| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Director Phipps | Through Zoom. And with that, I will move to call roll. Commissioner Saad? Here. Commissioner Graff? Here. Commissioner Feller? Here. Vice Chair Junius? Present. Chair Luxenberg? Here. We have a chief quorum. Thank you. |
| 00:00:03.90 | Kristina Feller | here. THE END OF THE END OF THE Here. |
| 00:00:13.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | First item is next item. The agenda is approval of the agenda. I'm looking for a motion to approve the agenda |
| 00:00:19.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:00:19.50 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:00:19.52 | Nastassya Saad | So moved. |
| 00:00:20.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:00:21.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, director Phipps, can you call roll? |
| 00:00:24.06 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:00:24.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:00:24.84 | Richard Graef | Yes. |
| 00:00:26.47 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:00:26.49 | Richard Graef | Yes. |
| 00:00:26.86 | Director Phipps | Thank you. you Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. |
| 00:00:28.01 | Richard Graef | Yes. |
| 00:00:31.23 | Director Phipps | Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:00:32.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is public comments for items that are not on the agenda this evening. Director Phucs, can you instruct people on how to provide comments? Thank you. |
| 00:00:41.85 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the Planning Commission from taking action on 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, please raise your hand in person or in the Zoom application, and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. Thank you. |
| 00:01:28.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Not seeing any in the audience, are you seeing any on Zoom? |
| 00:01:31.98 | Director Phipps | Seeing one hand raised in the audience, sir, if you could please approach the dais, state your name and your address for the record. |
| 00:01:47.68 | Director Phipps | Oh, okay, wonderful. Well, then please hold your public comment until that item is being addressed on the agenda. Thank you. |
| 00:01:54.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, we'll close item three and move on to planning commission minutes. I'm looking for a motion to approve the minutes that are attached to the agenda. |
| 00:02:03.76 | Kristina Feller | Some whoops. Second. |
| 00:02:05.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any questions or comments from any of the commissioners? With that, can Director Phipps, can you take the role, please? |
| 00:02:13.12 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you Chair. Commissioner Saad? Yes. Commissioner Graff? Yes. Commissioner Feller? Yes. Vice Chair Junius? Yes. Chair Luxenberg? |
| 00:02:15.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:02:15.37 | Ms. Gonzalez | Thank you. you |
| 00:02:16.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:02:16.74 | Ms. Gonzalez | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:02:16.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:16.85 | Ms. Gonzalez | Thank you. |
| 00:02:16.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:18.05 | Ms. Gonzalez | Yes. |
| 00:02:21.43 | Director Phipps | Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:02:23.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda is communications. Director Phipps, can we have an update from staff? Please. |
| 00:02:29.86 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. Regarding CDD staffing, Human Resources staff and I recently re-solicited for the position of building official. We will be reviewing applications submitted following the closures of the application submittal period, which will be around the middle of May. So we'll keep you posted on that. Regarding the housing element, CDD anticipates receiving a comment letter from HCD staff, containing their comments in connection with our adopted housing element by the end of this month. We will keep you posted on housing element related updates as we receive them as well. And quick point regarding last evening's council meeting. City Council gave direction to city manager and staff to work with New City America Incorporated in scheduling an initial meeting to participate in a business roundtable discussion. This would be facilitated by the Chamber of Commerce with the goal of gauging initial attitudes as related to a potential business improvement district in the city's downtown commercial district. and staff look forward to working with New City of America and the Chamber on this initial roundtable. And as always, we will keep... District in the city's downtown commercial district. And staff look forward to working with New City of America and the Chamber on this initial roundtable. And as always, we will keep the commissioners apprised of any updates. Thank you. That will do it for CDD updates. |
| 00:03:46.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. It's nice to hear that there's been some progress with HCD on the housing element. And yes, if you could keep us updated on this business roundtable, that would be appreciated. Questions from other commissioners of Director Phipps at this time? without City Attorney Rudin do you have any comments this evening? No, no, I do not. Okay, we appreciate that. We will move on to report outs from subcommittees. The first is the Objective Design and Development Standards Subcommittee. Commissioner Feller, Vice Chair Junius, updates in that regard. |
| 00:04:09.21 | City Attorney Rudin | No. |
| 00:04:25.52 | Andrew Junius | Nothing much to report, Chair. We're still waiting for the consultants, I think, to get back with us after the hearing about a month ago with next steps. |
| 00:04:34.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. How about the California Housing Legislation Working Group, Vice Chair Junius and myself, updates from the state with regard to any new legislation? |
| 00:04:45.86 | Andrew Junius | No, nothing to add to that long list from last time. I will be tracking those and reporting as needed or helpful in the coming months throughout the year. I would note that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did toss out Berkeley's natural gas ban. And that we're looking at that decision pretty carefully in my law office. And that might be a problem for other cities as well. That's probably not just limited to Berkeley, so interesting times ahead. |
| 00:05:12.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Standard conditions of approval for resolutions. Director Phipps, you're going to look to schedule a meeting in the next few weeks, next month on that item. |
| 00:05:24.32 | Director Phipps | Yes, sure. |
| 00:05:25.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Ferry Landslide Working Group, have we heard any more? Is there a meeting set up yet? Or that has not yet been scheduled? |
| 00:05:33.89 | Kristina Feller | There is no meeting set up at this time. We're still waiting to hear from Director McGowan, and I would ask Director Phipps if you could kindly touch base with Director McGowan and ask him about a timeline for that because we'd like to get that back to the commission as well. Thank you. |
| 00:05:51.05 | Director Phipps | And I will do that, Commissioner, thank you. And just as a follow on FYI, Director McGowan and I had an opportunity to discuss Phase 2 with the consultant. And one of our points of priority was to finalize Phase 1. So we will be working on that. |
| 00:06:12.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:06:13.02 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:06:14.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. The next item is housing element working group in addition to Director Phipps' comments or any additions to Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:06:22.72 | Kristina Feller | Nothing new to Director Phipps' update. Thank you. |
| 00:06:25.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Parklets, Director Phipps, again on that one, we're also looking to schedule a meeting maybe in the next four or five weeks. |
| 00:06:34.26 | Director Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:06:34.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. Thank you very much. Master Plan Working Group, Commissioner Saad, Commissioner Fellows, Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:06:41.05 | Kristina Feller | We've had some back and forth with the city attorney in terms of scoping and what is a superior document over a master plan. as it relates to the general plan, I think we have responded to that and we will continue to coordinate with the city attorney offline and bring any updates back to this commission as we have them. |
| 00:07:02.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. The Landslide Task Force, also Commissioner Feller, |
| 00:07:07.68 | Kristina Feller | Yes, we did have a meeting last week. It was a kickoff meeting with Director McGowan of Department of Public Works. and Miller Pacific and the landslide task force that had been retired back in 2019 after we presented to the city council and had our report and all of our recommendations ratified So this is some of that ongoing work in terms of the recommendations. Miller Pacific has already come back. They seem very organized and on it. And just to be clear that the scope of that work is really a citywide geological hazard study. It is not to fix every mudslide or sloughing off or anything like that and We will be kept up to date on a monthly basis, and Director McGowan will probably have us meet once a month as well. So I will keep this commission and the public up to speed on any updates as we get them. Thank you. |
| 00:08:05.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | thank you Commissioner Fowler those updates are really helpful for this whole Commission so we Next item is public hearings. At this point, we'll talk about ex parte communications. I'll start with Vice Chair Junior. |
| 00:08:21.91 | Andrew Junius | No ex parte, no ex parte, ex parte communications. Thank you. A lot. |
| 00:08:28.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What's your thought? Nothing to report. Commissioner graph. |
| 00:08:34.16 | Richard Graef | and no ex parte communications. |
| 00:08:37.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:08:38.47 | Kristina Feller | Nothing to report, thank you. |
| 00:08:40.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I also have nothing to report on the ex parte. I'm a vice chair genius. Do you need to comment on 60? |
| 00:08:47.19 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I'll be recusing myself from 60 Woodward as I live within 500 feet. Call me when you're done. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:08:53.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. With that, we'll go on to the first. Actually, Commissioner Junius, I realize it's the second item, so you can sit for another couple of minutes. Sorry about that. I jumped the gun. The first item is 170 Gate 5 Road, which we continue to date certain, that date certain was this evening. But at this point, I understand that they're not yet ready for that item and we're gonna continue that. Is there further information, Director Fitz? |
| 00:09:24.40 | Director Phipps | Yeah, correct. So applicant is working on a resubmittal. We were not able to prepare the resubmittal for this hearing. However, it should be ready, we believe, by the end for the second hearing in May. I'd like to request that council continue this item to a date uncertain, however, based on follow-on discussions with the applicant. |
| 00:09:49.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. I look for a motion to continue this to a date uncertain. |
| 00:09:53.76 | Kristina Feller | Motion to continue item 6A to a date uncertain. |
| 00:09:57.61 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 00:09:57.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:09:58.54 | City Attorney Rudin | I would recommend we take public comment just in case. |
| 00:09:58.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Okay, thank you for reminding us, City Attorney Rudin. At this point, we'll look for any public comment on item 6A, 170, Gate 5 Road. |
| 00:10:15.46 | Director Phipps | Seeing none, Cheryl. |
| 00:10:16.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. With that, we'll close public comment and look for a motion. Did we have a motion? We have a motion on the floor. Director Phipps, please call roll. |
| 00:10:25.82 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Saad? Yes. Commissioner Graff? Yes. Commissioner Feller? Yes. Vice Chair Junius? Yes. Chair Luxenberg? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. |
| 00:10:27.44 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yeah. Yes. |
| 00:10:31.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:10:35.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Julius. Now you can exit. Item 6B is 60 Woodward Avenue. This is an item that was continued from a previous meeting. So Ms. Gonzalez is going to do a staff presentation. If you could just focus on any changes since the last part of the hearing, because this is just a continuation, I will turn it over to you at this time. |
| 00:11:00.86 | Ms. Gonzalez | Thank you, yes, I will do that. Let me share my screen. |
| 00:11:15.79 | Ms. Gonzalez | Okay. This item was presented to you March 1st, One of the items that you requested was that the applicant returned with the more in depth. Arborist Report. with the recommendation to remove the southern Magnolia The applicant did that, so they updated the report And they took into consideration your comment that you wanted a more mature tree to replace that dream. They had originally proposed a Japanese maple tree, a five gallon, and they updated it to a 10 gallon. However, the new updated Arborist Report also recommends a removal of two additional trees, two glossy privets, which would be along the proposed driveway, well existing driveway and proposed driveway redesign. And they proposed to replace those two with two manzanita. We also updated the staff report to move the zoning analysis summary table towards the front of that report We included information regarding the historic determination, how staff concluded that that site was not of any historical significance. um additionally the director um director phibs also met with um the Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, And she confirmed that she wouldn't they wouldn't consider that a site of historical significance. and we added additional information regarding the the notice and correspondence for this project. I want to show you the proposed landscape that shows the protected magnolia, which is in the rear of the of the driveway. I'm not sure if you can see my cursor. It's circling on top of the proposed existing driveway. The new tree that will replace it will be along the steps right here off of Woodward Avenue. And then the existing two glossy privets are towards 68 Woodward Avenue. Those two will be removed and they will replace them with two manzanita that will sit further back and will have more space to grow on there. |
| 00:13:45.94 | Ms. Gonzalez | We provided some pictures just showing where the current Southern Magnolia is located. It's a very... It doesn't have room for growth. The crown is tilted on one side because it's right. It's hitting the existing detached garage. And we also provided, the neighbors provided pictures of the glossy privets and how they're right off the existing driveway. The existing materials that they proposed, they kept them the same. You didn't have any issues with that, so everything else the same. The only thing that was updated was the Arboros report. Again, the project is exempt from CEQA. subject to sections 15301 and section 1303. Staff made the findings for all of the applications requested for this proposal. The design review, height and review, variance, preservation of trees and views, and encroachment review and agreements. and staff recommends the approval of the design review with heightened review, the variance, the tree removal permit and the encroachment agreement for the project as proposed subject to conditions of approval. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may continue the hearing for additional information and or project revisions. or direct staff to prepare a solution for denial, stating specific reasons. any one or more of the findings cannot be made. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions. |
| 00:15:20.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez. Thank you for updating us since the last hearing. One quick question to think about while we take other questions as well. Condition number four, our standard condition now is to require a tree to be installed within two weeks of removal. And when we have a tree permit, that is totally logical. Do you know if in order to replace that magnolia tree, if they take the tree out during the demolition, do they need to wait till the construction is finished before installing a new tree? Because the new tree could get damaged. That's what my concern is. That would be ideal. So I just think we need to tweak that wording so that it's tied to completion of construction prior to finish the construction, but after some way to say that so that we have a date in there, but it's not based on the removal of the tree. It's based on the progress of the construction. |
| 00:16:00.79 | Ms. Gonzalez | That would be ideal. Yes. |
| 00:16:21.06 | Ms. Gonzalez | Okay, yeah, we can update it to prior to Final permit, final inspection or certificate of occupancy or something like that. |
| 00:16:31.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That would be helpful. |
| 00:16:32.60 | Ms. Gonzalez | Okay. |
| 00:16:33.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions from commissioners? No questions at this time. We'll ask the applicant to provide an update from the last meeting if they so choose. |
| 00:16:46.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | if you could give name and address for the record that would be appreciated thank you for |
| 00:16:51.57 | Director Phipps | And just for applicant certification, you have 15 minutes. If you finish within the 15 minutes, you can use your reserve time following public |
| 00:17:00.02 | Lucas Eastwood | comment. Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Lucas Eastwood. I'm the project sponsor for 60 Woodward Avenue. Yeah, we attended a hearing on March 1st seeking a variance to increase our lot coverage from 40.9% to 40.3%, sorry, 40.9% to 43.7%. The application is to demolish the existing detached street-level garage. and add a new attached garage and driveway as well as remodel the interior of the existing home and replace the exteriors, doors, windows, roof, and siding in kind. The project was subject to design review with heightened review of variance a tree removal permit and an encroachment agreement. After discussion with the commissioners on March 1st the commission found that the project was largely supportable on the conditions that we provide a more substantial arborist report, improve our landscape plan, and perform a historic resource evaluation. We submitted the Arbor support and revised landscape plan. And the department has conducted an internal historical resources evaluation and found that this home is not a contributing resource. The arborist calls out for the removal of a southern magnolia, which is necessary for a new driveway, and has been flagged by the arborist as being located in sub-optimal location for long-term viability, Given its proximity to the existing attached garage, We were opposed to replace the Southern Magnolia with the Japanese Maple in an alternative location. Secondly, the report calls out the removal of two glossy privets. which are in the path of the widened driveway, which has been deemed necessary by the fire department. Thank you. We propose to replace those two glossy privets with two manzanitas in an alternative location. We understand how critical and delicate the vegetation is across this project site and beyond. We've worked hard to develop a plan that maintains as much of the existing natural vegetation as possible. We ask that this project is approved without conditions. Myself and my team are available for any questions. Thank you. |
| 00:19:16.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you have 1247 to respond to any comments with the public when we resume. But prior to that, we will see if there's any questions from the commissioners. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant at this time? |
| 00:19:24.07 | Lucas Eastwood | Bye. |
| 00:19:33.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so with that, you can have a seat. We're gonna open it up for public comment on this item. Director Phipps, if you could run that for us, please. |
| 00:19:43.98 | Director Phipps | Yes. Looking to the audience for raised hands, seeing none. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands, seeing none. |
| 00:19:52.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. With that, we'll bring it back up to the dais. Commissioners were looking for a motion and then discussion. |
| 00:20:03.32 | Kristina Feller | Um, first of all, I want to thank the applicant and, um, uh, Magda for, uh, following up on these several items that, um, we're holding us up to make the findings at, at the last hearing. So thank you very much for, uh, for the due diligence in doing that. And Chair Luxembourg, thank you for catching that condition piece in terms of when to plant the new species. I don't have any other substantive comments other than I'm ready to make a motion to approve this project with the one caveat that Chair Luxembourg had mentioned before. Second. |
| 00:20:43.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Are we going to tie that within two weeks prior to final inspection, or is there another trigger? Director Phipps, is there a logical trigger that you think might be better than the final inspection? |
| 00:20:59.48 | Director Phipps | We could say, I was going to suggest perhaps within two weeks of the completion of construction. However, I think final inspection might be a more clear trigger for that as that will occur following completion of construction. So I'm just fine with that. |
| 00:21:15.68 | Kristina Feller | I will amend my motion to accept that definition. Thank you. |
| 00:21:22.46 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Me as well. |
| 00:21:23.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | OK. Any further comments from commissioners? With that, Director Phipps, please take the roll. |
| 00:21:30.90 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad? Yes. Commissioner Graff? Yes. Commissioner Feller? Yes. Vice Chair Junius? |
| 00:21:32.89 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yes. Yes. |
| 00:21:38.70 | Director Phipps | is not here. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:21:39.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Luxembourg. Yes. Thank you. We will move on to next. Next item and if you can go get Vice Chair Junius. |
| 00:21:56.47 | Director Phipps | And just for the record, Vice Chair Junius recused himself for that previous item, and that is why he was not making a vote. |
| 00:22:02.78 | Lucas Eastwood | Thank you. |
| 00:22:09.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're now on to item 6C, that's 660 Bridgeway, for a certificate of appropriateness design review, conditional use permit, encroachment agreement, signed permit, and we'll be looking for a staff report from Kristin Tig. How are you this evening? |
| 00:22:25.68 | Kirsten | Fine, thank you. Nice to see you all. Just for the record, it's 666 Bridgeway, not 660. |
| 00:22:32.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Apologize for that. |
| 00:22:33.85 | Kirsten | No. The subject sites a historic structure located in the historic downtown overlay district The applicants filed applications for a certificate of appropriateness design review conditional use permit and sign permits. to facilitate the rehabilitation and remodeling of the historic front facade. As proposed, the scope of work includes new paint on both floors of all the trim and wood moldings, replacing dilapidated tiles above and below the storefront windows around the facade, the entrance, new awning to replace the existing awning and new facade signage. Staff has reviewed the proposed signage and just wanted to note, it's in the staff report, that the dimensions of the blade sign are slightly too large, and we included a condition of approval to scale it down to the maximum six square feet permitted. The proposed projects been evaluated by the city's historic consulting architect Jerry Halan, who determined that it was in compliance with the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation of historic structures. And it also was presented to the heritage board, uh, during two meetings on, um, I lost my place. in March 16th and April 14th, and the ultimate decision of the board was to recommend approval. subject to a requested condition that they want the commission to impose, requiring that the paint palette be expanded by about one to two colors. and that you require they return to a subcommittee of the board to, look at the paint color selections and approve it. With regard to the certificate of appropriateness and design review, staff is supportive of the application, finds it to be attractive and appropriate for the historic resource. The remaining character defining features will not be altered. The replacement of the 1970s era tile with decorative wood bulkheads to match the bay window above is much more appropriate in keeping with its historic character. With regard to the conditional use permit, although this technically meets the criteria for a formula retail because the owner owns a few other stores in the surrounding communities, we have found that the use would complement and enhance the range of uses currently operating in the downtown commercial zoning district. due to the number of unique and individually operated stores downtown, it will not result in an overabundance of formula retail stores. And it will actually add to the range of clothing stores and other retail services offered and hopefully help draw shoppers to the downtown. In addition, the applicant has not proposed any formulaic materials on the front or signage. It's all very individual and appropriate for the historic resource. The last item that I haven't discussed is the signs. The signs do generally comply with the zoning. They have proposed a maximum of about 16 square feet of signage total, where about 25.75 square feet could be permitted under the code. They are attractive in keeping with the historic character of the building and consistent with signs located throughout the downtown. So ultimately we have recommended approval of the project and provided you with a resolution of approval for your considerations |
| 00:26:01.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. I want to thank you for what was an excellent staff report and an excellent presentation. Thank you. At this point, we'll take questions from commissioners. |
| 00:26:08.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:08.21 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:26:12.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Grant. |
| 00:26:13.79 | Richard Graef | Yeah, would you clarify the issue about the color again? I didn't quite get that. |
| 00:26:20.96 | Kirsten | Well, being a historic building, traditionally, a building like this would likely have a minimum of four colors in its original historic palette. The applicant has proposed a two-tone color palette of whites, which isn't you know, a bad thing. It's just not entirely in keeping with what the Historic Commission would like to see in terms of bringing it back to a more historic presentation. Having said that, paint is replaceable. And it's not permanent. Thank you. |
| 00:26:50.97 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:26:51.10 | Kirsten | Thank you. |
| 00:26:51.20 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:26:51.41 | Kirsten | Thank you. |
| 00:26:51.51 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:26:53.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions, Commissioner Graff? No. Commissioner Filler? |
| 00:26:57.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you again for the staff report. I just had a quick question regarding the signage. You said it's generally complies. |
| 00:27:06.14 | Kirsten | Right, the blade sign is seven square feet or 7.5 square feet where it needs to be six according to our code. So I put in a condition requiring they scale down the dimensions to six. |
| 00:27:12.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:27:16.21 | Kristina Feller | to six and that's the only the the blade sign is the only okay thank you |
| 00:27:17.33 | Kirsten | And AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE |
| 00:27:21.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:27:21.46 | Kristina Feller | . |
| 00:27:23.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions of staff, okay. |
| 00:27:26.42 | Andrew Junius | I have one. |
| 00:27:26.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of what I'm saying. Commissioner, Vice Chair. |
| 00:27:28.16 | Andrew Junius | On the paint color, did I hear you say that there's a condition to be added regarding the paint color? They, |
| 00:27:32.16 | Kirsten | The board has or Commission sorry in Larkspur they were called the board and I keep slipping The Commission has requested a condition of approval be included in your action requiring one to two additional colors in the paint palette and that they have the opportunity to review it and formally approve it as a small subcommittee. Two members appointed themselves to that. |
| 00:27:54.62 | Andrew Junius | They being the HPC the historic reservation but that that conditions not in our packet right now. It's just it's |
| 00:27:55.82 | Kirsten | CHRISTOPHER. Mm-hmm. It's in the resolution of approval by the Heritage Board. |
| 00:28:02.25 | Andrew Junius | By the Heritage. I don't know. Mm-hmm. |
| 00:28:03.06 | Kirsten | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:28:03.38 | Andrew Junius | And we would just transfer that condition over to this, our- |
| 00:28:03.90 | Kirsten | we would just transfer that. THEIR OWNERS. I agree with it, yes. |
| 00:28:07.65 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. Thank you. Understood. Thank you. |
| 00:28:09.67 | Kristina Feller | So can I ask a follow on question to that? So if it goes back to HPC's subcommittee to look at the paint color, then does it have to come back to us again? No, that wasn't the intent. Perfect, okay, thank you. |
| 00:28:20.09 | Kirsten | No, that wasn't the intent. Yeah. |
| 00:28:25.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions from commission members? With that, we will turn it over to the applicant for presentation. Is the applicant here? |
| 00:28:34.65 | Kirsten | The applicant is traveling in Europe and is probably on the Zoom, but he cannot be here in person. |
| 00:28:41.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and the applicant is named? |
| 00:28:46.63 | Director Phipps | Ali Haidari? |
| 00:28:48.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's what I was guessing. Mr. Hadari, you have the floor. I think the Zoom team is unmuting you and allowing you to share your video and your screen. |
| 00:29:03.84 | City Attorney Rudin | Hello, can you hear me? Yes. |
| 00:29:06.17 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:29:08.10 | City Attorney Rudin | I. Good evening to you. Kirsten has done an excellent job explaining I have nothing further to add unless there's any questions for me. Um, It is almost four o'clock in the morning in Europe, so And it's It's been a very nice project working with the city and the planner's been very helpful. So I'm glad we are here. At this point, with regards to colors, we're going to work closely with hoping to add another one or two colors to for this facade so Other than that, I have nothing else to add. If there's any question, I'll be happy to. answer them. |
| 00:29:53.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. A couple of quick questions. First is I just want to confirm, I looked at the AmorVert website and I saw four other locations that they have with, you know, where they have other stores. All of them seem like the storefronts were completely different, different materials, some glass, some brick. And so I just wanted you to confirm that this location has been specifically tailored to the building of 666 bridgeway and the and the character in Sausalito and its visual appearance is not homogeneous with its other establishments in other communities I just wanted you to confirm that for the record if you could |
| 00:30:35.36 | City Attorney Rudin | Yes, you're absolutely correct. Every store that we have been involved with, with the client with Amurwerk, they're all specific storefronts or even if they're in shopping. Like in San Jose, they have their own specific storefronts. We don't have a formula to say it has to be this color or that color. you know, |
| 00:30:58.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's perfect. Thank you very much. The other question is just a curiosity. These drawings do not have the architect's name on the drawings. There's a blank for where the architect's name is. The architect's name is in the staff report. Is there a reason the architect's name is not on the drawings themselves? |
| 00:31:18.40 | City Attorney Rudin | It should be on the title sheet, the name of all the consultants. And if we miss that, then that's our fault. But it should be in the title sheet. |
| 00:31:29.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. It would be helpful if it was on each sheet and where it normally is, but that's fine. With that, other questions from other commissioners? |
| 00:31:29.46 | City Attorney Rudin | Thank you. Oh God. |
| 00:31:41.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Not seeing any at this time. Do you have any other additional response, Mr. Hardari? |
| 00:31:50.30 | City Attorney Rudin | No, thank you very much. Thanks for everybody's time. |
| 00:31:53.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, we're going to open it up for public comment, and then you'll have another opportunity if you have any further comments. At this point, Director Phipps, if you could handle public comment. |
| 00:32:02.85 | Director Phipps | Looking for hands in the audience, seeing none. Looking for hands in the Zoom application, seeing none. |
| 00:32:09.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. Mr. Hardara, do you have any further comments before we bring it back to the dais? |
| 00:32:17.59 | City Attorney Rudin | No, thank you. |
| 00:32:18.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you very much. I'll bring it up to the desk. I'm looking for a motion motion for approval As anybody want to make a motion to that aspect |
| 00:32:30.71 | Richard Graef | I'll... |
| 00:32:31.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I shall move. |
| 00:32:31.71 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:32:31.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And Commissioner Graff, does that motion include the recommendation that go back to the Historical Commission for the colors? |
| 00:32:40.32 | Richard Graef | Yes, it does. |
| 00:32:40.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE FAMILY. It does. So we will take that recommendation from the historic approval and put it in our resolution as well. Is there a second to that motion? |
| 00:32:52.62 | Nastassya Saad | I'll second. |
| 00:32:53.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | OK, other questions or comments? Thank you. |
| 00:32:57.51 | Andrew Junius | I appreciate that, Chair. I think this one's going to go quickly, and I think it's a fabulous little project and is not going to have any issues here. I did want to comment. This is the first time I've seen a formula retail project come before the Planning Commission here, and I'm extremely familiar with this issue in other jurisdictions. I'm a bit shocked at the ordinance here where we have virtually no wiggle room. Just a comment that maybe at some point the City Council and the Planning Commission should look at, you know, Liberalizing this rule a little bit so that a project like this would not be seeking a formula retail approval Since to me it doesn't look at all like formula retail We all know what formula retail looks like in the same it So just make that comment and also wanted to point out. This is a an excellent job of an excellent example of You know a beautiful historic building where the the building where the ground floor retail has been changed years and years ago. So there's not a lot left on the ground floor. It's nice to see that the HPC has agreed with their modest design on the ground floor. The project looks great. This is what we like to see in downtown Sausalito. I'm glad it came quickly, and I'm very supportive. Thank you. |
| 00:33:26.00 | Lucas Eastwood | And I... |
| 00:33:32.78 | Lucas Eastwood | I'm not. |
| 00:34:03.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. I also want to second that this is a nice opportunity. It fills a vacancy in downtown and is going to be a very positive add to the community here. With that, are there other comments from any of the commissioners? |
| 00:34:19.81 | Richard Graef | I just want to concur that I think that it's very well done and it's going to look great. And I'm looking forward to see it completed. |
| 00:34:30.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:34:30.39 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:34:30.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Vast, Commissioner Hassan. |
| 00:34:32.53 | Nastassya Saad | I just, I think if I'm not mistaken, it's our oldest brick building in the city. So it's just, I just want to thank the applicant for Um, rehabilitating it. It's not been in great shape, and it takes a lot to make it work and look nice, and it was a great staff report. It's a great project. I think that's why it's so easy to approve, so I'm happy to move forward and approve this project. |
| 00:34:55.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any other comments? No. Okay. |
| 00:34:56.31 | Kristina Feller | I support it 100%. |
| 00:34:58.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that director Phipps, can you call the roll on the motion? |
| 00:35:01.47 | Director Phipps | Happy to. Commissioner Saad. you |
| 00:35:03.38 | Jim Gurney | Yeah. |
| 00:35:03.50 | Director Phipps | . |
| 00:35:03.57 | Jim Gurney | Thank you. |
| 00:35:03.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:35:03.99 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. the |
| 00:35:05.19 | Jim Gurney | Thank you. |
| 00:35:05.20 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:35:05.24 | Jim Gurney | Yeah. |
| 00:35:05.49 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller? Yes. Vice Chair Junius? Yes. Chair Luxenberg? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. |
| 00:35:06.71 | Jim Gurney | Yes. |
| 00:35:08.21 | Andrew Junius | YES. |
| 00:35:08.48 | Jim Gurney | Thank you. |
| 00:35:14.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We'll now move on to item 6D, which is 813 to 817 Bridgeway, design review, tree removal, encroachment agreement, minor use permit. With that, Neil, if you could give the presentation. Thank you very much. |
| 00:35:32.20 | Neal Toft | Okay. Thank you Chairman Luxenberg and members of the Planning Commission. I'm Neil Toft, Principal Planner. This is an application where the applicant Thank you. Michael Rex on behalf of property owner Michael Lappert. is requesting approval to substantially revise and approve plan, approved permit for a second story addition and facade renovation to an existing commercial building. expanding a restaurant business, commonly known as Fish and Chips. They're requesting amendment to the original design review permit Amendment to the previously approved minor use permit for outdoor dining. conditional use permit to reduce on-site parking requirement from 13 to 9 spaces and to waive those nine. as permitted under the Municipal Code. um, The encroachment agreement is requested in order to construct a raised dining terrace on the sidewalk. and relocate the sidewalk onto two parallel parking spaces and a permit for additional signs. For a quick background, in the spring of 2017, John McCoy of McCoy Architecture submitted a design review and tree removal permit application for the business to Add a second story primarily for office and storage use to provide accessibility upgrades, providing wheelchair access via an elevator lift on the left side of the building. That would provide access to the lower floor and also access to new restrooms located on the second floor. there would be a new retaining wall and drainage system. which required removal of two non-native trees on the hillside behind the structure Eventually, permits were obtained and construction began in January of 2022. last year. Subsequently, in February, the current applicants came to the Planning Commission for a study session to review some conceptual plans, to modify the facade design and expand the outdoor dining. The applicant presented two optional plans, one for a parklet proposal basically using taking out the parallel parking spaces and continuing to use the elevator and the side or the option an outdoor terrace alternative which was based upon the raised dining area adjacent to the building and relocating the sidewalk into the parking line. the, Commission generally supported the changes to the facade and the concept of outdoor dining. There was somewhat of a mixed message in the study session with two, three members expressing some preference for the outdoor terrace and two members expressing preference for the parklet. Subsequently, Thank you. The applicant submitted a formal application to modify the facade previously approved under the design review permit. to amend the minor use permit to increase seating, outdoor seating tables from nine to 25 seats and from three to eight tables. They requested an encroachment agreement to construct the dining terrace over the sidewalk. and relocate the the sidewalk. into the two parking spaces. And they also had a request to add new signs. This application was heard by the Planning Commission on July 20th. 2022 and after hearing staff report and testimony From the applicants and property owner of the commission provided several comments. The commission generally supported the exterior design revisions and color scheme. The commission was concerned with the changes to the use of the upstairs that were not readily described in the application or part of the application. and the commission preferred to see the whole project rather than receive piecemeal applications COMMISSION GENERALLY SUPPORTED THE NEW SIGNING. Thank you. And three of the commissioners found that the outdoor dining area and sidewalk bump out. was not an appropriate solution and would be inconsistent with the findings for minor use permit and encroachment permit approval. uh, Concerns included the potential pedestrian bicyclist conflicts, obstruction of the pedestrian flow along the sidewalk, and an undesirable precedent for constructing such a permanent sort of quasi-private feature in the right-of-way. And in conclusion, the commission voted 3-2, denied the changes to the approved permit and directed staff to return with a resolution of denial. uh, In October of last year, the applicant submitted a revised application. It's similar to the previous proposal that you heard. However, it does include alignment of the rear retaining wall at the lower level an expansion of that lower level by 747 square feet. They provide a new details on a bar service and upstairs dining, adjustments to reduce the extent of the outdoor dining along the sidewalk and the terrace, to widen the to widen the sidewalk from five to seven feet And they also provided a report from a transportation consultant, Robert Harrison, analyzing the pedestrian flow and safety issues, as well as the parking demand of the project. lower level improvements included again aligning the with the retaining wall capturing almost 800 square feet. The lower level would continue to serve as a primary kitchen food prep area and have a walk-up customer service counter with limited tables. The main entry again would be moved to the center of the building. secondary vestibule access would be provided at the north corner. The elevator is proposed to be moved towards the interior of this structure. away from the front. and the expanded area will largely serve to accommodate a larger elevator cab, employee restrooms, and changing facilities. the expanded storage. and expanded storage and cooking facilities. No expansion of the 16 seat dining area in the lower level as proposed. In the upper level, as mentioned, they are now proposing to dedicate approximately 632 square feet to accommodate a dining area counter and bar. Dining tables and a separate lounge room. They've indicated food service would be provided upstairs. The area would provide 44 seats for dining and seven counter stools for a total of 51 seats. Other changes include expanded restrooms and a folding door that opens to a small balcony on the front facade. Like the previous proposal, the project includes an encroachment that would uh, encroachment to construct that raised dining terrace and includes a wheelchair ramp and we'll expand the current outdoor seating and relocate the sidewalk route. And as mentioned, it would be seven feet wide. and the reduction to the terrorist would result in reduction from 26 seats to 20 seats. The sidewalk relocation would eliminate the two parking spaces. and they would add perimeter planning boxes at the dining terrace. The street lamp is incorporated. within the raised dining terrace. and the trees located on the sidewalk are proposed to remain with new tree grates proposed to protect the trees and still provide access around the sidewalk The exterior facade as proposed and the signage are largely the same with that that was previously reviewed by the commission. So in reviewing this amended project application, the new applications that are proposed, we did cite several policies, objectives, and policies from the land use element, community design, historic and cultural preservation element, and the economic element that seemed relevant to the project. One of the overriding land use objectives for the commercial area is to promote and enhance economic diversity. Uh, This parcel is located within the Central Commercial downtown. A bridgeway, it's known for intense retail shopping area serving residents and visitors. THE Proposed facade improvements would enhance this aesthetic presentation to the streetscape and would be more visually compatible with the district than that. of the previously approved plans. Um, It would enhance commercial vitality of the immediate area. and certainly improve the functionality of the establishment for both visitors and local patrons. And the expanded use on the second level, including the open air doors, would Um, somewhat activate the downtown area. Um, While the revised application has improved the safety conditions by widening the sidewalk, The platform continues to present an unusual feature along the streetscape And that runs contrary to some of the you know, I think policies or programs in the plan And while many outdoor dining areas exist along the frontage of the downtown restaurants, in a variety of manner, a variety of ways, this would be exceptionally prominent in character as a fixed structure. So. While the city has not finalized an ongoing parklet program, the proposed site and use conducive to a parklet as a long-term solution for outdoor dining. for the use. In terms of design review, Um, The commission generally found that the building's exterior and facade consistent with required findings. Um, However, the commission also found that the proposed patio encroachment would be inconsistent with findings 10 and 13 and that it did not provide for appropriate level of traffic safety and ease of movement and that the platform would crowd the or overwhelm the general area and neighboring properties. So while we generally support the project, in terms of the building renovations, Ultimately, the project remains inconsistent with the findings for approval, as previously identified by the Planning Commission. there is a requirement for the conditional there's a conditional use permit for the requirement um for parking and a waiver of the parking standards. and We do believe that the use itself is generally conducive for the, with the general use permit, conditional use permit requirements. Yeah. um and recognizing that outdoor dining is exempt from the parking standard You know, this is based primarily on the interior tables and dining areas, customer service. And the project does represent a pretty notable increase in the amount of customer space and seating, but the use would result in a much more efficient and productive use of both the lower and upper floors, would contribute to the commercial vitality of the downtown in particular activation of the upstairs area, more activation of the building as a whole. The proposed interior uses and activities would be consistent with surrounding uses, applying proper, Limits to hours of operation would be important. But in doing that, we believe the project would not have a negative impact on neighboring properties. And one thing I would wanna note here, there has been a good amount of uh, email or light mail, public comments made to the commission. I think some of that reflects a misunderstanding of the project. There's seems to be raised some concern about a rooftop patio or rooftop dining, rooftop bar, and that is not part of this project proposal. There's no stairways or public access easily going up to the rooftop. So that's not proposed in this project. All the windows and all point out towards Bridgeway. and the The patio area is fairly small. The terrace, the little upstairs terrace is fairly small. looking at more or less just an open air kind of second story, looking over the street. In terms of the... Now, recognizing the fact that the patio dining is exempt from the parking requirements. The arrangement of the lower floor does rely on accessible path of travel. And that relies upon this raised patio structure. And as such, the project may be considered inconsistent with findings G and H for reasons of it's not adequately served if this patio is not considered an acceptable method to access that lower floor. So that design would require some reconsideration In terms of the sign permit, we recommend the project remains consistent and recommend approval of the sign permit. And in terms of the minor use permit and encroachment agreement, again, The applicant has proposed The platform generally is a means of a ramp that can accommodate a centralized and accessible entrance to the ground floor, an area for additional tables and chairs beyond the current arrangement. and an improved dining experience for customers to reduce conflicts between customers and patrons and around the dining tables and chairs. In denying the application, the commission determined It was inconsistent with the required findings for encroachment agreement and for the minor use permit in that the structure And the sidewalk would reorient the sidewalk in a way that would diminish the pedestrian experience. And create an obstruction between the downtown and areas to the north. The structure would be a significant increase in private use of the right of way and set an undesirable precedent inconsistent with other Dining proposals approved in the right of way. It wouldn't. create a pedestrian conflict with the high volume of fast moving traffic resulting in an unsafe condition. Yeah. And the the extent of the construction involved in the raised ramp would make it difficult to perform other street improvements and maintenance. And the property owner has the opportunity to either utilize or the current permits and can implement a parklet to accommodate an accessible solution to provide outdoor seating. Now, as we did mention in the staff report, Um, the, orientation of the sidewalk with the wider sidewalk. The Public Works Department did not determine that it represented a hazard or unsafe condition, but it is arguable it's not as safe. as if there was a barrier or a greater barrier between pedestrians and or vehicles and bicycles. but it's not technically considered unsafe. But for all the other remaining reasons, we still see a structure that is unusual in its size and scope and significance And so for the other reasons that the Planning Commission denied the application, those still remain, for the project proposal. Now, so in In conclusion, staff has recommended There was a lot of there's some value in the overall project. We support the Second story. the use of the second story, the expansion of use, certainly the design of the facade and the signage. And the The question kind of remains, however, based on the previous determination of the commission, the proposed platform and outdoor dining remain in consistence with the findings for minor use permit and encroachment agreement approval, So we recommend the commission determine whether the general development program could be approved if modifications to the building access and outdoor dining were provided. by the applicant. to address these concerns. And if they are willing to consider that, then it's a... recommendation that this matter could be continued. Thank you. in order to try to resolve the access and outdoor dining issue. for the project. I'm not sure. If the applicant didn't agree those changes, we would recommend continuing this for preparation of a resolution of denial. Now, If you've seen, we do have some late mail from the applicant. Um, They have. identified a potential alternative design which would create which would reduce the occupancy at the second level in such a way that they might create a feasible alternative to simply having a ramp and kind of a platform directly in front of the building, a five foot side wide. and and using a parklet as an option. in the two parking spaces. And that was just sent to us yesterday. We haven't had opportunity to analyze it to a large extent, but it looks like it's something that might be going in a good direction. So that's, I'll let the applicant kind of explain more on those points. And with that, do you have any questions of staff? |
| 00:54:29.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Mr. Toff at this point We will have questions from the commissioners and then we'll go to the applicants presentation I want to thank you for a very very thorough staff report and also a very thorough Presentation this evening which well appreciated. I also want to note that we did get a lot of late mail We had a number of comments from the neighbors We had and we got late mail from the abutters and I'll read into the record one part of that from the applicant it says we are submitting as late mail a conceptual sketch for your consideration which is the one on the screen at this time showing a parkland instead so the sidewalk remains straight does not need to deter around the proposed raised dining terrace if you find option, this parklet option preferable, we ask that you continue the hearing to allow us to prepare revised plans and resubmit for your review and hopeful approval. So that is what we got from the applicant this evening. At this point, I'm gonna be looking for questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:55:37.89 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. Thank you. It was an excellent report, excellent presentation. I just wanted to clarify for the record because the staff report and the traffic study had just slightly differing numbers on the seats. Could you just clarify on the number of seats that are intended and tables outside? Because I think it said 20 seats and eight tables in the staff report, but the traffic study said there were less. I think it was five tables and 11 seats, or excuse me, I can pull it up. There's a there's an inconsistency. Can you just state for the record the intention of the current plans on number of tables and number of seats, please? |
| 00:56:20.36 | Neal Toft | Well, I can't speak for the traffic report. I apologize for not identifying that differential in the staff report. And I could take a closer look at that. And it may have been that there was an iteration in the plans because this first started back in October. but that information was submitted early. I don't, there may have been revisions to the plan to reduce the, to increase or change the amount of seating in that area. I think there were probably some slight differentials in actual occupancy and seating as well, and between some different documents the applicant had submitted. I've seen sort of references to up to 55 seats upstairs in one document, but generally most of the references are to 51 seats. The one basis maybe to rest our hat on is the The traffic report found a pretty significant Um, excess of available parking in the downtown area still during the what are considered like the peak hours. So the concept is with all the city parking other available parking spaces along streets or in the city parking areas there is adequate parking to support certain expansions of uses whether because you have shared parking within the area as well as a synergy of different types of uses so the more you have synergy between uses the less any demands parking in and of itself. The whole downtown is kind of considered the destination. |
| 00:58:16.63 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. I guess we can stick with the staff report in terms of the seating and then just- |
| 00:58:22.96 | Neal Toft | Thank you. I think it's representing what the applicants are intended. |
| 00:58:26.10 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Okay. And we can, I can, we can ask the applicant as well. Um, And just based on the recommendation in the staff report, can you confirm if staff did have that conversation with the applicant in terms of, what we were not able to find in the previous hearing to recommend if the applicant is willing to make some changes this evening, I'm just wondering if that conversation happened prior to this application coming forward. |
| 00:58:58.95 | Neal Toft | Well, we had discussions with the applicant, and we did indicate, you know, given the commission's prior decision, that somewhat sets a precedent, even though the staff had previously recommended approval of the project back in July and approval of the encroachment as proposed. There's no real specificity in the general plan or zoning that provides absolute guidance onto whether this type of encroachment or this type of outdoor seating should be approved or not. It really is in the judgment based on all those findings. And so the commission, without other precedent or other real basis to work from, you know, we take guidance from the commission on what is the, you know, the policy or what might be seen as, understanding yes, the city does often approve seating within sidewalk areas, but, is this solution acceptable given all the nuances to it or the unusual condition proposed? And I think the commission had answered that question. So we did, we indicated that, you know, we, continue to, while we appreciated a lot, much that was added in the application and that there was some effort to make the sidewalk safer, You know, those concerns still remained. |
| 01:00:32.61 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Those are all that I had. |
| 01:00:36.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Other questions from commissioners? |
| 01:00:41.39 | Kristina Feller | I have a commissioner fellow. Thanks. And thank you, Neil, very much for the report and for following up. Um, I, I want to just continue on commissioner sods line of question really quickly. |
| 01:00:42.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:00:54.45 | Kristina Feller | to make sure that I understand some of this information and and I didn't actually get the late I didn't have a chance to read the late mail till I got here tonight just just so you know we got it very late today gotcha and I rushed to get over here over the bridge to here but in the in the traffic analysis it looks like the the parking demands are based on one Saturday in August of last year |
| 01:01:03.27 | Lucas Eastwood | just so you know. Thank you. |
| 01:01:05.30 | Neal Toft | Gotcha. |
| 01:01:23.81 | Kristina Feller | I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE and it's comparing it to you know, Was it 1997 and 2014 and 2015? And I just, you know, I want to know your thoughts about the accuracy, or not the accuracy, that's not fair. you know, we were still, you know, the state of California still had, you know, the governor's emergency ordinances in place and things of that kind. We don't have those anymore, so I'm wondering if a more accurate or realistic count would be more accurate now rather than last August when the state had not lifted some of those requirements because the count, we've had this issue on other projects where we just want an accurate count. I'm not here to tell you what the number is. I just want to make sure that the counts are accurate to what a non-COVID world is and that's all that I care about. whatever that number might be. So that's one question I have. I don't know if you looked at that or thought of that. um, And then the second question regarding this is, nowhere in this report does it acknowledge or recognize that Bridgeway, and particularly this part of Bridgeway, is part of a primary evacuation route. that's designated that officially and so Thank you. It's not just a side street somewhere. I mean, this is an evacuation route, and Councilmember Cox in the city council meeting a couple weeks ago was really stressing a point on another matter that we keep failing the city of Sausalito fails our evacuation modeling all the time. And a lot of it is because of some of these primary arteries to get out, whatever the threat may be. And so this report doesn't really acknowledge that at all. Did you ask them about that? |
| 01:03:28.60 | Neal Toft | No, I didn't ask the traffic consultant and we didn't do an analysis relative to the evacuation route. |
| 01:03:39.96 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay, and then, I went back and looked at the tapes from the study session and the last design review. But then I also recall that when this was originally permitted and approved, I don't think anyone here was on the commission at that time. You weren't on the... I don't think Richard was. With the previous. The previous, yeah. Okay, so Richard was, so I stand corrected. Commissioner Graff was. I believe that there was a lot of discussion about turning the upstairs into a restaurant and that the commission at the time |
| 01:04:13.67 | Lucas Eastwood | the appreciation. Yeah. |
| 01:04:26.35 | Kristina Feller | was against that and I don't know the history of that and today's another day But I don't know if you have any more information about what that was all about. |
| 01:04:37.91 | Neal Toft | No, I have to admit I didn't go into a deep dive on the original proposal and how that was considered. |
| 01:04:48.08 | Kristina Feller | Okay, okay, I appreciate it. Thank you, that's all, thank you chair. |
| 01:04:53.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Other questions? Thank you. I just have one. Thank you. whether or not we haven't determined the exact number of seats but it's over 50 and if you can check it appears that this is going to get continued so this issue can be addressed later but it's over 50 seats and i'm thinking that you need at least two male toilets and three female toilets for this number of seats so that you know that issue to make sure uh given this the last time when this was denied, we had some substantially less seats. So, uh, the bathrooms were smaller and they made them slightly bigger, but I think they're still a little too small, but, uh, that would, that should be checked through the building code. Um, and rather than waiting for the building permit application, I think we want to make sure given it would change the interior layout that that gets verified prior to a resubmission With that if there's no other comments at this point. Oh, yes Commissioner Feller |
| 01:05:55.01 | Kristina Feller | I'm sorry, Neil, I should have thought about this before. This, the sketch that we got today Do you know if, and this is something we'd obviously ask the applicant to, but do you know if that sketch, that whatever the interior layout is, would, is intended for this sketch that we're seeing on the screen here now? I believe it is. Okay. All right. Thank you. |
| 01:06:20.14 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 01:06:20.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I believe it is. Thank you, Commissioner Fowler for resolving that matter. With that, we'll ask the applicant to come up. You have 15 minutes to make a presentation. Is that going to be Mr. Lambert or Mr. Rex? |
| 01:06:43.12 | Michael Rex | Good evening. I'm architect Michael Rex, representing the property owner. I first want to thank Neil. Um, while we've been at this for a year and a half, he has a very quick read, um, in a very short time with a lot of information. So thank you, Neil. And, um, I want you to know we're looking at a restaurant that Walter Lappert opened 69 years ago in 1954. Walter's son is with us tonight, Michael Lappert. And his son is taking over the business, Isaac Lappert. So a business in town for 69 years, third generation, we're hoping you give special consideration. We're glad to be here. It's taken eight months to get here after your last and only hearing on it, which was back on July 20th. And we had to shut down the construction project. That horrible scaffolding's been up ever since. We'd like to get it down. and get back under construction. So we're hoping for some decisions tonight. We're hoping you'll approve the project as submitted. It's not the same project you saw eight or nine months ago. We took your concerns to heart, we addressed those concerns, they're summarized on page seven of the narrative that I wrote back and dated September 20th. You said it was unsafe. putting a sidewalk next to a bike path. It didn't make sense to us. We see it everywhere. We went and asked Robert Harrison, who's a traffic consultant the city uses, knows our town very well. He did a count not only of cars in the peak summer season, but he also counted the pedestrians. And he came back and he agreed with you. Five feet's not enough. Four feet's required by code. We went to five feet because at a previous project downtown that we planned, you wanted five, not four. He said, no, people don't walk right against a building or right along an edge in a curve. You need an extra foot on each side. You need five feet for people to pass, but an extra foot on each side. We didn't know that. So we cut the dining terrace back. two feet, two inches, and we, no, yeah, 26 inches, and we cut, we reduced the seating from 26 to 20, so we could widen the sidewalk to concur with Harrison's recommendations from five feet to seven feet. And he concluded, when you make that change, it's not only safe, but based on his study of pedestrian use, and the county taken, not of just cars, but of pedestrians, that circulation will be improved over what it is today. That's an expert that the city uses, telling you that it'll be safe and in circulation should be improved. We also, you didn't want to see it piecemeal. You wanted to see the interior fully, so we've submitted plans fully and show what is expected to be a future use on the top floor, which is expanding the restaurants. to the second floor. I think originally before I got involved, the Lappards thought they'd come back and ask for that later. Um, so they can simplify the process. Um, Now you know, and you can see it, it's in the plant. We, we have a lot of different things |
| 01:10:18.44 | Michael Rex | I apologize for late mail, okay? You think after eight months we shouldn't have to submit something in the last minute. While we met with staff a week and a half ago, Michael Lappert and I both left thinking staff would support the project. They questioned compliance with the raised sidewalk. But when we explained to him that ADA requires a landing on both sides of the entry door, at the same floor level That's why we came back and proposed the raised terrace in the first place. And uh, We thought during the study session, because it's kind of questionable, you don't see sidewalks detouring around dining very often. It looked like at least three of the commission, the same commission that's here tonight, look favorable because on the solution that had the race terrace, And we showed you a parklet as well. Because it looked like we had a majority, we went for it. because we believe it integrates the handicap ramp and integrates the landings that the law requires. in the most elegant manner. We also, Parklets are kind of long and narrow. Those proportions aren't so great. We didn't want to put diners right next to the road, but also we thought it was safer to be able to serve food Thank you. where customers and most of the foods take out, we don't have waiters, professional waiters. the laypersons carrying food down steps and having to cross and the circulation of pedestrians. We thought it would be safer and that's why Harris Harrison concluded that this circulation will work better by putting the dining against the restaurant and having people detour. Is it an unusual condition? Yes. Why? CITY LOWERED THE SIDEWALK. IT'S AN UNUSUAL CONDITION. WE are now having to live with, where the interior floor is 14 inches higher than the sidewalk. And You don't find that everywhere in town. So we have an unusual solution to address it unusual and unique condition that doesn't create a precedent. But in fact, there is a precedent. You approve the exact same solution in front of cultivars. where we put the dining against the restaurant and detoured the sidewalk around it. Now, granted, El Pratel's not the same as Bridgeway, but we're not narrowing Bridgeway to do this. were simply putting the sidewalk where the two parked cars and several parklet, okay? So yes, it's unusual. There's good reasons why it's unusual. There's no precedent other than the fact that you've done it before on, Al-Pertal, There's no precedent because I don't know how often you're going to find an interior floor. of a commercial building. We're not building a new building. Okay. and you don't find it very often where it's so high above the sidewalk. There's 11 letters of support in your packet We thought we reached out to the neighbors. basically supported the project before. So we thought that that base was covered, but Neil suggested you better Talk to them. soon because we talked to him nine months ago or earlier. Um, Douglas Kang, who is the property manager next door at the trading company. Piazza Training Company asked that we lower the parapet that is adjacent to his building because it kind of It blocked some views. I went and saw what he saw, and I agreed with him. We don't need a parapet four foot four inches high, even though that's what's been improved and built. We're willing to cut it down to the code minimum, which is 30 inches, and that revision came to you as late mail. Um, on the South side, we have the Casa Madrona. They supported the project before, although, uh, while they supported the outdoor dining terrorists as a design with the five foot sidewalk, they were looking at a second floor that was elevator, restrooms. |
| 01:14:24.82 | Lucas Eastwood | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:14:24.97 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:14:25.00 | Lucas Eastwood | Bye. |
| 01:14:26.73 | Michael Rex | office and storage. So they were pretty unhappy to see at the last minute that we were expanding the restaurant, and they were concerned about noise. In my late mail, I suggested that we're willing |
| 01:14:43.25 | Michael Rex | were willing to Proposed conditions of approval that you could include that will close at midnight. We have no windows facing them, although another condition of approval we accept is that we'll a higher acoustical consultant, take their recommendations to put sound deadening devices in place along that wall. and that's our way of, there's also a sound ordinance that can be enforced. So with all that, we ask you to approve it as designed. A lot of thought and a lot of reasons gone into this. However, after being shut down for almost nine months, We want to get that horrible looking scaffolding down and get back to business. So that's why we submit this alternative. If you're not willing to approve the project as submitted, we're willing to modify it per the sketch, okay? I don't think it's an optimum plan. I think what we submitted formally is the right solution, but if you don't think so, we need something that we can move forward with. I, I still think it'll be beautiful. It requires that we move the trees over, but we can plant new trees that actually conform to the city's new downtown standard. We probably have to move the street lamp out a little, about another foot towards Bridgeway, which we can do. Uh, But other than that, I think it'll be beautifully landscaped. and if you're willing to consider that, we can make that change within a week and be back to you on May 10th. We certainly would like, if you're going to continue it, to give us that opportunity to formally make the changes, we can have that submitted in the middle of next week, so staff would have time to look at it. Um, Let me see if I got any. Oh, you asked quite a few questions just now. I counted six or seven questions. I'm certainly... available to answer, or at least attempt to answer each and every one of those, if you ask me directly. Uh, in addition to the time I'm allotted I do want to mention, though, that While we had 26 seats on the raised terrace outside, we've reduced it to 20. The sketch you see for the modification increases the seating to 32. Okay. Um, And that adds 12 more. However, Uh, That modification shows the doors swinging in instead of out. When they swing out, you have to have the landing five feet wide plus another foot for the tread. When we swing them in, that landing only needs to be four feet. Um, We're willing to make that change, but when the doors swing in, the second floor, both floors can only have an occupancy of 49, and we had 62 on the top floor. Um, This sketch though changes, the only thing it changes, and we studied this, is the size of that vestibule on this sketch on the north side. It's just slightly bigger than what we've proposed. Uh, staff actually sent this plan to the building department and the fire department. So even though we're in a conceptual stage, we've made changes to the drawings. So when we go for a building permit, we have the fire department and the building department already looking at it and we've responded to their concerns. That answers that question. The thing is, and the point I want to make is when We reduce the occupancy upstairs by 13 people. so the doors can swing in, that offsets the 12 seats that we're adding with the parklet. So there's no change in intensity of use in terms of number of seats. In fact, a reduction of one. And that shouldn't impact the parking analysis, okay? I thought that was an important point to make. So with that, I'm here for questions and if you want me to respond to the questions that you've already asked, I can do that if you give me a little more time. |
| 01:19:12.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Rocks. You have one minute and 36 seconds left to any rebuttal after public comment At this point, I will open it up to specific questions Chair |
| 01:19:23.08 | Nastassya Saad | Chair, can I make one comment? In an effort to be equitable, the clock started at 14 minutes, not 15 minutes. Okay, so let's make it two minutes. If you wanna add one more minute. |
| 01:19:29.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so let's make it two minutes. If you want to add one more minute. Thank you, Commissioner Saad for noticing that. So with that, can you, before I ask other commissioners, can you clarify now the number of seats, the last time we had no seats upstairs and now there's 51 seats upstairs and then you said something about the doors turning in, but that's, I thought that was on the first level, is that on the second level? So just how many seats will be, let's take the parklet one because that seems to be where we're heading. So how many seats out in the parklet? How many seats adjacent to the building? How many seats upstairs? How many seats on the first floor? |
| 01:19:37.53 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:19:37.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:20:20.58 | Michael Rex | We're under, for the upstairs, we originally had 57. Um, When we started working with the fire department and the building department, we had to reduce it by two. We're now gonna lose When you add employees and whatnot, the total occupancy on the second floor was 62, okay? We're reducing that by 13 because we can't be more than 49. or and We have less seating on the ground floor. I don't know. I'd have to go look at the submittal plan. It's on the plan. on the floor plan, what the seating is down below, but that is already less than 49. And the code does not require for exiting with a two-story building that you have accumulated you don't have those two numbers together. Each floor can exceed. 49 people. Um, for doors swinging in. They only swing out. And the reason for that is that there's a fire. The people on the ground 4X at first. generally, before the people on the second floor. So they sort of see it as a flow. And that's a part of the code we studied carefully, and we've had considered and confirmed by the building department and the fire department. |
| 01:21:42.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:21:43.42 | Michael Rex | I'm, |
| 01:21:43.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to ask this question again. How many seats, uh, how many seats are you proposing now with the parklet proposal upstairs? How many seats on the first floor? How many seats adjacent to the building and how many seats in the parklet? Just simple numbers. I don't need the whole history of the occupancy codes that I understand the occupancy codes, but just, can we just go with simple numbers? So we know how many, how many people can be in the building? How many parking space, how many parking cars they need, that kind of thing. How many toilets they need? So how many seats upstairs? |
| 01:22:17.74 | Michael Rex | we have only 48 people upstairs. There's two people in the office. So 48 seats. 49 seats. |
| 01:22:25.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:22:28.44 | Michael Rex | is the maximum occupancy on the second floor, two in the office, okay? 47 seats. 47 seats, upstairs. |
| 01:22:35.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and |
| 01:22:35.86 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:22:35.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | two in the office. And how many tables, how many seats on the first floor? |
| 01:22:37.65 | Michael Rex | That's correct. I don't know that offhand, it's on the drawing. Maybe Neil can help us, it's on the floor plan. If you pull it up on the screen, we can probably |
| 01:22:49.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I tried to count them and I couldn't figure out which ones were seats and which ones were benches and all that. So you're going to need to put in occupancy numbers for the building permit. So we want to know what this is. |
| 01:22:49.36 | Michael Rex | I tried to cover it. |
| 01:23:03.76 | Michael Rex | 16-seat dining area. Thank you. Thank you. This story, 45 occupants, that includes the kitchen staff. |
| 01:23:12.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All I'm asking is the number of seats, because that relates to the parking and the pedestrians and the toilets. The employees relates to the toilets too. |
| 01:23:23.03 | Michael Rex | The seats are right here. |
| 01:23:27.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're gonna define in any approval the numbers that- Okay, so 13 seats on the first floor. Okay, and I see four seats next to the building in the parklet proposal. And that. |
| 01:23:38.98 | Michael Rex | And the parklet has a total of 28 seats in the parklet and four seats up on the landing at the doors, for a total of 32 seats. |
| 01:23:50.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:23:50.57 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:23:50.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:23:50.60 | Michael Rex | So, you're... |
| 01:23:50.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | talking about 50 60 92 seats for this establishment The kitchen's been designed for serving 92 people at the same |
| 01:23:59.56 | Michael Rex | And- |
| 01:23:59.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | AND, AND, Thank you. |
| 01:24:00.04 | Michael Rex | I want you to know this. Before we did this modification, which shows a parklet, And I already explained that add seats. It had 12 more seats. We've reduced upstairs by 13%. Okay? So there's no more seats with if you go with our modification than what has previously and formally been submitted fully reviewed by the fire department and the building department in terms of exiting, including plumbing, okay? Um, |
| 01:24:33.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:24:34.02 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:24:34.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:24:34.29 | Michael Rex | you're going to be a little bit. THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:24:34.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You answered the question about seats. So now let me, how many seats are in the approved? You have an approval. You're asking for a modification. How many seats do you have approved right now? You have nine seats approved for outdoor seating, if I understood Mr. Toff's staff report. You have nine approved seats for outside. And how many seats do you have that were in the approval, not in the existing building, for the design you had with the elevator farther up front? |
| 01:25:03.69 | Michael Rex | That was a plan by John McCoy. I don't have that number right off hand. Do you have a ballpark figure? No, I wouldn't hazard a guess because I don't want to give you misinformation. Okay. |
| 01:25:18.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, |
| 01:25:19.77 | Michael Rex | So I'd have to research that and look it up, what it was approved for. Uh-huh. I did want you to know that When building department looked at this, they said we didn't have big enough restrooms. for the occupancy. So we went and almost doubled the size of the restrooms from what you saw, well, you didn't see the last time, from what we originally planned upstairs. We added two toilets in the women's and a urinal in the men because each requires two fixtures. We also had to add baby stations for changing diapers. So what you're seeing in the- |
| 01:26:03.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you could pause for a second Commissioner fellow has a clarifying question Thank you. |
| 01:26:07.86 | Michael Rex | you |
| 01:26:08.05 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you, Mr. Rex. I let me make sure that I'm following you when you say before. Is that what you had permitted? Or is that what you were showing us in July 2022? What |
| 01:26:09.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:26:20.44 | Michael Rex | We didn't give you a plan for the upstairs in July. |
| 01:26:21.16 | Kristina Feller | I can give you a plan for the upstairs in July. I'm losing track of what version you're referring to. |
| 01:26:26.12 | Michael Rex | Yeah, sorry. When I say before was what we originally planned when we took over the project from John McCoy. You didn't have a plan for the upstairs, and that you objected to. |
| 01:26:32.08 | Kristina Feller | John. |
| 01:26:37.89 | Michael Rex | Uh, So when we submitted it to the city, They sent it to the building department and the fire department, because they didn't want to find out later that what you would be looking at can't be built. Okay. Which is their credit. So when we got feedback, we went back and revised the design before we submitted it formally. |
| 01:26:51.37 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:26:58.69 | Kristina Feller | So did anyone in the building department or fire department see what you had proposed in July? |
| 01:27:07.08 | Michael Rex | Um, no. |
| 01:27:08.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Okay. |
| 01:27:11.30 | Michael Rex | At the time, staff didn't send it, to my knowledge, to fire and build it. |
| 01:27:14.13 | Kristina Feller | to fire and building. That's okay, I just wanted to make sure. |
| 01:27:16.53 | Michael Rex | I. We appreciated that recommendation. It was helpful. |
| 01:27:19.77 | Kristina Feller | Yep, thank you. |
| 01:27:20.90 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 01:27:20.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Another question with regard to this lamppost. Have you explored the possibility, that lamppost under all the options is a problem of either putting a light on the building that would serve the function? That one might solve the problem because it would get it off the ground. Because it really is, no matter what thing you do, we're trying to make this work and that lamppost is a problem. So has that been explored? |
| 01:27:47.36 | Michael Rex | Well, we're in a historic district. |
| 01:27:49.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll let Mr. Lampert come in. |
| 01:27:49.99 | Michael Lappert | Let me just... |
| 01:27:50.40 | Michael Rex | to the next one. |
| 01:27:50.43 | Michael Lappert | Thank you. |
| 01:27:50.60 | Michael Rex | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:27:50.65 | Michael Lappert | Thank you. I'm confused, you get so wound up I did haven't had a chance to talk to it with Michael, but I did look at that lamppost in this revised drawing and it was immediately obvious that it's awfully close to everything and it's just in the way. My first inclination is to put a very nice structure on the top of our building that does what it's doing in a better, more efficient way. Easily done. And I agree with that 100%. |
| 01:28:04.07 | Lucas Eastwood | Thank you. |
| 01:28:13.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I appreciate that. That was my thought looking at it about 50 times too. |
| 01:28:13.92 | Michael Lappert | That's it. That was my goal. make it. Very historical looking. |
| 01:28:20.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We'll be right back. Thank you. |
| 01:28:21.45 | Michael Lappert | I'm sorry. |
| 01:28:21.50 | Kristina Feller | Wait, wait, don't don't go away from the podium yet because When when you're looking at that what we would want to see is you know a proposed design of how that Because where you have that balcony on the second floor one of my first concerns is well some it's so close to the balcony you know some |
| 01:28:22.29 | Michael Lappert | Thank you. |
| 01:28:32.47 | Unknown | Yeah, absolutely. |
| 01:28:32.97 | Lucas Eastwood | with the facade. |
| 01:28:34.04 | Michael Lappert | Absolutely. |
| 01:28:43.59 | Michael Lappert | Somebody's going to jump out and grab it. Absolutely, I guarantee. |
| 01:28:44.68 | Kristina Feller | I guarantee you. College kid is going to jump on it. So we want to make sure that it's integrated in a way that's also tasteful, safe. |
| 01:28:47.03 | Michael Lappert | I'm with you. |
| 01:28:52.19 | Michael Lappert | That lamp will be very very pivotal point so it has to be carefully looked at and properly designed. I understand that. Okay thank you. |
| 01:28:59.21 | Kristina Feller | It's... |
| 01:29:01.52 | Michael Lappert | of the |
| 01:29:01.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you so much, that's very helpful. Other questions from commissioners at this time? Commissioner Gratt. |
| 01:29:11.97 | Richard Graef | about the American project for later. The last question has just been answered. I was wondering how that would be handled technically. And the other is a similar question of the tree and grate around that tree where you're raising the deck |
| 01:29:22.77 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah, there is. |
| 01:29:35.73 | Richard Graef | around an existing tree, how does that work? 25 words. |
| 01:29:42.28 | Michael Lappert | I'll give it to you much faster than that. I mean, in the time that it's taken for that structure to be built and that wooden atrocity that's there, that tree is on its final approach course. you know, at this point. The tree itself is what it is, and we would be asking you to replace it and do something else there anyway. We can make it look better, and if you leave it alone, it'll come back. But it's stunted, it's got a lot of issues, so we'll look at it carefully. And what Michael said about you, I'm sure that you're looking at the whole tree thing again anyway. I know that in front of my other buildings, you're looking at those trees and replacing them, We'll just go with whatever you guys decide as far as how we move forward. That's not a big deal. |
| 01:30:27.17 | Richard Graef | Okay, thanks very much. |
| 01:30:29.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions? Commissioner Phillips? |
| 01:30:33.11 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I wanna sort of maybe dive straight into the point here because you've, through the late mail, we have a revised sketch. You've heard our comments before about what we're, you know, playfully calling the bump out and rerouting pedestrian traffic. And I think that you've heard you know, some very compelling reasons why that is not something that previously has been supported by this commission. pretty firmly not supported by this commission. And I think, trying to reference El Portal is something that we've pushed back on as well. Totally different conditions. El Portal is a glorified driveway almost, whereas Bridgeway is a primary evacuation route for the entire city. So we really don't see these as the same thing. So, with the late mail, you've asked for consideration for this to be continued for you to develop what we're looking at now on the screen, which is the late male sketch. I also just wanted to point out that if this is a direction that you're intending on going or you're looking for, some sort of indication from this commission. That's something I would certainly support. But I also wanna make clear that the parklet program for the city as it is drafted and has been presented many times in the public would still, the intention is that that would be ratified. What is currently being worked on now is some legal language around ordinances. But what we are doing no matter what, no matter who you are in the city, everybody, we have to give those grandfathered parklet or parklet type conditions time to bring it everybody up to the same A standard of what is in that parklet program. So I want to make sure that as you are moving forward, potentially with this alternative that you're familiar with what that parklet program is as it's drafted now and that you, you know, save yourself headache down the road in terms of having to rip it out and redo it or something like that. So I just want to. |
| 01:32:54.37 | Lucas Eastwood | having |
| 01:32:58.10 | Kristina Feller | put that out there and make sure that you have that information that you need It has been posted on a number of different agendas, and if you need it, I know that Director Phipps will make sure that you have it, as will Yeah, no, I'm not going to |
| 01:33:10.06 | Michael Lappert | I'm not going to hold you to anything tonight as far as all that. I know it's a moving target. I understand that completely. But let me just... It starts with we have to adjust and deal with something that 25 or so years ago didn't seem like a big deal when the city lowered the sidewalk and put in some steps. When you guys did it, we thought, oh, that's interesting. It's just steps. Little did we know that it would become the whole foundation for this routine. And so what we tried to do, we can have a discussion. It's about aesthetics. It's about your pleasure. You guys have been put there at the pleasure of the city council, who was an elected body, to make these decisions. And we go with what is decided by you guys based on your feelings or whatever. I'm not here to argue that point. I will tell you that what I think has been given to you and the pared down version of it is aesthetically very pleasing. I understand that it's a move away from norm. And sometimes these moves away from norms I always like to point it out like this. There's a car, the Cadillac car company is famous for coming out with a new model and everybody goes, oh my God, what the heck did they do? And three years later, everybody wants it. Mm-hmm. when you present something new, it's always rattling. It shocks the conscience. Okay, you guys don't like the bump out, the bulge. I'm fine. we wanted to deal with it in a pleasing way. I think the ramp and that whole thing up. And also the other thing is, You give us an option between outdoor dining and parklets. That's one of the discussions that we have in the city about addressing outside dining. We thought the outside dining model was nicer for the customer, for the people. So we thought, okay, let's put them right up against the building and put the sidewalk around them. And not only that, but we'll give them seven feet. you could empty out Bridgeway on a seven foot wide sidewalk in the event of an emergency. So we addressed all that. But we're still back to that you don't like the look of it. And I'm not going to argue that. It's not my place to argue aesthetics with you. That's your pleasure. So we came up with the best that we could. With respect to respect to the the parklet. I just want to caution you only one thing. Be fair about how you treat parklets. Don't look at this as an opportunity for recovering Fiscal losses in the city make it real |
| 01:35:45.66 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:35:46.36 | Michael Lappert | if there are two parking meters in front of that, those revenues are tracked. We know what they were. So to go from say something that was producing $1,000 a year and making it suddenly $3,000 a year is a little unfair. And I don't think it's the correct thing to do is to try and capitalize on that. I, you, you should be able to cover expenses. You should be able to, you know, all of that stuff I understand. I would just ask you to be careful with respect to how you, charge for it in the future. And yes, the final answer to your question is, whatever you guys decide to do with respect to allowing us to do parklets, we will, to the last minute, and even after it's installed, and you decide, oh, we've got to do one more change, we'll change. We know what that's about. Of course we will. |
| 01:36:27.97 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Of course we will. I appreciate that. |
| 01:36:30.94 | Michael Lappert | Yeah. |
| 01:36:31.65 | Kristina Feller | As it relates to finances that is above our pay grade here on the planning commission. So we will certainly pass that on to the City Council and the Finance Department who actually does make those decisions. |
| 01:36:34.97 | Michael Lappert | Yes, I understand. |
| 01:36:40.12 | Michael Lappert | and the finance department who actually does make those decisions. |
| 01:36:44.64 | Kristina Feller | And I want to make it very clear also with the greatest respect, we advocate for every single applicant that comes in front of us within the parameters of the municipal code ordinances and the general plan. |
| 01:36:51.24 | Unknown | comes in |
| 01:36:52.22 | Michael Lappert | Thank you. |
| 01:36:52.24 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:36:58.09 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:36:58.41 | Kristina Feller | it's not about how we're feeling today about a design. There are some very, you know, |
| 01:37:02.28 | Unknown | the earth. |
| 01:37:04.40 | Kristina Feller | Everybody is treated and those issues are applied equally to everybody. And our findings are made public before any hearing. So we really do not want there to be any secret about what it is we're doing and what conditions we're doing. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. |
| 01:37:09.87 | Unknown | You know, Thank you. |
| 01:37:12.79 | Michael Lappert | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:37:12.94 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:37:12.98 | Michael Lappert | Thank you. |
| 01:37:18.80 | Michael Lappert | what conditions were |
| 01:37:22.12 | Kristina Feller | We're applying. |
| 01:37:22.86 | Michael Lappert | I understand that. And by the way, well, just real briefly, I had a chance to go to the desk here for the first time in many, many, many months. And I was astounded at the level of efficiency and humming and the way things are moving there now. It looks like we're back to being a functioning city. So to you and to you and to you, all of you. |
| 01:37:22.88 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. |
| 01:37:41.17 | Kristina Feller | Director Fitz and his whole team. |
| 01:37:42.69 | Michael Lappert | That's very nice. It was a pleasure to see that. |
| 01:37:42.79 | Kristina Feller | Very nice. Yeah. |
| 01:37:46.30 | Michael Lappert | Thank you. |
| 01:37:46.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | before you leave the podium so I just want to clarify I believe and I don't want to put words in Commissioner fellows mouth the the request to look at the parklet item is with regard to the design the drainage the slopes that thing with the what fees you pay is above our bank grade that's the City Council yeah we were looking at you know the elements I think the number of seats you might have in there it might be a little more than the parklet thing allows and we don't want to do this twice. So, but, but. elements I think the number of seats you might have in there it might be a little more than the parklet thing allows and we don't want to do this twice so But but the the concept is very similar to the other property you just have bought on Bridgeway So yeah, this is this is you're familiar with it. It works for you there You know, so other questions of Commissioner comments at this point? |
| 01:38:04.11 | Michael Lappert | Yeah. |
| 01:38:14.60 | Lucas Eastwood | Right. |
| 01:38:19.61 | Lucas Eastwood | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 01:38:29.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, we'll open up the public comment. |
| 01:38:33.59 | Andrew Junius | Apologies, thank you, Chair. Real quick question. With the parklet concept, was it the concept to move the trees kind of into the parking lane, is that, if somebody would put that back up? |
| 01:38:44.54 | Michael Lappert | No. I'm going to leave that to my artist friend here. |
| 01:38:47.75 | Andrew Junius | Sure. It just seems to me that the, I mean, it's, I kind of like the design, but where you've got the trees there, is that, is that where the outside of the current curb line? |
| 01:38:59.98 | Michael Rex | But the |
| 01:39:18.97 | Andrew Junius | But the question I have is where's the current curb line? It right there. Exactly. So you are putting the, you are proposing to put trees outside the current curb line. |
| 01:39:19.84 | Michael Rex | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:39:26.69 | Lucas Eastwood | you know, |
| 01:39:31.98 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, okay. And I would just caution you to, I mean, you know, that's a surprising, maybe works, maybe doesn't. I just want to make sure when you get down the road, the parklet works with them. I understand that, but it's still a, yeah, yeah, I get it. But thank you for clarifying. Appreciate it. |
| 01:39:50.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, with that, we're going to open this up for public comment and then you'll have a couple minutes afterwards, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Rex to respond to any comments. At this point, we're going to open the public hearing portion of the hearing. People in the audience who want to make comments should raise their hand and people on Zoom should raise their hand. The gentleman there, if you give your name and address for the record. |
| 01:40:15.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:15.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:40:15.88 | Director Phipps | Thank you. If you could please state your name and address for the record. |
| 01:40:19.11 | Jim Gurney | Yeah, hi, my name is Jim Gurney. I'm the regional vice president with Casa Madrona Hotel and Spa. I made a number of comments on an email last week that were acknowledged by Neil, and then sent a note yesterday that's actually in your attachments that I'll refer to in just a moment. I was not involved with the hotel in 2017. I came to the hotel in 2019, And when I found out the permit was approved for the addition of the second floor for storage, when I met with them last year, I was like, well, it's done. You know, what am I gonna do? It's already been permitted for a second floor for storage. And then rumor mill started that maybe there was gonna be an alternate use for the second floor to becoming a tiki bar. and I'll reference this in a second, just the proximity to my building. But I was like, okay, maybe we can live with that. The outdoor rooftop thing alarmed us a little bit. the proximity to the hillside guest rooms and suites at my hotel Um, and I'm going to reference this in a second, is less than three feet. from that area that they're talking about becoming a bar and restaurant. So that was the first thing that struck me. And Commissioner Feller, you said something earlier that I'm going to follow up on. You know, was the intent in 2017 to prevent a second floor restaurant bar from being established there, which is why it became storage. If in fact that's the case, I think we have an open-to-shut case. I don't think we can change the intent of what the original permit was for, now that the second floor is built in such a way that it's actually intended to be a restaurant, not storage. Um, so that kind of bothers me, you know, the, the bait and switch potential of this, I can't do anything about. But now it affects my business and I have an obligation to step up and say something. and when it impacts the satisfaction, potential satisfaction of my customers, I'm gonna be pretty loud about it. I mean, that's what I do for a living. I take care of customers. So that's the first thing. The noise thing, You know what? There are really no windows on the south facing side of the second floor. There's a drainage exhaust thing there. And but those big opening doors on the front is going to create ambient noise. And that's only like six feet. So it's nine feet. from the balconies of my waterfront suites. There's no way that I'm going to expect that there's not going to be some noise bleed that's going to affect those people if this place is open until midnight. You know what, the demographics of my customer is Me and my wife. You know, a middle-aged couple getting away, having a couple glasses of wine, a nice dinner, spending the evening together in front of a fireplace or on a balcony. And the last thing I would want with my wife is to be offended by some type of overlap noise. Am I out of time already? |
| 01:43:23.53 | Director Phipps | Sure. Thank you for your comment. |
| 01:43:26.42 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:43:28.11 | Director Phipps | Looking for additional hands raised in the audience for public comment. Seeing none, Chair, looking at the Zoom application for raised hands, seeing none. |
| 01:43:28.58 | Jim Gurney | additional |
| 01:43:29.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | there. |
| 01:43:29.32 | Jim Gurney | Thank you. |
| 01:43:29.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | for the next week. |
| 01:43:35.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, we're gonna close public comment. We're gonna bring it back up to the dais. At this point, |
| 01:43:44.53 | Kristina Feller | Do you want Mr. Lappert or Mr. Rex to respond to anything? |
| 01:43:48.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's good, thank you Commissioner Feller for reminding me. You have two minutes and 36 seconds Mr. Lappert if you want to respond to any public comment. |
| 01:43:57.03 | Michael Lappert | comment at this point. I'm very sensitive to noise and very sensitive to staying. There's nothing louder than a quinceañera at the Casa Madrona on that outside deck in the middle of August. It is insane. I hear every single word and note and base note coming out of there. But I'm thinking to myself, this is great. Somebody turned 15. The hotel's making money. The town is happy. And they'll be done by 11. That's how we live in a society. That's all I have to say about all that. Thank you. You got anything? |
| 01:44:35.89 | Michael Rex | Just in terms of rebuttal, there are no doors, big doors within six feet. There are some windows. But we specifically moved to the doors, there's a, in the center, of the building. And we put a very tiny little balcony there. You can't even put a table on it. just so you can open the doors on a nice day. There's nothing unusual in downtown to have operable windows next to property lines. So we just want to be treated like everybody else. They have windows on the front of their building very close to this one. So we're asking for equal treatment there. Yeah, thank you. |
| 01:45:21.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you mr rex okay we're going to bring this back up to the dais uh the applicant has suggested a potable continuance we have a a plan of a parklet which we reviewed back in the study session it's evolved a little bit uh before i turn over the other commission i just want to make a couple comments we we greatly i think as a commission support local business we want businesses to exceed and succeed in this town and uh we i thought we were clear in the study session at least i was with the mission support local business we want businesses to exceed and succeed in this town and we I thought we were clear in the study session at least I was clear in the study session about what what where we were going this project was approved back in 2017 it had storage upstairs if you would plant if it's a bait-and-switch I encourage everybody for the record don't bait-and and switch. Come in with what you want long term if that's what you want. I'm going to take it at this is not what you intended. You intended some office originally. And after the time, the pandemic, things change. And you want to put some items upstairs. And that's good for downtown. The question is how much and how many seats? I mean, the seats have dressed, if we had approved this back in eight months ago, you wouldn't be coming in for 92 seats, you'd be coming in for another change. So if you wanted 92 seats. Having said that, at the last hearing and tonight, I haven't heard anything about real problems with the facade. It's been reviewed by Historic. I think the concept of using your upstairs helps the downtown. I understand the parking model. I do have some issue about how you count seats and whether you count the outside ones or the inside ones, but you now are heading in the real correct direction. So my strong encouragement to you is don't have to ask this in a week if you come in and you haven't addressed the light post and the number of seats and haven't looked at the parklets and then we're sitting, you know, figure out the issues. Staff will work with you to resolve all the issues and come out with this thing because I think we all want that scaffolding down I think it's going to be a you know this when it's done is going to be an asset to the community listen closely to what your butters have said what their issues are if you need soundproofing put in soundproofing if you need to reduce the hours of operation I'm going to say midnight we didn We didn't go for midnight on the outside at Cultivar on Al Portel. I mean, the sidewalks closed at eight o'clock. Generally, you close sometimes, I think, at three o'clock. So, you know, this is Sausalito. You know what it is. You've been here a long time. Your family has a long history here. Let's tailor this to Sausalito, what works. With that, I'm going to open up for commissioner's comment. Who would like to speak? Commissioner Judy. |
| 01:48:12.94 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. First off, I echo what the Chair just said about small business, supporting small business. We're really trying here. I apologize on behalf of the Commission for how long this has taken. But, you know, there have been a lot of changes. This is actually the first time I've heard that there was a sidewalk elevation change decades ago that kind of slowly turned this into a big mess. And that's unfortunate, but it is the way it is. I do want to echo, I think, again, what the chair just said about, you know, the idea of one thing getting approved and then you deciding, well, you need something else, which is you're perfectly willing, or you have your right to come back. With respect to the second floor, it seems perfectly appropriate to have more seating up there. I think that's great. If it wasn't that before, and it is now, you have every right to ask for it to be changed. And I think it's an excellent idea and it's gonna provide you with some of the relief you're looking for in terms of operating your business. You know, with that, I mean, I'm still somewhat sympathetic of the, The sidewalk change, it doesn't sound like there's enough votes up here to get you there. Again, I think this is the first time I've really fully understood why you're in this position with respect to the sidewalk and the 14 inches. That's really unfortunate. And at first, my first thoughts months and months ago were, wow, you're really asking for a lot. You're really basically taking a big chunk of the sidewalk there almost permanently. But given the history here, I think that's somewhat understandable why you were asking for it. And you've got an idea. And, you know, I actually think it was a pretty good idea. But I don't think we're going to get there. But I do appreciate your continued working with the commission and with the city. And we do want to get you there. So thank you for all your patience. |
| 01:49:44.18 | Lucas Eastwood | Thank you. |
| 01:49:44.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:44.27 | Lucas Eastwood | it. |
| 01:50:04.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Commissioner Graff. |
| 01:50:08.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:08.53 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:50:08.55 | Unknown | Mmm. |
| 01:50:08.80 | Richard Graef | Thank you. microphone this time. Okay, thank you. Thank you, the applicants for this presentation. I'm looking at the most recent drawings that you submitted, and I'm looking at the previous drawings. And It's a world of difference. The new configuration is generous, it's kind of elegant, I really like The way it's been resolved, I had a couple of little questions about the tree lampposts, but those are minor issues. I still support this concept, and I think even more so with the recent revisions. I think it's really the best solution. There's plenty of room to bypass the seating. It puts the seating I mean, you've explained it extremely well in your narrative. I can't do much better than that. All I can say is that I'm looking at The proposed plan here And I'm looking at the parklet plan that It's sketched. I can't see it now. because it's gone. And, To me, there's just no contest. Um, That plan there looks congested. I think it will be congested. There will be people on the parklet side going back and forth and people going by. If you look at this diagram and the diagram that's been proposed, The proposed diagram, the concept I think is far superior and I am hopeful that we could resolve this in a way that permits this concept. That's basically my feeling about it. I think it's the correct solution. |
| 01:52:19.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. Commissioner Sun. |
| 01:52:23.55 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. I think it's probably for the best that the project was denied previously, because I think this is a much better project in terms of the scope that you have for the upstairs. I think it makes a lot more sense to utilize square footage that was not looked at previous, and it's going to get a significant amount of more more seats just to echo some of the other sentiment I mean we had no issues with the color I think is Beautiful, it's like Capitola. vibrant, the signage seems perfectly fine. I actually do like the concept. I would be willing to of course discuss hours of operation like we did for Cultivar just because you do have residents and it is a more quieter end of town, but I think conceptually it's a good idea. I did not see this until this meeting. I did not see this as late mail. So just to digest it a little further, I think conceptually, I just agree with Commissioner Feller's sentiment around the parklets. I like the barrier. I think the barrier is something that we were trying to achieve in that, is solving some of that safety concern as well. But I might be a little, I think we're going to continue here. So I'm looking forward to seeing kind of a full flesh design and understand all the full seats that you're trying to achieve. I think it was a great suggestion. I was thinking about the lamppost myself. I didn't know if that's feasible. So I'm assuming if that's feasible with our city, then that would be an excellent solution. um, I've got no issues with where the trees are placed here. I was feeling it was slightly congested as well, Commissioner Graff, not to take out seating, but as a general concept to lean towards this design, I don't know if there's a way for any extra space in there, but I mean, overall, of course, we'd like to get you over the line, and I think a continuance is going to make sense, but would just be curious to see kind of where we land on this concept. |
| 01:54:36.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh thank you commissioner thog commissioner fellow |
| 01:54:39.16 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I would completely support moving forward with a parklet solution. I do not think that the bump out is viable for all the reasons that we've stated in study session and the last hearing and we've talked about a little bit tonight. I'd be interested about you looking and exploring more, you know, taking this conceptual sketch, looking at the ramp. I'm not sure I'm really a huge fan of what you're calling terrace seating there. because it is really part of the congestion... but really focus on the ramp for accessibility issues to get those that need a ramp into the building properly, safely, and obviously to building code, and really look at your upstairs seating, which I do like that idea. I do think we did talk about hours of operation at our last hearing in July, and I believe Commissioner Saad, you were talking about 10 p.m. and you made specific reference to that balcony and needing to you know, close that off or sound seal that. I don't know if 10 o'clock is the right time or there's another time earlier. I have no idea we should talk about that. But to me, I would just, I think this is the obvious way forward. I think that this is an equitable way forward in terms of the program that is being rolled out here in the city that every other business operator is going to have to conform to whether they do now where they have to come into conformance, this will be the standard and I'm referring to the parklet program specifically. that a lot of time was spent on benchmarking that with other jurisdictions. And Chair Luxembourg spent a lot of time with that, with some of the language in there. And that was developed with Department of Public Works and CDD. So I think it's a good document. I would completely abandon what we're referring to as the bump out. That to me would not achieve support, at least for me. And I wanna be very clear about that. I don't wanna mince words because I want I want to get a project completed here. I wanna get the the scaffolding down and I want this to be a vibrant part of town again. I have no issues in terms of the architecture of the facade or the pink colors that we looked at before. I'm assuming those are the same that we looked at in July. There's no change there. The applicant's shaking his head. So just for the record, for those who can't see him, that's affirmative. So, To me, I would be ready to make a motion to continue this. I'm not, I'd actually don't want to give the first date in May because I actually think there's a lot more coordination here and I don't want to set this up to fail. I would propose a later date in May just to give proper time to really As Chair, you said, do this right, dot your I's, cross your T's, talk to whatever neighbors you need to and any other city officials or authorities with jurisdiction that you need to get it right, get it back to us, get something approvable to us, and we're right behind you. |
| 01:58:15.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. I have some additional comments. First, there was a comment made about aesthetics. To me, this is not about aesthetics. It's about circulation and the flow of traffic through the downtown, through Bridgeway. You know, the parklets have some issues, but, you know, it's sort of a Paris kind of thing down near Venice that you now own. People walk through, it's a festive environment. And walking around something, Bridgeway's different than El Portel, and that keeps being brought as an example, but it's different. Okay, I will we'll see I need a vote of the Commission because we closed that part of the hearing but I appreciate that so I think that the the number of seats I mean you need to look at that whether that works that might be a little too crowded I have to say that had we approved this eight months ago you would have instead of having 90 seats or 80 seats or whatever we end up with you would have had 30 seats. So this is vastly improved. So I'm not sure on the outside you need as many as that, but maybe you do, maybe it works. Just look at the standards. We want a five-foot clearance so people can walk by. We need to move the pole. We need to look at the trees and all that kind of stuff. So to me it's so it's to me it's not the aesthetics of the outside it's the flow and as much as outdoor seating is great this doesn't work unless we were to widen the whole street and if you widen the whole street there's would be a problem with loading it casa madrona and whatever so so uh in my mind you know this approach of the and this is my point eight months ago is what the study says and is is the way we need to go uh and uh with regard to the timing uh be advised that getting stuff two hours before this meeting is not how we want to do business uh we we we want now see we're putting in new processes as you saw they're making things very efficient at at the counter But the other thing we're doing for the Commission is getting us stuff 10 days ahead in order for us to get stuff 10 days They had staff has to have a few weeks to week to to review it So getting this to the next meeting is not feasible We can we'll have two choices and I will ask you in a minute about that of whether or not you want us to do it to a date certain which means that you need to determine how many day days it's going to take you to address the issues of the lamppost of you know the number of seats reviewing the stuff carefully so we have it right because we don't want to do it a fourth time we're excited that we're going to get it to a conclusion I've been saying for the last, I told this to Director Phipps, that if we were to deny this tonight, it's got to come back because you don't want to build what you got approved for in 2018, and therefore you need a solution, and so we're nowhere. So we're happy to see that this will solve your handicap issue. This will solve know a bug that you feel you can get through this Commission so with that I'm gonna I'm gonna ask a question of you how quickly given all that you heard given you have to check the plumbing codes on all of these issues how and you do something from a sketch to some to an actual submittal how long will that take to a plan that's not going to change again? So I'll let Mr. Lampert do this. |
| 02:01:42.87 | Michael Lappert | Thank you. I'll make mine real fast and he'll answer your question. It'll take us quickly as we don't get nitpicked to death. Thank you. |
| 02:01:49.59 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:01:49.96 | Michael Lappert | Uh, Already we're talking that the Commissioner Feller doesn't like the ramp. I mean, the ramp that you see designed there is exactly the code and it's the minimum requirement. That's what it's going to look like to take care of the steps that the city originally put in. So the steps for the original problem, this is not great, but that's the solution. And then he'll answer. But just talking about El Portal, I just want you to make sure you understand. I have one of my locations is across from El Portal. When a ferry boat unloads and the bicycles turn in there, and the buses come around, That corner, that street will make Bridgeway look like any town USA, and that will be Broadway in New York. The congestion and it's mixed congestion. What we have is some bicycles and some pedestrians. You've got bicycles, you've got pedestrians, you've got ferry boat unload, unloading. You've got bicycles turning in and coming out. It's nuts there. So it's a little disingenuous to say, oh, that's not at all. El Portal is not at all bridge where it's going to be worse. That's all I want to say. I still like the other solution by the way. The other solution is elegant, works much better. I know it's a hard pill to swallow. The sidewalk, you don't have to widen any streets. We're widening the sidewalk to seven feet. Seven feet, that's the biggest sidewalk we have in Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 02:03:14.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Anyway. |
| 02:03:15.03 | Michael Lappert | Go ahead. |
| 02:03:15.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to have Michael address the timing |
| 02:03:19.82 | Michael Lappert | Yeah. |
| 02:03:24.66 | Michael Rex | You have two hearings in May. We thought we could make the one on May 10th. If you don't think so, then we ask for a date certain to your second. Hearing in May, I think it's 26th, 24th. |
| 02:03:36.05 | Lucas Eastwood | It's me 2014. |
| 02:03:39.18 | Michael Rex | Yeah, and I want to point out one thing when this comes back to you. |
| 02:03:50.97 | Michael Rex | have to have a landing outside the entry doors. If the doors swing in no less than four feet and I need one tread that has to be at least 11 inches long, I need a railing that comes out of foot and turns and to get it to turn, like we see at City Hall, I need special approval from the building department. But that still gives us five feet to the curb line at that railing. It's six feet everywhere, six foot six Thank you. building department, but that still gives us five feet to the curve line at that railing. It's six feet everywhere else, six foot six everywhere else except right at the curve here, it's five feet. But I can't pull this back. any further, and it didn't make any sense to me to have this as a sidewalk. If you have a landing here, and you have a landing here, I thought we might as well fill it in. But so it looks pretty right at the base. We're gonna, can't leave it out a little bit. Thank you. |
| 02:04:49.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I'm just, I am gonna ask one, I just wanna ask one question. |
| 02:04:54.54 | Kristina Feller | But we're trying to make a motion here. We don't wanna get back into the debate of the design, but please bear in mind, we're seeing this, a sketch, a sketch for the first time. |
| 02:04:54.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're trying to... into the debate of the design. |
| 02:05:07.25 | Kristina Feller | here on the dais, not before. So what we don't wanna do is set you as the applicant up to fail. We do not like to continue hearings. We really actually do not, particularly if the reason is that you didn't have enough time or there's incomplete information. We don't wanna do that. We do not wanna set you up to fail that's why in our deliberations up here, I'm suggesting the second date in May just because of the timeframe. So I just wanna be clear with that and Director Phipps, do you wanna add to that? |
| 02:05:35.24 | Director Phipps | If I make it. |
| 02:05:36.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't. I just I just want to clarify something because I want you to have as much information as you have. So we want you to look at, you know, you're saying you need that for the doors. Can the doors be inset slightly? Can can the put the park lid? Now, I don't want you to answer. I'm just giving you can the doors be set back. So can the park lid, those chairs be turned the other way or whatever? Look at all of those things, and when you come back, define what is code and you can't solve, but there might be other solutions like in setting the doors because that might help you. Whatever those things are, we're trying to have constant flow in so those narrower you can make it there are requirements you know but if you can inset the doors into the building then maybe that doesn't have to come out as far maybe that can happen but make those decisions but based on that you said you could have these plans in seven days so my question is with all the issues, you have to address all of them, can you do that in seven days? And then based on that information, we're gonna ask Director Phipps and Mr. Taub what date that they can turn this around to get it to us for a meeting. So are you saying it's seven days or is that unrealistic? |
| 02:06:58.28 | Michael Rex | I'd like to hear what staff needs for time. |
| 02:07:00.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, that's not the way we're going to do this. You tell us what you're going to take to get your plans done. They will then tell us what it's going to take for them to turn around and disseminate it to us. |
| 02:07:13.22 | Michael Rex | I have seven people that work for me. We can drop everything we need to do. I can have it in seven days if that's what's required. And we will cover all the bases and answer all your questions. |
| 02:07:23.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's not that it's what required, you just, no, I don't appreciate your tone. And Mr. Lampert, we will take you the plans when we get them and turn them around as fast as we can now. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So seven days. So with that, Director Phipps and Mr. Taubes, I don't want to put you on the spot, but what's a realistic date given that we'd like to get it back to us 10 days before, because this is going to have some changes. |
| 02:07:49.38 | Director Phipps | So before Principal Planner Toff speaks, I'd just like to note that noticing is also something that we need to be sensitive to here. And if we were to bring this item before the commission on May 10, we would have to notice tomorrow, which will not allow staff sufficient time to draft the notice nor review the materials that have been submitted. So what I would recommend and what I would prefer, and I'd like to defer to Neil and his availability and preference, is the May 24 meeting. |
| 02:08:16.75 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:08:16.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THANK YOU. Mr. Toss? |
| 02:08:20.36 | Neal Toft | Yeah, well, I think the What the applicants can do and will certainly try to do, I'm sure they can get plans in fairly readily. There are a number of changes here that As we've found with projects like this, the devil is actually in the details. There's a lot of minor code adjustments As Michael has said, Whatever they get in, we'll need to get it reviewed by both the Public Works Department and the Building Department. It sounds like there's gonna be some adjustments to occupancy on the second level, so that's gonna change that floor plan. And certainly the dynamics of the, number one, let me say, I'm glad that the commission is finding value in this solution. I'm glad the applicants have brought it forward. We want to do everything we can as well to get this resolved. We know this is not a a good condition, it's an eyesore, it's been going on too long. That said, It's been said tonight. We want to make sure it's done right. get it back to a hearing, but get it back with something we can, have a resolution of approval. and be you know, ready to bring it forward. based on this direction. Um, But we would need to, once we get the plans, we have to give it to Public Works, we have to give it to Building Department to review, There may be new applications here in terms of what Director Phipps was referring to in terms of noticing I think we're now looking at a tree removal. permit to remove and replace street trees and that's probably fine. we're looking at what I think would be a parklet proposal as part of the application as part of the encroachment permit so the details on that parklet the program that's described How it fits in that will not only need to. um, you know, just turn it around, but we have to sort of do our analysis and comment on that as well. So To be in all honesty, the 24th would be A challenge, we can shoot for it. but I think we'd have to have enough material and review done in order to meet a noticing deadline for all those permits. So. I sort of say that with a disclaimer I think, That's a tricky ask. Um, Thank you. |
| 02:10:51.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 02:10:51.90 | Neal Toft | A variety of logistical reasons, but we could shoot for it. |
| 02:10:52.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:10:54.11 | Kristina Feller | reason. |
| 02:10:54.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:10:56.52 | Kristina Feller | So, so. Hold on, I've got a question for Principal Planner Toft, sorry. |
| 02:11:01.87 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 02:11:01.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. |
| 02:11:05.54 | Kristina Feller | So Neil, are you suggesting or are you thinking conservatively to move this to a date certain in June because May entirely is too tight? |
| 02:11:19.19 | Neal Toft | Well, I think our preference is to a date uncertain and we'll just get it turned around as fast as we can. |
| 02:11:20.03 | Kristina Feller | Potentially. |
| 02:11:25.79 | Neal Toft | And but you could do the first of June. In either case, we're probably still going to have to renotice it. |
| 02:11:31.68 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:11:33.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If we do a date certainly do you necessarily have to renotice it if we know what the date is |
| 02:11:34.26 | Neal Toft | You don't necessarily... No, we have to re notice any new permits and the new dynamics to the application. |
| 02:11:40.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No doubt. Thank you. I'm going to suggest something because hopefully this doesn't put a monkey wrench in it. We want to get your building done. So if I'm understanding this, the parklets, the middle, which will come to us, is going to be really separate from the building in some respects. And so if we separate that permit out, the street to removal is a public works approval, not a planning commission approval. So if we separate those out, you could come back, whether it's the last one in May Thank you. removal is a public works approval not a planning commission approval so if we separate those out you could come back whether it's the last one in may or the first one in june uh with but with the parklets but they can go on their own pace and that way and they should go on their own pace and that way we can get the building done and so uh and that way you might not have the noticing problem but you might want to re-notice anyways, but because the parklet thing is coming out and because it's going to be separate from that. |
| 02:12:33.79 | Kristina Feller | You have a noticing problem anyway. |
| 02:12:35.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so we'll re-notice, that's not the issue. But so the question is, I'm gonna go back to Director Phipps, do we wanna go for the last one in May or the first one in June for, and then have the parklets, we'll do them both at the same time, but if one is running the head of the other, at least they can get their construction done, which is what's holding them up right now, because the parklet's not holding them up. Let me ask Mr. Lampert, is that, |
| 02:13:04.69 | Michael Lappert | You're not going to hear a hammer. You're not going to hear a hammer there during the summer. You can hate that structure as much as you want, but I'm not touching it until November. You know what I'm saying? It's just when the rain comes, we'll tear it all down. And also, keep in mind, when you're talking about all this occupancy stuff and everything, you're talking about, what, a month or two in the whole year. The rest of the time, that place is pretty scattered and empty. It's not what you think it is. |
| 02:13:07.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:13:12.86 | Lucas Eastwood | Okay. So, |
| 02:13:29.24 | Michael Lappert | So time is not of the essence. I think whatever works is better. I would like a date certain so that he has a target. But I'll leave that you guys sort that out with the architect. He's the one that's going to do the work. |
| 02:13:40.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks. |
| 02:13:41.14 | Lucas Eastwood | Thank you. |
| 02:13:42.42 | Michael Lappert | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:13:42.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to suggest the following. I'm going to suggest the first meeting in June for the date certain. I'm going to encourage, and I know CDD would have done this anyways, that Mr. Rex said seven days, let's get it in in seven days. And then I would suggest that if you have questions of the plans at that point, you're going to meet with Mr. Rex, Mr. Lambert to resolve those questions. So you will have time to have those meetings. So we're going to assume this is based on getting the stuff from Mr. Rex in seven days. And we're going to go to a date certain of June. So, yeah. |
| 02:14:18.42 | Kristina Feller | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:14:18.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Whatever. June 14th. |
| 02:14:20.10 | Kristina Feller | So I'm gonna make a motion then, just to move this along. Okay, I'd like to make a motion to continue this item. Let me just get the number. So continue item 2022-00184 to a date certain of June 14th with the direction to the applicant to pursue the parklet plan. |
| 02:14:54.01 | Nastassya Saad | Second. |
| 02:14:54.65 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 02:14:57.84 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Sots. |
| 02:14:59.17 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:14:59.46 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:15:02.66 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:15:02.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:15:02.73 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 02:15:02.78 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. you |
| 02:15:03.03 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Feller? Yes. Vice Chair Junius? Yes. Chair Luxenberg? Yes. Motion passes. |
| 02:15:04.44 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 02:15:09.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Uh, next item on the agenda is I believe adjournment adjournment. |
| 02:15:15.67 | Kristina Feller | So moved. Second. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, director Phipps. |
| 02:15:19.23 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. |
| 02:15:33.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It is hot in here. Thank you. |
| 02:15:35.42 | Unknown | record. |