you |
| 04:09:06.40 | Adam Gardner | Thank you. |
| 04:09:06.59 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 04:09:06.61 | Adam Gardner | Thank you. All right, thank you. And that leads to several issues about, or questions about this ramp and this, call it a loading dock. Um, We have to raise the slab. We can't raise the grade all around the building. There's an existing parking lot on one side and there's an existing building on the other side. And then we have a distance to the property line. We didn't want to raise the grade all around the building because that affects the adjacent property owners. So we took advantage of the fact that we're creating extra height relative to the parking lot. by essentially creating a loading dock. So as was discussed in certain types of buildings, When you bring a truck, perhaps, or a trailer. they often have ramps that go up and down. So that ramp could back up, the truck with a ramp could back up to this loading dock, remove the railing, And then that ramp from the truck could easily be positioned so that it's level with the interior slab. We also have a pedestrian handicap ramp on the right side of the building to get in and out of this building. So. commercial use so it needs handicapped access. So that. has two ways of getting into the building. One is through this loading dock, removable railing, and the other is through a pedestrian ramp. on the right hand side. And I apologize that the landscape plan is one iteration prior. It's when we did the math and got the final grading, we figured out that the ramp had to be a little longer. So we actually put the pedestrian entrance on the far left side of the building. It used to be in the middle. And then at one time it was at the right. So it moved around a little bit. So you're correct. There's no landscaping in front. It's very industrial building. It's hard to the paving. Um, |
| 04:10:53.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is the, in front of the Roland Gore, is that flat? |
| 04:10:56.16 | Adam Gardner | Yes. |
| 04:10:56.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yes. |
| 04:10:56.97 | Adam Gardner | Yes, the ramp starts to the right of the rolling door. Yes. Yeah. Um, Let's see, so use, industrial, and again, clearly stated we don't know exactly, but I mean, imagine building a sailboat in this building. It'd be amazing because you could have the doors 15 feet tall. You could have a superstructure on top of the deck of the boat. You could have a keel. You could bring it in and out. you could, perhaps even set up a part of the mast, or you could build the mast or sails, things like that. So that height is really amazing for a building like this single story. And it gives a lot of possibilities for the years. working with Sea Level Rise Group, Another feature or We have 10 foot tall, Um, entry door system. So it's an eight foot swinging door. And then there's a two foot transom. Then there's a horizontal bar and then there's glass up. So we can... In theory, raise the building an additional two feet in the next 90 years, whenever the, sea level rises. and not have to rebuild the whole building. We can pour another slab if we have to on top of this. And in terms of the concrete, I think the disconnect there is concrete, as we know, is not the greatest for the environment because of the carbon in it. But it's a solution that works well with this type of building. It's a solution that solves. the sea level rise of raising the slab. So I think we just have to figure out the best type of concrete if that ever happens or when that happens. I talked about single story, existing grade, The 3D renderings we did create for this presentation so. We brought them tonight. you I think I... I may have gotten most of your comments. questions? |
| 04:12:49.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. You've got five minutes, 49 seconds left. We can reserve. So if there are other public comments or whatever, you'll have a chance for rebuttal. At this point, we'll stay up there. We'll ask questions from the commission. Okay, thank you. |
| 04:12:54.32 | Adam Gardner | reserve. |
| 04:13:05.24 | Neal Toft | Okay. |
| 04:13:05.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 04:13:06.89 | Neal Toft | I had a quick question. In the addendum to the sea level rise task force, comments, you had mentioned using gravel or rock as a to lighten, potentially lighten, is that correct? |
| 04:13:21.32 | Adam Gardner | Potentially lightening, is that correct? Yeah, as we know, concrete slabs are heavy if it's solid concrete. Depending on what elevation the slab would need to be raised to and at what point in time we would raise it, let's say we had to raise it a foot, A slab might only need to be six inches. |
| 04:13:37.38 | Neal Toft | So that comment was applying to when you raised the slab. |
| 04:13:40.18 | Adam Gardner | Yes. Yes. |
| 04:13:41.48 | Neal Toft | I just... |
| 04:13:42.24 | Adam Gardner | Because currently, |
| 04:13:43.48 | Adam Gardner | And again, the current structural design hasn't been prepared, but the new slab that covers this existing concrete sloping slab. will be a combination of gravel and structural concrete. So there will be some gravel below the new slab as currently designed. before we raise it up for Z-level rise. |
| 04:14:04.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, with that questions, Commissioner Grapp. |
| 04:14:14.02 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. Thank you. to be better. and I'll just go to the front of you. And Sure. a little on and down. Over the window. |
| 04:14:27.69 | Richard Graef | I'm sorry. You're showing a little awning over the windows on the rear elevation. |
| 04:14:33.83 | Unknown | We'll do it. |
| 04:14:34.07 | Richard Graef | I'm. I just happened to notice that and was kind of wondering about it, but have much to do with anything else in the building. Um, The other thing that I find from the The information that we've got is like a site but like a section... through the proposed building to the adjacent site showing the difference in height of your proposed project and the next door neighbor. Um, And also I'd point out that the rendering that you're dead. does not even remotely indicate that there's anything behind the building and there's a lot going on behind the building so I'm just I'm punting that out. Let's see. |
| 04:15:42.44 | Richard Graef | Most of these are for discussion. Thank you. or What is the advantage of actually joining the two buildings? Is that a structural? consideration. In other words, there are, you know, |
| 04:15:58.19 | Adam Gardner | Oh, God. |
| 04:16:00.03 | Richard Graef | Literally. It's an existing sharing wall. |
| 04:16:02.15 | Adam Gardner | It's an existing- Well, they're not sharing walls. There'll actually be two separate walls. Yeah, but I'm in. |
| 04:16:07.10 | Richard Graef | But I don't know. Thank you. I don't know. |
| 04:16:08.23 | Adam Gardner | The reality is that's how it is now. |
| 04:16:10.62 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 04:16:10.96 | Adam Gardner | And so we're using the same footprint exactly. |
| 04:16:13.86 | Richard Graef | you |
| 04:16:14.03 | Adam Gardner | So we're just building on top of what's there now rather than creating a gap. that would serve no purpose. Okay. |
| 04:16:21.39 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Um... Thank you. And I guess I'm wondering Why so much glass on the... of the bouldering. |
| 04:16:36.17 | Adam Gardner | It's partly an aesthetic concern. It's facing kind of. So it's not getting the harsh afternoon sun. I think it'd be pretty spectacular space in there. You know, there's distance views all over Marinship to various parts of Sausalito, the hills. So if you're in this space, it's just going to be a pretty spectacular space to be able to look out that glass wall. and also for people traveling within the the complex or even on Coloma Street. You can look into this use and see what's going on. It's not like a house or something that we're trying to hide. As Dan mentioned, if it was a whiskey brewery, it'd be pretty amazing to look inside and see those giant tanks and see what's going on inside this building and really kind of share that with the community. You can almost think of it as an art. Yeah. I mean, it's a use. It's an industrial use, maybe a maritime use. that the community could participate in by seeing inside this building. So kind of see there's a glass lantern in that sense. |
| 04:17:32.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Graff, can I just ask a follow on with regard to the glass? Is it opaque? Is it opaque? It's pretty done for now. No, I mean, I wanted to understand if there's a clear glass or opaque. |
| 04:17:37.13 | Adam Gardner | Sure. Where are you going? |
| 04:17:43.00 | Adam Gardner | That's a good question. This is a sketchup model that we didn't render the interior. So if you. make the glass perfectly clear in the rendering. You see all the way through it, and you see all the unfinished interior. It's intended to be clear glass. |
| 04:17:54.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All the glasses clear. |
| 04:17:55.81 | Adam Gardner | Yeah. |
| 04:17:56.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No big class. |
| 04:17:56.85 | Adam Gardner | Correct. |
| 04:17:57.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Commissioner Rath, any other following questions? Not right now. |
| 04:18:02.25 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:18:03.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, Pflechner, Felton. |
| 04:18:05.58 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:18:06.24 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you for answering some of those questions in your presentation. Where are the restrooms and facilities in the building? Yeah. |
| 04:18:14.94 | Adam Gardner | Thanks. It's a good question. One of the drawings kind of hints at that the landscape plan actually shows a mirror image of a bathroom that's in the adjacent building. It would be a tenant improvement type of situation where the tenant would say this is what we envision inside And we'd have to come back with a tenant improvement plan that would show a bathroom. So again, as Dan mentioned, it's a shell building. until a use is defined and a tenant is identified Dan would come back with another set of plans that we prepared as working drawings that would show the required bathroom and any interior walls if there were to be any. |
| 04:18:55.73 | Dan Morgan | That being said. |
| 04:18:56.49 | Adam Gardner | Yeah. |
| 04:18:57.22 | Dan Morgan | We plumbed it to show We plumbed it, we stubbed it in the plumbing, in the middle of the building on the non-window wall and about that location. So when I do a tenant improvement plan, I'm going to really strongly encourage that's where the bathrooms are going to go. |
| 04:19:14.11 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Okay. All right. Um, thank you for that. And, you know, I, um, You know, the idea of having some maritime use or building a boat in here, I think would be really, really super cool. I actually like the glass, but I really do want you to walk me through. a couple scenarios of using this roll-up door. I understand what you mean by a truck backing up. We've all seen that before, and you can move the... |
| 04:19:36.15 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:19:41.44 | Kristina Feller | the, um, Um, you know, railings out of the way. But this is also your primary access to a pedestrian handicapped or not getting into your building. Right. It appears to be at least so. |
| 04:19:54.71 | Unknown | Well, |
| 04:19:55.03 | Adam Gardner | We have a great day. |
| 04:19:55.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:19:55.23 | Kristina Feller | So if you're using it as a loading dock, how does everyone else get in and out of the building? |
| 04:19:55.33 | Adam Gardner | Thank you. |
| 04:19:59.55 | Adam Gardner | Yeah. Well, we have, again, we have two entrances. We have the pedestrian entrance, which is past the loading dock. And then we have the loading dock. |
| 04:20:06.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:20:06.79 | Adam Gardner | So again, whoever's occupying this building knows that they work around that. and they accommodate access during loading or not loading zones. You know, a scenario would be Maybe it's a paint shop inside or something that has that. And they open the door. They get all this ventilation coming in. Um, You know, just pick an idea of a use inside and that door just provides so many more possibilities. The fact that we had to raise it up to meet the repair of this lab. puts us two and a half feet or so, two feet above the grade, which requires that ramp. |
| 04:20:44.24 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah. |
| 04:20:44.57 | Adam Gardner | So originally we didn't have this removable railing concept and we kind of struggle with that too. It's like, well, what's the use of the big door? It's just looks cool. And it's neat to be able to open it and get that ventilation. Thank you. So then we thought, well, let's remove the railing. So it's a temporary railing. It's just set in wallards. So that gets set aside during the occasional or maybe. Often loading operations, depending on the use, |
| 04:21:08.18 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:21:08.69 | Adam Gardner | There may be three people working in here, maybe 10. |
| 04:21:11.15 | Kristina Feller | Mm-hmm. |
| 04:21:11.57 | Adam Gardner | It just depends on what's happening. |
| 04:21:12.60 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:21:13.38 | Adam Gardner | Thank you. |
| 04:21:13.73 | Kristina Feller | Um, And then, um, You know, I really appreciate you reaching out to the sea level rise task force that that was very smart move and it's most appreciated by by the Commission. So thank you for that. And I liked your comment about, you know, the thoughts on how to handle future mitigated measures should should you. be in a managed retreat situation like everybody else around you, you might not be in this building, which is good, but that doesn't quite work for your roll up door. |
| 04:21:44.14 | Adam Gardner | Yeah. |
| 04:21:51.11 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:21:51.13 | Adam Gardner | A roll-up door is actually a sectional roll-up door made up of two-foot sections, and you can actually remove a section from a roll-up door. So it's quite modular in that sense. |
| 04:21:53.61 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. So it's quite modular. So that's what you're planning on here as well. |
| 04:22:02.11 | Adam Gardner | Yeah. Cause they are your typical garage door in a house that rolls up four sections. They actually install the tracks. They put the bottom section in first, stack the second one, third one, fourth one. So you can imagine you could just take that. cut the tracks and remove it. |
| 04:22:15.28 | Kristina Feller | cut the trap. And do you have any comments or thoughts about these PG&E power lines that I was asking Neil about? Yeah. And where you are. Yeah. regarding that. I know you can't control, I mean, and certainly if you did, that would be awesome. PG&E. I mean, no one seems to be, but they're they are very close to this, to the top of the building here, or at least where the, the eve is and there's concern there. |
| 04:22:46.72 | Dan Morgan | understood the it's in the back corner, the PG&E drunk line is in the back corner. Currently it sags. what the plan is, is it's going to enter the building through a mast, a steel mast, that goes up from the low point. and then it goes away from the property. So it's never, to the poll, which is 15 feet away. Um, It's never going to get near the peak of the building. It's gonna come from the top of the pole down to the corner. that's going to be at the corner of the building. |
| 04:23:23.69 | Kristina Feller | on. |
| 04:23:24.11 | Dan Morgan | you |
| 04:23:25.22 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so you're comfortable with it? |
| 04:23:27.26 | Dan Morgan | Well, my PG&E designer said that's how it has to be. Thank you. |
| 04:23:30.91 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 04:23:31.21 | Dan Morgan | And from their perspective, his perspective. |
| 04:23:33.27 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right. Thank you for that. And have you explored any other options either on this property or any other property that you own in the area where additional parking could be deeded to those other parcels to accommodate this project. |
| 04:23:52.49 | Dan Morgan | you know, we don't have a parking problem. on Coloma street, on the other properties. And primarily that's because one of the buildings is Sausalito mini storage. And we just don't know. That doesn't have a high parking requirement. So we don't, I have, 50 tenants plus or minus, and we never have had an issue with parking, even when we're 100% full. So I can accommodate the parking. Um, if it becomes an issue, but it's really not even been an issue with, |
| 04:24:28.89 | Kristina Feller | Sure. |
| 04:24:29.18 | Dan Morgan | 150 and 160. |
| 04:24:29.20 | Kristina Feller | you Well, I appreciate you saying that, but I know certainly this commission has seen a lot of other projects on parcels that you might not own. So there's a lot of development down in this area. So even though it might, you know, today might not be a problem, your building might not be a problem. The area is certainly getting more built up and we'll... theoretically therefore get more congested. So I want to know if you've looked into those options and thought about that for you know and how to how to bring your project into conformity because it won't be in conformity regarding the parking. |
| 04:25:08.82 | Dan Morgan | It hasn't been in conformity since for the last 50 years. I know that. |
| 04:25:12.53 | Kristina Feller | of the world. |
| 04:25:15.70 | Dan Morgan | You know, we're hoping to, it depends on what the use is gonna be. Now, the whiskey distillery was a great use because they would have two or three people in there during the daytime. And they could provide tours in the evenings and off hours on the weekends. To that extent, I've thought about it with that particular tenant. if we, If we have an issue, park somewhere else on on the adjacent properties. Right. |
| 04:25:48.02 | City Attorney Rudin | We're just doing it. Yeah. |
| 04:25:48.56 | Dan Morgan | Thank you. |
| 04:25:48.64 | City Attorney Rudin | too. |
| 04:25:48.97 | Dan Morgan | you Right. I do, and that's, if you look at the statement, |
| 04:25:51.72 | Kristina Feller | That's the question is, you know, could those be deeded to this property too? ensure that in, you know, in the future and that it would be conforming and there'd be enough parking. So I think you've answered the question. The answer is you don't think that there's a problem now. So I just want to know if you'd explored it. |
| 04:26:09.91 | Dan Morgan | I would be willing to deed, deed restrict or assign or I guess think it's a joint parking easement the number of spaces that it would take to bring it up to conforming. |
| 04:26:20.40 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Appreciate that. Okay, thank you. Thank you chair. |
| 04:26:26.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Commissioner Fowler. |
| 04:26:32.25 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. I was just wondering if either of you were in the position to maybe discuss a little bit, I think, from... what was mentioned earlier about the neighboring property, that there were some discussions around possible mitigations. Can anyone expand on that? |
| 04:26:50.49 | Dan Morgan | Yes, I had a conversation with my neighbor and his property is, well, He's Ted Mike. property line, my building is set back 10 feet from the property line. his buildings are right on the property line and he's got, a little area that's carved out that he uses for Good job. light and relaxation. Um, We had some conversations and I quite honestly don't remember what they were, we had some common ground and I don't want to put words in his mouth and I don't, I can't put them in here. So I'm willing to, willing to work with them and, I, what I, can't do is I can't move the footprint. And can't really, the way the building is designed, it would be difficult to lower a portion of |
| 04:27:47.93 | Adam Gardner | But what I can say to that, if I may, It is a single story building. So the activity is at ground level. Granted, we might be a foot or two or so higher than them, but there's a fence. That fence could be more solid, perhaps. We could potentially plant a row trees or cypress or something along that to create a little more of a taller visual buffer. Because again, if we're gonna be a few feet above that property, and walking around inside our building to look over a fence. as is the case in any of these And as Neil mentioned, it's an industrial use next door. So it's technically not like a house or someone's backyard. So however someone chooses to use it, it's up to them. but it is an industrial zone. And bearing that in mind, We're not actually creating a two story building that looks into it anyway. So, You know, those are some comments. |
| 04:28:45.85 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. And I wasn't clear on what the potential issues that the neighbor was raising outside of what we've seen from, you know, public comments. So I don't know if it's so much a privacy concern, but that's interesting to hear. I think in terms of what I did read that came through potential shadows, and I'm not saying this is a requirement I'm discussing with my colleagues, but would you be open to a shadow study if just from the height of the building becoming so increased to what it is currently. |
| 04:29:17.93 | Adam Gardner | I mean, if that's what makes it work, but we've done shadow studies for a lot of projects. The building faces kind of southwest. So if we can pull up the site plan, possibly. You can, without doing an actual shadow study, I can kind of just explain the general idea is that if there's gonna be shade blocking, it's gonna be in the morning hours. mostly in the early morning hours because that's where the sun rises on the east so on |
| 04:29:50.75 | Director Phipps | It's just the preferred page. Happy to take direction. |
| 04:29:55.20 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:29:56.67 | Director Phipps | Oh, this direction, correct? |
| 04:30:02.93 | Richard Graef | I would say it's down, but yeah. |
| 04:30:05.85 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 04:30:08.27 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:30:08.65 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:30:08.72 | Richard Graef | Bye. |
| 04:30:08.87 | City Attorney Rudin | I don't know. more. The sun rises. So the sun comes up here in the morning. Thank you. the sun moves around. And in this day, We're at 45th annual section, so potentially we're going to walk in the middle of the day, as we find it, we'll go to the afternoon, quite so late. So the last, the last one of the time. So, just in general terms, Any building with their shadows, it has to be a distance. So here are the shadows that we probably want to use to do this, so we can see how it relatively works. |
| 04:30:59.70 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner Saad, can I ask a follow on to that if you don't mind? Absolutely. I'm assuming that your other neighbors don't have solar panels on their roofs and you would not be creating, you know, any kind of shadow on those solar panels. Is that correct? |
| 04:31:01.39 | City Attorney Rudin | to that. |
| 04:31:16.85 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 04:31:16.91 | Dan Morgan | I don't believe it. |
| 04:31:17.22 | Kristina Feller | I haven't looked, I don't know that I would know. |
| 04:31:19.34 | Dan Morgan | No. No, that particular property at 90 gate five does not have any solar panels. |
| 04:31:26.09 | Pam Himka | And as a row of trees along a portion of the tree. |
| 04:31:28.56 | Dan Morgan | Thank you. |
| 04:31:28.57 | Pam Himka | Thank you. |
| 04:31:28.59 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I just didn't know if it would block solar. So thank you. |
| 04:31:28.61 | Dan Morgan | Yeah. I just didn't. |
| 04:31:36.42 | Nastassya Saad | My only last question, absolutely, that was a great question. My only last question, and forgive me, it's late. So can we just clarify on that landscaping plan? Is that just, is that out? Are we saying we're just, |
| 04:31:45.42 | Adam Gardner | it's out in the sense that there's no landscaping in front because of the RAM, loading dock. what remaining space we have to landscape, the landscape plan somewhat addresses that. I mean, it's not an extensive landscape plan. The idea is that we have a side door that the occupant of this building can use to come out, and then they have a little yard there. whether it's an industrial yard, with paving and hardscape for whatever activities they want to do outside. or whether it's some sort of softer landscape. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN kind of hints at that in the previous layout. Thank you. |
| 04:32:23.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 04:32:23.89 | Adam Gardner | Thank you. |
| 04:32:23.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The rear door is out also. |
| 04:32:25.78 | Adam Gardner | Yes, we eliminated the rear door. That's a fixed door. So there would not be activity coming in and out of the back of the building, which is another point about perhaps intrusion or privacy. The exit door, the second required exit door is on the side of the building. That's a good point. Thank you. |
| 04:32:42.25 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you, Chairfell. |
| 04:32:44.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Vice Chair, Jim. |
| 04:32:47.87 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Just a couple of follow-up questions here. Mr. Morgan, is the building I assume is vacant right now? The existing building is vacant. |
| 04:32:57.37 | Dan Morgan | There's a tenant in the existing building on a month to month lease. And who is that tenant or what do they do? That is a gentleman's name is Brad Stephenson. the thought. has one of the... duck boats from Seattle. And he stores it in there. He came to me and he had it parked on the street in Belvedere. Oh, very cool. And I had nowhere else to put it. |
| 04:33:22.80 | Andrew Junius | And I get the impression from you mentioned that, you know, there were pits and I assume Um, probably prior uses were auto repair auto. I mean, |
| 04:33:32.76 | Dan Morgan | You know, in preparation for this application, I went back and looked at all the prior uses and I had no idea what that was. |
| 04:33:39.02 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 04:33:39.10 | Dan Morgan | Bye. |
| 04:33:39.44 | Andrew Junius | All right. Are there any issues with respect to soils that, you know, are you just going to cap the site basically if you move forward, there's no real Obviously not a residential project. We're not really worried about that issue. Um, soils issues, contamination, anything we should know about. Thank you. |
| 04:33:56.42 | Dan Morgan | I, The bottom of the pit is clean. There's no grease. There's no contamination in it. It's not drained. So it appears to have been used as there's a ladder down to it. It appears to have been used as an undercarriage access. It's been capped, not capped. It's been capped with wood. And I did get a soils report. They did do borings. They did not do testing, but we got the recommendations for the slab based on the slab, based on the, Geotech report. Great. That's all I had. Thank you. Right. |
| 04:34:35.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:34:35.94 | Dan Morgan | Thank you. |
| 04:34:36.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. I think you've answered the questions that I have, so I'm all set with that. So at this point, we're gonna open it up for public comment and you'll have a few minutes if you need to respond to anything. Thank you. Uh, If anybody in the audience here wants to come up to, yes, can you come up to the dais? I mean, to the lectern, whatever we're calling. Yes, and state your name and address for the record. Howdy, and thank you. |
| 04:35:07.48 | Christine Scarpino | Hi, it's late. Thanks, everybody. I'll be quick. I have three minutes. |
| 04:35:07.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's late. |
| 04:35:12.20 | Christine Scarpino | My name is Christine Scarpino and I'm here to talk about 90 Gate 5 Road. So we've talked a little bit in theory of this property. So it's located to the north. of the proposed building. And, um, the two things I just wanted to bring up was the communication that we've received about this project, as well as, um, the draft resolutions from the city. I wanted to go over a few of those that I'm a little surprised at some of the conclusions. So just to give you a quick synopsis, The first we've heard about this project was back in September of 2022. And I'm not here to throw anyone under the bus. I know that the city's had. some turnover in the development group, I had touched base with Adam East and I told him that I was concerned that we were not notified of this project prior. although it was on the record that our property was I also discussed with him more of a detailed rendering of height elevation. Sorry, my thread's dry. of height elevation just to really understand the neighborhood, the height changes in relativity to neighboring properties. And that was with Adam. Then he left. I gave Natalie our letter. and that was submitted to her in October. And then this recent communication where Neil is the planner, he was not aware of our letter that we had received. that the city had received. and his staff report doesn't mention that any neighbors have commented. So I just wanted for the record to say that The communication has been a little jagged from our perspective. Um, I wanted to go over the draft resolutions and I'm learning about what a design permit is. So the basis of the design review permit looks like it's A lot of this is in conclusion that the project's design is consistent and in scale with the neighboring properties. And again, I go back to the request. of having a drawing of actual grade and scale and height and how that compares to the neighboring properties to be able to conclude on some of these points. I don't know where my time is. I'm 30 seconds. A lot of the points in the resolution conclude. that the building is in scale. with the neighboring properties. And personally, I don't see that. I saw that from the story polls. If you really walk into, for example, 90 Gate 5 Road, the grade is a lot lower. So where the report is saying that the building is tucked, it's actually looming for our, you know, the, the, the, the view of our property. So anyway... That's it. And I would love to see a more detailed rendering of height within the neighborhood. Thank you. |
| 04:38:17.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments this evening. Other members of the audience, we also have people on Zoom, yes. Name and address for the record. Thank you. |
| 04:38:27.58 | Chris Kalina | Hi, Chris Kalina. I'm the tenant or the owner of 90 Gate 5 Road. And I have been working down there since 1995. And I've been in the current spot there since 2009 when I purchased the property. Um, My main concern with this project, one, besides the lack of outreach and communication, we never received a letter, which was the first I found out about the project last year was from a neighbor who received the letter and asked me about it and I had didn't get mine. Thank you. Um, I did reach out to Dan at that time. He was communicative and You know, told him my concerns. Basically, this building is about eight feet from my property line. And, Borders my backyard. That's the only space on my property that's outdoor space. The rest is either indoor or parking lot. And we use that space for our break room out there. And we take our, I run a mechanic shop. take our breaks out there. It's a space, you know, really the only outdoor usable space on the property that's not parking. And this building, Although right up against there, the current building doesn't have any windows. No one's ever back there. It just, traditionally has proposed made my backyard secure and, I don't want to use the word private, but there is a certain amount of privacy back there when you're in the shop working all day and you want to go out and have a break or make a phone call, it's our spot. this building with the 12 foot height increase or 12 foot plus that they're looking for, It would essentially take two hours of morning sun out of the backyard. When I, back in October when I did this, it was from, I'll get the sun at 8.30 in the morning now. And with this building, I wouldn't see it until 1030. Again, I'm not, it's not residential and I don't expect that I have all these rights to views and this and that. But in the usable aspect of my property, this is going to be a big impact and the plans and the reports so far don't reflect that this is being considered. The floor of my my interior floor on my shop is about four feet lower than the interior floor of the current interior floor of the existing building. Now they're talking about going up six to two more feet. And it's a six foot difference in grade between buildings that are less than 20 feet from each other. And I don't think enough consideration has been given to the impact on my property, potential drainage issues, uh, Thank you. Thank you. You know, and when I spoke with Dan, he was nice and we did agree to some mitigation like frosted windows because, you know, he's putting windows where there never were. And I just want to say that. more Uh, we need to come to a better agreement about what's happening because I want to support his project. Thank you for your comment. I liked what he did with the other building, but this is way out of scale with the other building. Thank you. |
| 04:41:38.57 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. |
| 04:41:46.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments this evening. We also have Don Anderson on Zoom. If Zoom can unmute, please. |
| 04:42:01.24 | Don Anderson | Thank you to the commissioners. I'm Don Anderson. I've been across the street, across Cape 5 Road at 247 for 25 years. And Dan's daughter and my daughter went to school together when their standpipe burst out and started flooding the road. The teenagers were the ones who were communicating the emergency. And I would like to remind them that the previous occupant of that building that's under question here was Sausalito mini storage. So by the applicant's own example, Sausalito mini storage is the type of use, type of occupants that puts no burden on the parking or very little burden on the parking. There's a lot of different kinds of occupancies in that neighborhood. Some that are in line with the Marin Ship Plan and some that are not. And a 32 foot tall building with the potential to build out a loft or a second story is the kind of density that cannot be supported in a non-conforming property. You can't take somebody's footprint away. You can't take away existing FAR. But that's not a single story building in the future. That's a loaded situation. The building is too big. That building is too tall. That's very obvious from the elevations. and it's not in scale of the neighborhood. doesn't affect me personally. It's just not right for the neighborhood. I'd like to see the Planning Commission explore some covenants about the future use of this space so that it could be dedicated to the arts or the marine industries or something. with public good. and not just more computers than office space. There's a lot of office space on that site already, more than is allowed for in the membership plan. And I think we need to take a good look at all the different non-conforming issues. If it were just one, maybe the height would be allowed. But there's a lot of non-conforming items and issues on this property. So I don't know that the maximum height allowance is is where we should start with this conversation. That the building is too big for the site. It's not in scale with the neighborhood. That's all I have to say. |
| 04:44:32.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your comments this evening. I'm looking on Zoom, I'm not, Director Phipps, I'm not seeing any additional members and I'm not seeing any additional people in the audience. With that, I'm gonna close public hearing and bring it back up to the dais. Um... Where do we wanna start? Commissioner Graf votes. |
| 04:44:57.65 | City Attorney Rudin | Okay. Well, |
| 04:45:01.12 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:45:01.14 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:45:02.20 | Richard Graef | I would agree with our last comment on that the building seems too tall for me. Um, Thank you. It just feels too tall. And I'm looking at it as a partner. building. |
| 04:45:19.79 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 04:45:20.09 | Richard Graef | but it's sort of merited to. and And looking at the front facade of this building, It's such a radical departure from his partner that I feel is a real disconnect. and that are probably should be a a closer relationship between the two structures I think the elevation but that front elevation because it's, It's not industrial. It's, to me, it's too fussy. Too much going on. So I just feel like it's out of contact somehow. And also the part of the height issue is the neighbor and there will definitely be some shadowing there. I've seen the next door area out there and that building is right there and the story falls show that it really would be looming over 90 day five roads. So I really question the site, the height. . And yeah, I really kind of question all that glass. I'm not so sure that that's conducive to the industrial kind of There you go. of the branch shift. Um, Basically those are my concerns. I love your commissioner. Those are my main issues. |
| 04:47:19.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Sand, |
| 04:47:24.95 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Yeah, I think I personally don't have an issue with the glass issue. in terms of the design, I do have an issue with the height. as well. I think some of the intentions that have been mentioned are very interesting for that area. but from looking at the story polls, and listening to public comment as well, and in the scale in relation to the surrounding neighborhood, I would have a hard time at this moment making a finding. I think it's G in the design review about adequate light and air. I think a shadow study would be pertinent overall, just given the concerns. and the growth. I now understand better from what the applicant said in terms of the... not being able to change the grade across the entire property. So in that context, I can understand what they're trying to achieve but I don't find it to be in scale. And I do think there are quite a few non-conforming requirements, and I agree with Commissioner Feller's point about parking, I think it's something worth exploring. There's an opportunity here now that it's on the table. So what would it be? comfortable, with a nonconformity on the parking at this time without more exploration. That's where I am currently. Thank you. |
| 04:49:03.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad, Commissioner Fowler. |
| 04:49:06.26 | Kristina Feller | Thank you chair. You know, I always look at projects like this. With the form in the function and and I'm not sure. there's a maximum height that a property owner can build to. and there are you know, what, one inch below that. All that's fine. They can do that. But I always look at the form and the function. And so I go back to... the industrial use. This is for industrial use and the roll up door. And the height of the roll-up door is much lower than the height of the building. So, you know, and maybe, you know, you're doing other things inside this building, but ultimately whatever... is happening inside has to come out the roll door. So I'm not really clear This doesn't, it's just, it's not quite adding up to me that way. And I recognize that they don't have a tenant. And this is, you know, just a spec industrial building, which of course they're, perfectly in their right to do. But I think that there are too many questions here. And I'm not even clear. And maybe I would have to ask the city attorney about this, but what exactly are we approving? Because we're not even approving something that could have a certificate of occupancy right now. I mean, with, with, you know, suggestions of where restrooms are and things like that. usually we have to deal with a little bit of certainty. And so I'm not really sure if we could even take action on what we see here. because this you can't achieve a building permit with right now, you know, even in theory. So when we're looking at speculative, no tenant in mind, Maybe, Sergio, you can help me. I mean, is this something that we could even take action on? |
| 04:51:10.75 | Mary Wagner | It is. I don't think that an applicant is necessarily REQUIRED TO SUBMIT construction grade drawings in order to |
| 04:51:21.22 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:51:21.40 | Mary Wagner | you know, seek approval of design review or a nonconformity permit. But obviously I think the commission needs to be comfortable that the design is specified with sufficient detail that they know what they are approving now, obviously, you know, certain things like the location of specific interior improvements likely are not going to be too relevant to the findings that you have to make, but it might be in certain instances. So obviously, you know, again, if you, if you need more specificity, in terms of things that impact the findings that you were supposed to be making. I think you can ask for that from the applicant. but you know I again I don't think it's typically necessary or should be necessary for the applicant to have construction grade drawings and frankly, I don't know that that makes sense from a practical perspective because Those cost a lot of money to develop for every applicant. |
| 04:52:18.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:52:18.34 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 04:52:18.34 | Mary Wagner | And so knowing that they're going to have design review approval first makes sense from their perspective. |
| 04:52:22.83 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I'm definitely not looking for construction grade drawings. That's absolutely not what I'm looking for. But I appreciate the comments and the, and the perspective because I actually, I'm not, I don't even think there are restrooms in this existing building now. So I wanna make sure that we are not replicating the problems that we have now into a new project. I, you know, I'm not as bothered with the height if I understood that there was a purpose for it. or that there was a goal to attract a maritime shipbuilder versus a whiskey distillery. I mean, there's a big difference between the two. And I know there's no certainty when you're trying to secure a lease, but it'd be interesting to know if there was a target in mind. But I think that, you know, this applicant is also has been very clear that he's willing to deed parking spaces from other properties to this. And I think that we should absolutely confirm that that is exactly what we're looking for and that's what we would want to see moving forward. So I'm sensitive to the other neighbors. This is an industrial area though. I mean, so let's remember that that's the goal here. And those are my comments for now. |
| 04:53:55.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner, fellow vice chair, |
| 04:53:58.67 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. you I mean, I'm, Very comfortable with the height. I'm staring at the rendering here. That is, I'm not sure we can see this, but the top picture here shows those two long Um, kind of barn-like buildings at the corner of Gate 5 Road and Coma. And those look like they peak out pretty high as well. So. I guess I'm just a little stunned that we're talking about a height concern for a 32-foot building in an industrial area. where there are really no view issues. I understand that the adjacent neighbor has a bit of a concern about some shading, but I'm just a little stunned because it seems to me that in Sausalito where we're trying to incentivize industrial uses in an industrialized zoned area. Yeah. and a property owner is willing to bring a pretty cool industrially designed building to attract new industrial tenants. and is willing to take this chance and invest some money and to build a unique property here. Um, Thank you. Admittedly on spec. Uh, But. just just just a little surprised. um, I don't see any I don't see anything here that I don't like. I'm not the architect, I'm sure architectural changes would probably be on the table here if that would, you know, get the basic project through. I just think it's a. good project that is going to replace a very apparently a building that needs to be replaced. And I think we should be helping our industrial, you know. property owners to Keep. the industrial areas of Sausalito evolving and growing and changing in ways that we hope are gonna be successful, but we can't guarantee success. And it's, you know, it's the property owners, you know, money on the line and it's clearly within the planning code. I think it's an unusual. with respect to the height and the nonconformity, but I'm comfortable that the staff has, you know, confirm for the record that we can approve this at this scale and at this height. I would have been making a motion to approve, but I'll hold off on that at the moment. But I'm very supportive. |
| 04:56:25.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Genius. |
| 04:56:31.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have some mixed feelings on this. I think some of the issues being raised could be addressed. The idea that a second floor would be built in a loft, I mean, we could restrict it to not have a second floor. I mean, the nonconformity is for the square footage of the FAR doesn't allow you to build a second floor. And we could condition it not to have a second floor. So I think that issue can go away. I think the upper level windows, nobody can get to because nobody's at that height so that's less of an issue the lower level windows opaque glass or some sort of thing on that side might be able to address that um uh i'm a i have a different view on the parking i uh with the environment and the fair traffic, we don't want to be encouraging more driving. We're going to be encouraging less driving, more bicycles, more other alternative means. And the uses that are being proposed don't have a lot of staff involved. And we don't want to create lots of extra parking, which encourages a use that has lots and lots of employees i mean so i think we want to use that uses the industrial nature of this uh so i actually am not so worried about deeding parking but i'm not not being the majority on that um i i think that i like the glass i think it's it's a nice concept because you can see in and it sort of means that it won't be storage it's going to be something that can you can utilize that that glass i do have a worry if you to i think commissioner feller's comment if you put a if you build a boat in there you need a bigger door to get it out i mean once you built it so so you might need to go all the way up you know if you're going to build a boat side. And the whiskey thing, yes, they need high ceilings. I am a little, you know, I understand you're building it on specs. You want to build it as big as you want. If you knew what the use was and it only needed 30 feet, you only need to build it to 30 feet. So this is the chicken and the egg. What comes first, you build, you get your approvals and then you get your tenant. That's the issue on the height. I mean, I think the height looks a little bit large, but it is an industrial area. There are buildings that are this tall and it is within the zoning. So I have mixed feelings on the height. And obviously if I knew what the use was, I'd feel better about, yeah, you're gonna build a boat and you need 30, 32 feet. That seems reasonable, you know, so. Anyway, so those are some thoughts. I'm going to look to the rest of the commission for a suggestion out of motion. |
| 04:59:07.13 | Kristina Feller | So I've got another question to throw out with this. I mean, if we, If we look at this to, to not allow the demo permit until the TI is fully signed off as well. |
| 04:59:29.26 | City Attorney Rudin | THE T.I. |
| 04:59:29.75 | Kristina Feller | the tenant improvement. |
| 04:59:30.79 | City Attorney Rudin | and |
| 04:59:31.81 | Kristina Feller | So once we know, because I mean, right now, maybe that's a way to handle it. I mean, as you said, I don't really have a problem with the height, except I think there's a form and function issue. I mean, you've got a lot of extra volume here if you can only... if you can only get something that large inside. So if we want to condition an approval Um, that a demo permit won't be issued until such time as the tenant improvement is signed off, we could do that. |
| 05:00:09.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, but then I understand the concept, and then what that means is they can't build in on SPAC. We can't hold this back for it. Yeah. |
| 05:00:17.69 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, but it wouldn't be a completed occupiable building anyway. |
| 05:00:21.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, but they could construct it and then get a change. |
| 05:00:23.31 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:00:23.32 | Andrew Junius | I mean, I think the idea here is that you get a shell building, a warm shell built, and then people can see it and they get excited about it. And then you sign the lease and then you do the tenant permit. And in a way, it's not that different from building an office building, right? You build a warm shell office building and you wait for the tenants to come by and look out the windows for the views. But typically. |
| 05:00:38.78 | Unknown | Right. |
| 05:00:38.97 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 05:00:39.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:00:40.91 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. But typically, corn shell includes all the fixtures and all that. Yeah, but there's an example of the building. Yeah, I know, I know, I know. I'm just tossing the idea out to try to move closer to a consensus. |
| 05:00:46.70 | Andrew Junius | as you know. |
| 05:00:47.93 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:00:48.22 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:00:58.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I mean, if I thought a tenant was imminent, I'd agree with that concept. But I don't know that we can ask the applicant. I don't know if they're... I mean, it takes so long to get this thing designed and building permitted and all that, that, you know, and they can't really get... It's a chicken and the egg. They can't really get tenants until they have something concrete. And so they need some approval from us. And you're saying if we give them an approval to subject to this condition, but then they really can't just start- Yeah, so the tenant knows |
| 05:01:08.89 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 05:01:35.33 | Kristina Feller | Yes, so the tenant knows they have an approval pending getting a tenant. Yeah. |
| 05:01:39.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, but then they also know that they have to wait for the shell to get built, which is going to take X amount of months, and then they lose the tenant. I mean, it's, you know... I understand you're trying to get to a consensus. |
| 05:01:51.53 | Kristina Feller | I'm trying. |
| 05:01:52.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm trying. I realize what you're trying to do. |
| 05:01:54.42 | Andrew Junius | I want to ask the applicant if that's a... |
| 05:01:54.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, yeah. |
| 05:01:56.32 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I wanted to, yeah, I wanted to. |
| 05:01:57.60 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. I |
| 05:01:59.83 | Kristina Feller | talk it over with you guys first and see if this is something. |
| 05:02:01.49 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. You know what I mean? |
| 05:02:03.53 | Kristina Feller | You know what I mean? |
| 05:02:04.57 | Andrew Junius | I mean, it does seem like a pretty simple building to build. So maybe this is a little more, maybe this would work in your... |
| 05:02:08.91 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 05:02:12.19 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:02:12.20 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, so can we ask the applicant to come to the podium? Come back to the podium. Just so you're on the microphone. |
| 05:02:12.24 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 05:02:15.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to come back to back to the podium. |
| 05:02:19.31 | Kristina Feller | should be. |
| 05:02:19.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the question, I'll frame the question. So we're saying that if we were to approve this, but not let you pull a demo permit until you have your tenant improvement submitted, would that be okay with you? |
| 05:02:35.19 | Dan Morgan | I think the amount of time that it would take to design a project a building, get a building permit. Build it. would be 12 to 18 months and I don't know If I signed a tenant today, if they would want to wait 18 to 24 months, Secondly, If I don't have something to show them, it's really hard to sell. I mean, these pictures are great. but it's not like standing in that. that. and looking out the window and looking at that big glass and imagining what you could put in there. That's, it would be tough, I'd prefer. not to do it that way, just because of the amount of time. I don't know. I mean, I've been here for a year. I'm going on five years just to get here. |
| 05:03:24.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, I've been here for a year. |
| 05:03:28.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, that was my thought too, but we're trying to get to a consensus. |
| 05:03:35.02 | Adam Gardner | Yeah, I just had a comment about, I'm hearing a lot about the uncertainty of the use and the height and the uncertainty This door, you haven't said it exactly, but the door is not tall enough. I think if we make the door taller, it allows for all the possibilities of a taller structure or whatever is being built in there. So if you look at the rendering, We got this horizontal bar across. |
| 05:03:58.95 | City Attorney Rudin | perhaps are. you can certainly raise that up. Thank you. I don't know if I was |
| 05:04:05.97 | Adam Gardner | that door, it just kind of gives them a lot more flexibility without really changing the design. Thank you. |
| 05:04:13.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I wasn't so worried about the door. I figured you could just make it bigger. I wasn't really worried about that once you know the tenants. |
| 05:04:20.54 | Dan Morgan | But you know, the other thing on a use, I mean, it very well could be this ended up being a warehouse and there are no tenant improvements. other than the bathrooms, which probably will stub in and build where I said, But the other thing is a user that can take a 28-foot building will go into a 31-foot building but somebody that needs 31 feet won't go into a 28 foot building. |
| 05:04:47.17 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 05:04:47.79 | Dan Morgan | And I can't play with those numbers how you like, |
| 05:04:47.81 | Kristina Feller | and, |
| 05:04:50.34 | Dan Morgan | So I want to BILL. What's... can do. The other, I wanna build the highest I can because that's gonna appeal to the most tenants. The other thing is, 90 Gate 5 Road. And a lot of the other buildings, if he's four feet lower than me, I'm already in the floodplain. those buildings are ending They're in the... fourth quarter, their economic life. They're going to get knocked down someday and built too. And then they're going to have to raise theirs up. to be equal to mine and they're going to build a two story building. |
| 05:05:21.20 | Kristina Feller | No, we understand that. We understand that. |
| 05:05:22.47 | Dan Morgan | So, |
| 05:05:24.14 | Kristina Feller | I mean, like I said, I don't have a problem with the height. I'm just looking at form and function. |
| 05:05:27.19 | Allie Murphy | Thank you. |
| 05:05:27.29 | Dan Morgan | Yeah. |
| 05:05:27.97 | Allie Murphy | Thank you. |
| 05:05:30.08 | Kristina Feller | you know, let's try to justify what we're doing here. I mean, he, you know, there, there is a height limit of 32. He's underneath at 32. He's got every right to build. So I'm not, that's not the problem I'm having with it. I'm just trying to justify and rectify what we're doing here. So, I mean, that's sort of where I fall. But I, and I get your point about the parking lot. But you know, you know, one of the things this commission prides itself on is applying the ordinances and municipal codes equally and fairly to everybody. This is a non-conforming. site from the parking. We have an opportunity to make it conforming. We should do that. I mean, the whole part about bicycles and all that is great. I'm all for that. Thank you. We have ordinances to follow here. Thank you. |
| 05:06:26.66 | Nastassya Saad | That's my intention. |
| 05:06:27.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | make a suggestion about the parking uh he doesn't need parking dedicated for not for use not specified so what we could do is in the event he comes up with the use that demands more parking at the time of the building permit then we need that agreement in other words he doesn't necessarily need to take the square footage and add arbitrarily whatever the number is 1215 spaces from another property that he has. And if the use he has for this doesn't require that much parking. So whatever. It's not. |
| 05:07:05.83 | Kristina Feller | But that's not how it works. Yeah, it's not based on the use. I mean, that's a nice thought, but that's not how it works. |
| 05:07:07.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:07:07.70 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, it's not based on the use. |
| 05:07:09.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. but he's gonna have to come in. I'm just trying to think of a way to do this. So he has to come in with a building permit for a specific tenant fit up. If that tenant fit up is highly intensive, then we could require more parking. |
| 05:07:23.88 | Kristina Feller | But it conveys with the property, not a lease. |
| 05:07:27.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 05:07:27.98 | Kristina Feller | So that's why I'm saying what you're describing doesn't work that way. |
| 05:07:31.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I'm just, I just keep worried about getting all the, getting all this concrete and all this parking all over the place that rather than landscape and greenery, and we also have flooding in these areas. And so putting more paving in is not necessarily. |
| 05:07:33.30 | Kristina Feller | So- |
| 05:07:48.22 | Kristina Feller | Well, it sounds like it already exists. |
| 05:07:49.69 | Nastassya Saad | So that's the beauty. It already exists. |
| 05:07:49.79 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. The parking. |
| 05:07:53.30 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 05:07:53.60 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:07:53.84 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:07:54.19 | Nastassya Saad | it's a |
| 05:07:54.48 | Kristina Feller | I think you need to do it right except it chair. |
| 05:07:54.60 | Nastassya Saad | I think he's willing to do it. Accepted chair. |
| 05:07:59.29 | Kristina Feller | And he's already said on record that he's like, |
| 05:08:00.38 | Nastassya Saad | It is the opportunity to become compliant. In that respect. Exactly, is the intention. So I think if the property owner is willing Thank you. we'd ask you to concede and I think we can get somewhere. I'm willing to concede. |
| 05:08:13.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | we can get somewhere. I'm willing to consider. Okay. What I don't want to do is encourage them to go out and get something that requires 50 employees. Now that he has this parking dedicated, he used to came in. Sure. Nothing to do with the lease. |
| 05:08:20.35 | Nastassya Saad | out. |
| 05:08:27.89 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:08:28.01 | Kristina Feller | No, we have nothing. |
| 05:08:29.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:08:29.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | what it could have been. |
| 05:08:31.06 | Kristina Feller | So, Neil, I have a question for you as it relates to the drafted |
| 05:08:31.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | do. |
| 05:08:39.69 | Kristina Feller | CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Can you review some of those with us specific to This is a Single floor, no loft, no additional space. The max, what is it? 3,200 some odd. |
| 05:08:59.29 | Don Anderson | that's going to be. |
| 05:09:00.34 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. 3,207 square feet, right? |
| 05:09:06.15 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:09:06.75 | Kristina Feller | Okay, no loft, no second story. So that's a condition of approval. |
| 05:09:18.06 | Kristina Feller | Is that correct? |
| 05:09:20.12 | Neal Toft | Well, I don't think Thank you. by condition is specific to like No second story because that would be additional floor area. which would then require building permit and we go Typically you'd go. Thank you. Wait a minute, you're already maxed out. So you're adding floor area. But. if you'd like to add that as a clarification. |
| 05:09:44.18 | Kristina Feller | I'd like to add it as a clarification. |
| 05:09:45.97 | Mary Wagner | And |
| 05:09:46.21 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 05:09:46.48 | Mary Wagner | It sounds like Neil is stating that it's not a condition of approval because it's prohibited by the applicable zoning code. |
| 05:09:46.49 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I've been. |
| 05:09:55.52 | Mary Wagner | already. |
| 05:09:56.20 | Kristina Feller | I didn't hear you, Sergio. I'm sorry. |
| 05:09:58.83 | Mary Wagner | Oh, it sounds like Neil is stating that it's not a condition of approval because it's already prohibited by the zoning code. |
| 05:10:08.21 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 05:10:09.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I clarify something? Just step one thing back. I'm looking at the agenda. I'm not seeing the conditions. Are they in the resolution or where are the conditions? |
| 05:10:19.65 | Neal Toft | They're attached to the resolution. They're attachment to the resolution. |
| 05:10:21.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:10:25.21 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so maybe Vice Chair Junius, you can help me try to craft something here. |
| 05:10:32.65 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. I mean, the bottom line is, you know, anything that would be built here in addition to what's been approved will be illegal. Right, okay. On the list of... So how... |
| 05:10:35.77 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 05:10:43.13 | Kristina Feller | Right, okay. So help me craft a motion here. I don't think we need a condition in that respect. Fine, let's keep going then. Help me craft a condition of approval. Yeah. |
| 05:10:50.35 | Andrew Junius | Let's, |
| 05:10:54.15 | Andrew Junius | is, is. is one we should talk about. So Mr. Morgan, can you talk a little bit about that and get it on the record and try to form something here? So we have a parking deficit of how many spaces, Neil? |
| 05:11:09.91 | Neal Toft | I 1932, so that's 30. |
| 05:11:12.94 | Andrew Junius | I'm sorry. |
| 05:11:13.01 | Kristina Feller | So that's 30. |
| 05:11:13.94 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:11:13.97 | Kristina Feller | you. |
| 05:11:15.07 | Neal Toft | about 13. Let me double check that. |
| 05:11:18.68 | Kristina Feller | So the, WHA drawing says that their 23 total parking spaces on site. building only is that correct sir For the whole parcel. Yeah. |
| 05:11:32.20 | Dan Morgan | Yes, for the whole parcel. And I think the parking calculations that Neil did were for the whole parcel. |
| 05:11:32.79 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. So. So let's see. Neil, what your calculations are and the deficiencies And as vice chair is saying, Mr. Morgan, if you can confirm what you stated earlier, that you'd be willing to deed parking spaces from other sites to to this. |
| 05:11:56.23 | Dan Morgan | That's correct. And I'd like to nail down the number before I agree to it. Yes, fair enough. |
| 05:11:59.49 | Kristina Feller | Yes, fair enough. |
| 05:12:00.97 | Neal Toft | So, I'm, I've, and I've come up with a total parking demand between the office and the two industrial buildings, single story industrials as 32. spaces total. |
| 05:12:16.76 | Dan Morgan | Thank you. |
| 05:12:16.78 | Neal Toft | Okay. |
| 05:12:17.26 | Dan Morgan | Thank you. |
| 05:12:17.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:12:17.54 | Dan Morgan | Thank you. |
| 05:12:17.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then he has something. How many do you have on the site? |
| 05:12:18.30 | Kristina Feller | How many do you have on the site? He has 19. |
| 05:12:24.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's 13 differential. |
| 05:12:29.76 | Kristina Feller | Do you mind coming to the microphone? Sorry. |
| 05:12:30.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. You're required to have 32 |
| 05:12:33.72 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:12:36.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | by the square footage. |
| 05:12:39.97 | Adam Gardner | What sheet were you looking at where you said |
| 05:12:42.30 | Nastassya Saad | Page four of the staff report. |
| 05:12:45.35 | Adam Gardner | I see that. I was on a |
| 05:12:46.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:12:46.30 | Kristina Feller | I was on A0. |
| 05:12:47.87 | Adam Gardner | Thank you. I was on that one. |
| 05:12:49.35 | Kristina Feller | I was on this one. |
| 05:12:52.37 | Adam Gardner | Is that the data summary? |
| 05:12:54.77 | Kristina Feller | Project information, top right. |
| 05:12:56.94 | Adam Gardner | Oh, I see. 23 total spark parking spaces on site. |
| 05:13:03.31 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:13:03.36 | Adam Gardner | Thank you. |
| 05:13:03.37 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:13:03.85 | Adam Gardner | I think we just have to count. I'm seeing because there is a discrepancy there. |
| 05:13:07.05 | Kristina Feller | The committee condition staff has to confirm. |
| 05:13:08.91 | Adam Gardner | known. Mm-hmm. |
| 05:13:10.21 | Dan Morgan | Thank you. |
| 05:13:10.61 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 05:13:11.31 | Adam Gardner | Thank you. |
| 05:13:11.44 | Dan Morgan | Bye. |
| 05:13:11.49 | Adam Gardner | Thank you. |
| 05:13:11.59 | Dan Morgan | Thank you. |
| 05:13:12.98 | Neal Toft | I can't read it. |
| 05:13:13.70 | Dan Morgan | I'm not sure. We have two... two deeded, these guys probably don't know, but we have two spaces deeded from 200 gate 5 for oath to me. And I would. I mean, if we could use the number nine, And just to say that this 23 is, Probably. right, close without my other two. If we could say nine, I just like, if we're going to agree to this, I'd like to have a number and maybe nine is two or three shows. Short. Maybe it's over. |
| 05:13:47.76 | Kristina Feller | I think what I would like to suggest is that you work with staff to define the you know, confirm the deficiency of parking. We have a range, it seems, what that might be. and that you will deed parking to this project from other parcels to bring it up to a a a code compliant for parking. |
| 05:14:17.56 | Richard Graef | I can agree to that. Okay. And then we're going to let them use |
| 05:14:18.64 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 05:14:20.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Hold on. |
| 05:14:20.27 | Kristina Feller | Hold on. He just agreed to it. I want to make sure everyone's clear. |
| 05:14:21.17 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:14:24.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to clarify. He had asked before that that he has some spaces that are DDM'd from another project. And there were two spaces. Are we going to let him use that? That's what I wanted to make sure of. He says he has. |
| 05:14:40.12 | Kristina Feller | If he controls them and they're deeded, it's the same thing. |
| 05:14:42.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, so he's going to be allowed to do that. |
| 05:14:43.70 | Kristina Feller | So that's why he's going to work with staff. |
| 05:14:47.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 05:14:47.31 | Kristina Feller | to finalize what that deficiency is. And you're going to bring that deficiency up to code compliance by deeding parking from other parcels to this project. Yeah. |
| 05:14:58.16 | Dan Morgan | That is correct. |
| 05:14:58.63 | Kristina Feller | Correct. Okay. |
| 05:15:00.25 | Neal Toft | Okay. Can I ask a question because this is now putting a whole other sort of layer to the project proposal. The applicant is agreeing to you, I think, and maybe does have the parking spaces, My concern is I think I've dealt with many situations of moving lot lines. that we're going to be doing arrangements and such things as joint use parking and it's not always as easy as it sounds, the question I'd have for you, Mr. Morgan, are you actually sure We may, this could be whack-a-mole. Are you sure? You have you may have parking available because of the uses and the demand that exists You may not, but as you said, this space seems to function okay. Um, you may not have parking available based on the code. or you may not have as much available parking Do you know? Where do you have in mind? Is this even on an adjacent site? or how, cause I don't know the range of your properties. I think the commission is more familiar with, with your, and operations than I am. I'm a bit concerned we're getting into a, condition of approval that may not be as feasible. or practicable, practical SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A HANDLE OF THE that you have an understanding, like, Where do you have in mind, if I can ask? Is this, and where is this? |
| 05:16:39.36 | Dan Morgan | went well. 2650 Bridgeway, 2650. uh, 2650 Bridgeway. Uh, uh, the two Oculus buildings. 475 Coloma. in 401, Coloma. I don't know how many spaces I have. And that's, I, I, that I came, I picked up on that. If I take some from here, does that make me non-conforming over there? And I wonder if we could Good job. deed restrict them or joint use them. because... in, The practical matter is I have plenty of spaces. Even when everybody's working and everybody's there, there's a lot of space. So practically with all the different uses that exist, Um, I have it. |
| 05:17:35.63 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. in terms of actual demand, but again, to the staff's comment, it may still be a problem with compliance, right? So, I mean, I'd like to bring, maybe Sergio can come back. You know, we could try to, you know, Chair, if I might, you know, we could try to just delegate this issue to the staff, and then they can basically get themselves comfortable that shifting these parking spaces around is not going to bring any other property that combines and will satisfy what we're looking for here, which is to bring this property into them. I'd be comfortable with that, and I'd trust the staff to do that. But if it doesn't work, then you're kind of stuck coming back here. |
| 05:18:22.83 | Dan Morgan | That would be fine. But if we could, instead of making them deeded exclusively to 170 gate five road, it would be a joint use and they'd have the right to park there. That way we're not going to. |
| 05:18:40.52 | Andrew Junius | The staff says, you know, your demand, the code requires you to have X number of spaces, and you can't come up with X, no matter how we shovel in. And that's really, I think, the concern. I don't know if that's going to turn out. I agree. I think you probably are, I believe you. I think you've got enough spaces to actually satisfy the demand that you're seeing. But that still might not jive with the code. And there may be a reason why you're short parking spaces here, because maybe there just isn't enough parking around and working the numbers with the staff in terms of what's required of the code. |
| 05:18:52.82 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:19:17.29 | Andrew Junius | you know, you may run into a roadblock here. Okay. If you want to take that chance, you can... |
| 05:19:19.84 | Dan Morgan | Okay. |
| 05:19:23.20 | Andrew Junius | we can send you on your way and we'll work that with the staff. And if there is an issue that that will bring it back to us. |
| 05:19:28.75 | Dan Morgan | That's fine. I'd be willing to do that. And then if there's an issue, we'll be back. |
| 05:19:32.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | um yeah i think that if the co if yeah if we're just robbing peter to pay paul we're not solving it but assuming a couple ic2 avenues assuming there's enough parking on his other sites that he doesn't need by code he he can allocate them to here i don't have an issue but i want to know if commission does of him having joint use i don't see any reason he has to restrict parking in another place only to the tenants of this place. I think if he has joint use, as long as he's providing a way to do it, that sharing is a good thing. |
| 05:20:08.52 | Andrew Junius | Nice. you Yeah, but you still need the total number to come up, right? Yes, right. |
| 05:20:12.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, right. I'm saying, assuming the total number comes out right, he allows for joint use of those spaces by this problem. |
| 05:20:19.37 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I'm fine with vice chair. |
| 05:20:21.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, but let me ask the question. If he does not have enough spaces by code, what is the commission's wish so we can craft this in some way? I think he had to come back. |
| 05:20:32.60 | Nastassya Saad | He's got to come back. |
| 05:20:34.39 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 05:20:34.41 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:20:34.44 | Neal Toft | Can I note too that the municipal code under the parking requirements. as specified. that if the area to be used for parking in the parcel in which the subject land use is located are not the same. the Planning Commission shall consider whether deed restriction is warranted as a condition of approval. Deed restriction would stipulate that the shared parking agreement shall remain in effect. the life of the subject land use. Now this is a section under joint use. which requires a conditional use permit. And I think where I'm going is, It would be It would behoove the applicant and staff and probably the commission as well. to have the applicant provide the. the outline of the plan for this joint use as part of this application. Because I just don't. Yeah. My concern is whether this is going to be as simple as |
| 05:21:38.79 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 05:21:39.02 | Neal Toft | you as a condition of approval, I'd be happy to get the, |
| 05:21:46.79 | Kristina Feller | I mean, the other option here is that we continue this until such time as you can come back, Neil, having gone through the exercise with the applicant. |
| 05:22:00.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:22:00.66 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:22:00.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:22:01.53 | Andrew Junius | with. |
| 05:22:01.81 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, we're trying to. |
| 05:22:02.48 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:22:04.59 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 05:22:06.01 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 05:22:07.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | yeah, I mean, the issue I'm having with this is, and I may not be on the revealing side of this, is if he does not have enough by code, let's say he doesn't have nine spaces, he only has seven spaces, this building is the same size. He's not making any bigger. We don't know whether the use is more intensive and the parking is what it is and it's a nonconforming use, are we saying that he can't use this building without making it compliant by finding spaces somewhere else in Sausalito that he doesn't own? |
| 05:22:42.39 | Kristina Feller | No, we're not saying that. |
| 05:22:43.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, but what are we? |
| 05:22:44.03 | Kristina Feller | We were trying to go through this exercise to make to bring it up to code compliance. |
| 05:22:48.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, no, I understand that. |
| 05:22:49.71 | Kristina Feller | So that so we either Condition it now. or we continue. |
| 05:22:53.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 05:22:53.63 | Unknown | All right. Yes. I understand. |
| 05:22:56.28 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so I think vice chair What other conditions can you think of that you'd want to put on this if we're going to make a motion? |
| 05:23:04.76 | Andrew Junius | Well, I mean, based on... One way or the other. Based on, I think the one thing we're getting some commonality here on is the parking, right? I think, I'm not sure if we need a shadow study. I'm hoping we don't need a shadow study on that, given we'd like to move this along. |
| 05:23:05.19 | Kristina Feller | One way or the other. |
| 05:23:10.33 | Kristina Feller | Right. |
| 05:23:10.82 | Don Anderson | Thank you. |
| 05:23:20.26 | Nastassya Saad | I might still have issues with the finding that I mentioned on light and air, but I'll focus on the parking so we can come to some agreement there. |
| 05:23:29.66 | Andrew Junius | And in terms of design changes, design conditions, did you wish to perhaps go on? |
| 05:23:35.81 | Richard Graef | Well, I just, all those parking, I'm sorry. All this parking has got me a little confused. It's some kind of a little, exercise and trade-offs. I'm still not quite happy with the building as it stands. Yeah, the design of the building and the, and the shade and shadow and I think I would like to see some changes, some improvement there. I think the height of this building could be dropped easily three feet and still be a totally functional space In fact, I think 30 foot high or nearly 30 foot high space is really a lot of extra volume that probably would never be used. because you can't put a second level in there because you can't do it, right? They'll get busted. So, It's just hard to imagine what, you wouldn't be building a sailboat in there or in sailing it out. because the mast is always separate anyway. So it's like, you know, I just don't know. I think it's too big. Okay. You don't have to agree with me. No. That's my, I know, I know you don't. But that's okay. |
| 05:25:11.12 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 05:25:11.14 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 05:25:11.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:25:11.33 | Andrew Junius | I know. |
| 05:25:12.05 | City Attorney Rudin | I'm not sure. |
| 05:25:13.96 | Kristina Feller | That's all right. |
| 05:25:16.07 | Andrew Junius | Are we going to get a fish? Should we continue this for a period? I mean, again, I hate to do this. |
| 05:25:20.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:25:20.29 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 05:25:20.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask the applicant on this? |
| 05:25:20.46 | Andrew Junius | that |
| 05:25:23.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We could try to craft something tonight, or you could go back and work out with the parking issue and look at the design and see if there's a way to drop this in some way. And we can continue it, or we can try to come up with some compromise tonight, which is probably going to be taking three feet, four feet out of the height, just arbitrarily, and trying to craft a bunch of conditions on the design. So are you better, do you feel better off trying to think about those issues and work out the parking issue and come back on the design? Or do you want us to attempt to come to a consensus on changes from, from here? I guess that's the question. |
| 05:26:07.05 | Dan Morgan | I feel like I'm a shark tank. Yes. on the one hand, I'd like to walk out with an approval And if I give on the parking concession, I really don't want to give on anything else. So if there's going to be other conditions, then we'll go ahead and... continue. That would be my desire, but you ultimately have the decision, so. |
| 05:26:29.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but, Right now, just for giving it back to the commission, I think right now there's gonna be a consensus to lower the height. Thank you. |
| 05:26:37.98 | Kristina Feller | No. |
| 05:26:38.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 05:26:39.38 | Kristina Feller | Hold on, hold on. I don't. |
| 05:26:41.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I'm not, okay, let me rephrase. I think there's gonna be a concession. There's gonna be a majority that will lower the height on this and there will be a majority that wants you to reduce the parking. So I think that, and those are different majorities actually right now. So, I mean, unless you think I'm wrong? |
| 05:27:03.83 | Kristina Feller | I could approve this now with the parking conditions. |
| 05:27:03.97 | Nastassya Saad | I think. |
| 05:27:07.61 | Nastassya Saad | I think someone should make a motion because you need three of us and we don't all have to agree. I think the parking is something we're trying to assist with, but I think it's fair to make a motion and see if it gets an approval. |
| 05:27:22.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. Okay, we can try to do that. |
| 05:27:26.29 | Andrew Junius | Go ahead, Vice Chair. with a condition that requires the applicant to work with the staff to Um, work out a compliant parking plan. that is the term we're using, joint parking, joint that complies with code and would, by designating other parking spaces controlled by the applicant as committed to this project would bring this site into compliance on parking. I think that's convoluted enough, but Sergio, is that |
| 05:28:02.91 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, so my one sort of concern is when you say compliant with parking, are you saying that you want this site to have 32 total parking spaces? |
| 05:28:17.29 | Andrew Junius | No, I think the idea is we want the assemblage of property that the applicant owns in this area to have pointed to an area that has the additional 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 spaces that the staff is going to say that we're short, that the applicant's short, and that those spaces are now dedicated to this site in a legal compliance sense and that would technically bring the project into compliance. with the parking department. |
| 05:28:50.11 | Mary Wagner | Okay, so yes, I believe staff have identified that you know, based on a mixed industrial and office use, the site would require 32 total parking spaces existing that there are 19 parking spaces in the staff report. And so it sounds like the will of the commission is to direct staff to work with the applicant to develop a joint use or other alternative parking program that would provide for the additional 13 parking spaces that would be accessible to this site. |
| 05:29:21.94 | Andrew Junius | That's right. And I think if that is the condition and if it And if, And if the, let me, and I think what we're getting here for the applicant is we're preserving this, the, you know, with some reservations. I know there's some people here that aren't comfortable with the hype, but we're, we're going to approve that the envelope you're building with the height tonight with this parking condition that frankly from what i'm hearing may result in an additional approval like a conditional use or something to come back on just the parking issue to figure all that stuff out and and clarify it in a way that we're not really sure it is needed tonight but could be needed in the future. but you get an approval. And then what would come back would be an adjustment of the condition on parking if we needed to do that to clarify all this. It's a little messy, but I think you'd get an approval tonight. I'm fine. |
| 05:30:12.58 | Mary Wagner | I'm fine with that. And the reason I was trying to be more specific is because at least in table 1040-1, there's a number of different parking standards. that vary based on land use. So certain land uses require considerably less parking. And since we don't know exactly what sort of tenant Thank you. |
| 05:30:31.04 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:30:31.51 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 05:30:31.55 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:30:31.87 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 05:30:31.88 | Andrew Junius | And I, you know, I appreciate that. Thank you. We have a number that we're trying to hit. And if we're out of this room with a plan to hit that number as a condition of approval with working with the applicant, working with the staff, I think that works for us. |
| 05:30:38.47 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:30:46.38 | Richard Graef | Is the number 32? |
| 05:30:48.19 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 05:30:48.81 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 05:30:48.88 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:30:48.93 | Unknown | I'm going to. |
| 05:30:49.00 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, remember if you were |
| 05:30:49.03 | Unknown | Thank you. or whatever he says it is. |
| 05:30:50.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Whatever he says it is. But also those spaces will be dedicated to this project and not allowed for joint use or allowed for joint use. |
| 05:31:00.02 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:31:00.84 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 05:31:01.30 | Kristina Feller | That's what Neil was saying. |
| 05:31:03.86 | Neal Toft | And if I can clarify, the joint-use parking, the conditions outlined in the code, pretty standard, has percentages of sites, percentages of parking areas that can be joint use, and then percentages of those parking spaces that have to be daytime excuse me, daytime versus nighttime or weekday versus weekend. So it's a... It's typically done through a conditional use permit process to really identify how that is going to function. Um, So the simpler approach would be to just identify if they have reserved parking spaces |
| 05:31:42.96 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, that's fine. |
| 05:31:43.12 | Neal Toft | and then deed them for this property. That's fine. |
| 05:31:45.31 | Kristina Feller | I think what we're saying, yes. |
| 05:31:47.44 | Neal Toft | because joint use becomes kind of a |
| 05:31:48.97 | Kristina Feller | kind of a |
| 05:31:49.58 | Andrew Junius | without having to come back with a conditional use. But if it doesn't, then at least you got the building approved with a need to come back and fix this with a conditional use. I mean, that would be your worst case scenario. |
| 05:31:56.65 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. So, so vice chair, I will, I'll second your motion with one proposed addition if you would entertain it and that is any, any additional design changes on the exterior expression also come back to the planning commission. I don't know. |
| 05:32:16.51 | Andrew Junius | I support that. |
| 05:32:18.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so I'm gonna complicate it here. I'm gonna request an amendment to the motion that two things we can take them separately. One, that to be opaque glass on the first level for the lower part of the backside to address the concern with the neighbors. And the second one is that we reduce the height to 28 feet. Is there a second? I'll accept the first. |
| 05:32:46.90 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. I'll accept the first, but not the second. |
| 05:32:50.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's arbitrary. No, no. I understand it's arbitrary, but we're being forced into this scenario because of the way we're doing this. But I'm suggesting an amendment. Let's deal with the height first. 28 feet. Is there a second for the amendment? That's how you do it. |
| 05:32:51.76 | Kristina Feller | It's scarletary. |
| 05:33:10.09 | City Attorney Rudin | I was talking about. |
| 05:33:11.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so the amendment is now on the floor, and we can vote on the amendment. I'm not asking for requests. This is Robert Rules. I'm not asking for you to change your motion. I'm asking for this. So I will now take roll call on the amendment to the motion. |
| 05:33:28.28 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Assad. |
| 05:33:30.29 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 05:33:30.73 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Graff. |
| 05:33:32.14 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 05:33:33.11 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 05:33:34.25 | Kristina Feller | No. |
| 05:33:35.27 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Juniors. Trey Luxenberg. |
| 05:33:37.78 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:33:37.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 05:33:38.91 | Director Phipps | Motion passes. |
| 05:33:40.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, now we have the motion as amended. Thank you. |
| 05:33:43.62 | Andrew Junius | I'm going to withdraw the motion at this point. This isn't the way to do it. I'm not comfortable with that. |
| 05:33:48.40 | Kristina Feller | This isn't. Thank you. This isn't the way to do it. No, I'll make a motion to continue this. This isn't the way to do it. So. |
| 05:34:00.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So there's a motion on the motion has been withdrawn and there's a motion to continue. Thank you. discussion on the motion to continue. |
| 05:34:10.58 | Kristina Feller | For a second. |
| 05:34:13.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I second to a motion to continue. I'll second. All right. Further discussion on the motion to continue this to a date uncertain as a Thank you. |
| 05:34:23.17 | Kristina Feller | We should ask the applicant that. |
| 05:34:23.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:34:23.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 05:34:25.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 05:34:25.89 | Richard Graef | God. |
| 05:34:26.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:34:27.17 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 05:34:27.19 | Richard Graef | But... |
| 05:34:27.36 | Kristina Feller | We also need it. |
| 05:34:27.93 | Richard Graef | I can tell you what they're doing. |
| 05:34:30.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So Africa can come back up. So as I was suggesting earlier, there were two issues. One is parking and one is height. And whether you preferred to move ahead tonight with potentially you wanted one or the other, but you're going to lose both if you do it tonight. And then you can go back and think about the height and you can resolve the parking and come back to either a date certain or a date uncertain. |
| 05:34:30.09 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:34:30.24 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 05:34:58.38 | Dan Morgan | I think I'm willing to come back at a date in second meeting in April. |
| 05:35:04.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second meeting in April, okay. |
| 05:35:06.21 | Dan Morgan | That way, |
| 05:35:06.46 | Director Phipps | Bye. |
| 05:35:06.53 | Dan Morgan | Thank you. |
| 05:35:06.56 | Director Phipps | April 26th. |
| 05:35:07.98 | Dan Morgan | Thank you. |
| 05:35:08.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, April 26th. |
| 05:35:11.03 | Kristina Feller | So I'll amend my motion to continue this to a date certain of April 26th. Will you second that? |
| 05:35:20.30 | City Attorney Rudin | Yes. |
| 05:35:20.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:35:20.70 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 05:35:20.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The motion is seconded for a date certain April 26th. Further discussion on the motion. |
| 05:35:20.84 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 05:35:29.32 | Andrew Junius | Well, I would again just like to I think we should try to tell the applicant what we're asking for. I personally don't support any reduction in the height here. I think a small reduction of height just is, it doesn't do anything for anybody except make the project less viable. So I really, really strongly disagree with that approach. I kind of thought we were trying to, to solve the parking problem as a way to deal one issue that there's a concern if you're in compromise on the height, but I'm really uncomfortable. going forward, I mean, we'll be back, I suppose, in April, but I'm uncomfortable having the applicant have to give up on both these things. |
| 05:36:10.38 | Nastassya Saad | May I say something? I am not a proponent of the height, but you do not need a 5-0 vote here. And I think this applicant was about to get an approval and the amendment potentially ruin that. I am not gonna vote yes with this height, but that doesn't change anybody else's opinion. that we would recommend. because it won't be me, someone put back a motion to approve this project Thank you. as you all had conditioned it with the parking. |
| 05:36:44.76 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 05:36:45.16 | Nastassya Saad | And skip the amendment that chair Luxembourg that you that you made and try it again. |
| 05:36:53.11 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:36:54.85 | Andrew Junius | Why don't you withdraw the motion to continue? |
| 05:36:56.94 | Kristina Feller | I'll withdraw the motion to continue. |
| 05:36:59.93 | Andrew Junius | Second that, and it's gone. All right, again, I'm going to move to approve the plan with the condition on the parking. We're going to call it the parking solution, the parking investigation that the staff is going to work on to bring this project, this site, into compliance with the planning code. through either a collection of parking spaces that are controlled by the applicant or through a later conditional use application that will allow for joint parking that would come back here. But what's on the floor now is to approve the building at the height and with the basic design that's been proposed. |
| 05:37:38.25 | Kristina Feller | And I'll second that again with the added condition that any future design changes on the exterior have to come back to us. |
| 05:37:47.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There's a motion on the floor and a second. Director Pips, please call the roll. |
| 05:37:53.94 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Saad? Commissioner Graff. No. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. |
| 05:37:58.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 05:38:00.15 | Unknown | Virginia. |
| 05:38:02.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 05:38:02.97 | Director Phipps | you Motion does not pass. |
| 05:38:07.49 | Pam Himka | Yeah. |
| 05:38:07.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I'd like to make a motion to continue this to a date certain of April 26th. |
| 05:38:13.81 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:38:13.84 | Kristina Feller | All right. |
| 05:38:13.92 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:38:14.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So. |
| 05:38:14.11 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:38:14.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 05:38:14.41 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 05:38:14.78 | Kristina Feller | OKAY. |
| 05:38:16.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any further comments, anybody? |
| 05:38:19.49 | Kristina Feller | I would just want to make sure the applicant's clear what the direction is from this commission. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. You're clear. I'm clear. Thank you. |
| 05:38:27.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm clear. Thank you. |
| 05:38:28.76 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 05:38:29.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Director, Pips, take roll. |
| 05:38:32.86 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad. |
| 05:38:34.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:38:34.44 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 05:38:34.58 | Director Phipps | Bye. Commissioner Graff. |
| 05:38:36.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:38:36.42 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. |
| 05:38:37.70 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 05:38:37.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:38:38.02 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 05:38:39.67 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 05:38:44.08 | Kristina Feller | Okay, motion to adjourn. |
| 05:38:46.41 | Unknown | and I'm going to go. |
| 05:38:46.79 | Kristina Feller | I can't. |
| 05:38:47.20 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 05:38:47.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All in favor. Yeah. Aye. Aye. |
| 05:38:48.26 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
Michelle Yellen — In Favor: Long-term neighbor at 61 Marie Street supported the project, noting it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood, respected saving the walkway, and mentioned the existing garage is obtrusive and that previous owners couldn't use the driveway. ▶ 📄
Helena Zoladova — In Favor: Owner of 60 Woodward Avenue explained the need for the project due to her husband's back surgeries and desire for accessible parking. She likes the house and plans only the changes described, and noted the immediate neighbor on Woodward supported the project as it improves privacy and light. ▶ 📄