| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:07.02 | Peter Johnson | I'm gonna call the order of the June |
| 00:00:09.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | meeting of the regular meeting of the planning commission for the city of Sausalito. With that, I'll go to the first finding of the agenda, which is. |
| 00:00:20.47 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. Good evening, Chair Luxenberg, Planning Commissioners, staff, members of the public, This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting. online virtually and provide public comment through Zoom. Before I call roll, I'd like to ask Commissioner Feller if they are attending the Zoom meeting virtually pursuant to AB 2449's just cause or emergency circumstance provision. |
| 00:00:54.52 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Director of FIPS Emergency Circumstances. Thank you. |
| 00:01:00.24 | Director Phipps | All right. Thank you very much. With that, I believe... City Planning Commission needs to make a decision to allow that. And if we could take a quick vote. I will call roll. |
| 00:01:13.08 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, and Chair Feller needs to state at least a brief, give a brief synopsis of the emergency circumstances she's proceeding under and also state whether there are any adults in the room with her. |
| 00:01:25.74 | Kristina Feller | The reason for the emergency is a business delegation, official delegation, heads of state out of country, and there are no adults in the room with me. |
| 00:01:40.50 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, City Attorney Rudin. I will call roll. for the allowance of the emergency circumstance. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:01:48.81 | Peter Johnson | Yes. |
| 00:01:49.63 | Director Phipps | or graph. |
| 00:01:51.05 | Peter Johnson | us. |
| 00:01:52.25 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius? Yes. And Trey Luxenberg. Ocean Passes. with that, I will move to call roll. to start the meeting. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:02:03.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:03.12 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:02:03.88 | Director Phipps | Mr. Gref. |
| 00:02:05.38 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:02:06.29 | Director Phipps | Mr. Feller. |
| 00:02:07.89 | Kristina Feller | Here. |
| 00:02:09.07 | Director Phipps | Vice-Chair Junius. Present. Chair Luxembourg. we have achieved quorum. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:02:15.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll move on to Thank you. and |
| 00:02:19.97 | Nastassya Saad | So move. |
| 00:02:21.39 | City Attorney Rudin | So unfortunately, emergency circumstances, as defined in the statute, means a physical or family medical emergency that prevents the member from attending in person. I don't think that, The facts that Commissioner Feller had mentioned actually qualifies emergency circumstances. So I think, Commissioner Feller can attend potentially for just cause. you know, she's providing childcare, or giving care giving to a family member, has a contagious illness or needs has needs related to physical or mental disability that aren't being accommodated under state law or is otherwise on travel on official business of the city. So otherwise, unfortunately, Chair Feller or Commissioner Feller, you cannot attend remotely. |
| 00:03:12.51 | Kristina Feller | Okay, then I will... Yeah. Hang up. if that's the case. |
| 00:03:19.43 | Andrew Junius | you're going to get your evening back. Christina. |
| 00:03:21.97 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 00:03:22.29 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:03:22.95 | Kristina Feller | It's not an evening, it's a morning. |
| 00:03:24.86 | Andrew Junius | Or your day or whichever. |
| 00:03:27.75 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 00:03:28.32 | Andrew Junius | Thanks for trying. |
| 00:03:28.99 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:03:29.69 | Kristina Feller | Okay. you |
| 00:03:33.62 | Director Phipps | Appreciate the clarification. attorney ruden. Um, Should I call roll again? without Commissioner Feller? |
| 00:03:43.12 | City Attorney Rudin | I think you can just note for the minutes, |
| 00:03:45.33 | Director Phipps | Okay, let's just reflect that in the record. Thank you. Chair, back to you. |
| 00:03:53.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We have a motion on the board and was there a second one Yeah. Yeah. So are there any comments or questions about the event? |
| 00:03:59.34 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:04:04.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So look at the table. |
| 00:04:07.64 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Saad. Yes. |
| 00:04:08.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:09.04 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:04:10.69 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:04:11.08 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Vice Chair Junius? Yes. Chair Luxembourg? Motion carries. |
| 00:04:17.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda are public comments for items not on the agenda. Directive folks that you could have heard the public, I'll be turning on this particular |
| 00:04:27.92 | Director Phipps | Yeah, 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 be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd 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 time has elapsed. and share. looking to the audience for raised hands, seeing none. Looking to virtual participants with raised hands, seeing none. Thank you. |
| 00:05:21.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We'll move on to item 4, Planning Commission Minutes. We have minutes attached for April 26th, which is our last meeting. |
| 00:05:30.04 | Unknown | and the moment that we're doing |
| 00:05:34.54 | Nastassya Saad | So moved. |
| 00:05:37.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:38.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:05:38.07 | Unknown | Are there any questions or discussions? |
| 00:05:39.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | when you're going to... of recommendations that you know |
| 00:05:44.62 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair, Commissioner Saad. Thank you. |
| 00:05:46.48 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:05:47.15 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:05:48.69 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:05:49.39 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Motion passes. |
| 00:05:56.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda are communications. It's time to direct the tips if you can give us an update on the community development. |
| 00:06:03.30 | Director Phipps | Yes, a couple items for the Commission this evening. At yesterday city council meeting city council authorized the city manager to enter into a professional services agreement with new city America incorporated. To retain a consultant for investigation and potential formation of a salsa lido. Business Improvement District. That would be in and around See you. commercial downtown area, which is similar to the current However, we have a lot of Final design, final borders and area. is being looked into and is in progress. Staff look forward to exploring this potential opportunity with the consultant and will continue to keep commissioners apprised of project status. As a second item of communication, I am pleased to inform Commissioners that hcd has found city of sauce leaders housing element in substantial compliance with state housing element law. This is a big win for CDD and the city, if I do say so myself. Many thanks to the Housing Element Advisory Committee, Planning Commission Working Group, our consultant Beth Thompson of DeNovo, City Attorney Sergio Rudin, and CDD staff. And just by the way, city of Sal Salido continues to be. The only jurisdiction within San Mateo County that has an adopted and compliant housing element. So we look forward to carrying forward the housing element programs, including the rezoning initiatives that will reflect the new densities in our code Thank you very much. Lastly, as an FYI to commissioners, the Historic Preservation Commission will be commenting on the Ferry Landside Phase 1 project. at tomorrow's HPC meeting. Following their comments and discussion, we plan to bring this item to the Planning Commission. So heads up. That does it for CDD updates. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:08:04.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I want to congratulate you as well as members of the Planning Commission involved in the housing role and the City Council involved in the housing element along with our consultants Danovo and all the rest of the advisory group that worked on the housing element. |
| 00:08:17.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:18.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Congratulations. With that, we'll move on. Attorney Rudin, do you have any updates at this time? |
| 00:08:27.68 | City Attorney Rudin | No, I do not. Although I would comment that your mic may not be on. |
| 00:08:34.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I apologize for that. With that, I will move on again. I made congratulations for those who were not in the room to all those involved in the housing element. At this point, we'll go on to planning commission working groups and look to Vice Chair Junius for an update on objective design and development standards. |
| 00:08:56.23 | Andrew Junius | I think at this point with with my partner in crime commissioner Feller, not here. there's not a lot to report. We are kind of waiting for the, um, the next steps of the housing element before we take another stab at the, objective standards because they're closely related and we don't want to kind of keep readjusting the objective standards based on the housing element that we've just got over the finish line and the zoning, which is, you know, another heavy lift in the next year, probably. So we will be standing by to, I think, work maybe in parallel with the zoning ordinance process. And, but we, you know, again, just to remind the public, We do have a set of objective standards to the extent we need them. drifting in the wind here. We just want to take the next step when appropriate. So thank you. |
| 00:09:50.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Well, we'll move on to California Housing Legislative. Also, Chair Junius and myself, could you give us an update? new laws coming out of Sacramento. |
| 00:10:02.18 | Andrew Junius | It's hard to keep up, but I'm not going to give a report tonight. So next time I'll probably have something more detailed. Thank you. |
| 00:10:07.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you very much. The next item is standard conditions for approval for resolutions, which is an item that staff will be working on with the vice chair, Junius and I over the next several months. But there's no update on that this evening. The Ferry land side working group. We just got an update. Do you have any further update on other than that will be coming back to us after it goes to historic. That's the update. |
| 00:10:33.94 | Peter Johnson | That's the update. |
| 00:10:35.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Housing Element Working Group that we, Commissioner Zod, it's been approved, so we'll go with that. Okay. And Parklets, I'll give an update on that. I'm going to ask Attorney Rudin, if you could come back, please. The last meeting back in April, you said you had one of your colleagues was working on a draft. And I know CDD is working, is waiting for that draft to pursue their work on this. Could we have a date certain on that of when that would be coming to CDD? |
| 00:11:12.53 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, I'm expecting a draft for my review by the end of this week. And then I anticipate working with staff the following week, um, So, Probably sometime in July, I would expect to be coming to before the Planning Commission. |
| 00:11:27.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That would be great. What we actually want to do is schedule a working group meeting probably sometime in July once you've had those two steps. So that would be great. Thank you very much. Master Plan Working Group, Commissioner Saad, any update on that? |
| 00:11:43.36 | Nastassya Saad | I think I'll actually defer to City Attorney Rudin based on an email that we received about some potential concerns. |
| 00:11:53.27 | City Attorney Rudin | Well, the city did put out an RFP for, Um, For a consultant to prepare a master plan, the city did get zero responses that were responsive to a citywide master plan. Additionally, there are some potential concerns with respect to whether or not a citywide master plan is an appropriate document in light of the fact that it would have to be secondary to a city general plan. Trying to figure out the exact scope of what that effort is without being duplicative of the general plan is an important step. |
| 00:12:30.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you, Attorney Rudin. And Commissioner Saad, Director Vips, any additional item on that? |
| 00:12:39.27 | Director Phipps | I'll just add that a working group was also created at the council level. And one of the items on my list for the coming weeks is to touch base with them in order to clarify what exactly the scope of that RFP might look like if we do so move forward. Thank you. Thank you, Director Fitzpatrick. |
| 00:13:04.09 | Nastassya Saad | I would just like to add Director Phipps, if you could follow up with Commissioner Feller and I after that meeting, and perhaps if we can support you in any way prior to that meeting, just let us know. |
| 00:13:16.57 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:13:16.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Will do. Thank you, Commissioner. Eric Howard, M.D.: On next item is landslide task force with Commissioner fellow on there will defer that to the next meeting, I would guess, or unless you have any updates director phipps. Okay. Next item on the agenda is public hearings. At this point, we'll go through commissioners for any ex parte communications. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:13:44.41 | Nastassya Saad | No ex parte communications. I did visit and was let into the home at 145 Santa Rosa just to take some pictures and review the story polls. I did not have a chance to visit with the neighbors, but I don't have anything to declare. |
| 00:14:01.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. Nothing to declare. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:14:06.84 | Richard Graef | Yes, when I visited 145 Santa Rosa, I happened to run into the applicants, Peter and Heather, And they showed me just generally around at the bottom of the site. Couldn't get onto the site. So it was just a brief um, kind of happenstance meeting. |
| 00:14:35.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I also met with Peter Johnson, the owner of 145 Santa Rosa. He gave me access to the rear of the yard and the side yard. And, but there were no ex parte communications. Also met with Russell Zink, which was one of the abutters to the property of 155 Santa Rosa and also no ex parte communications. So. With that, we'll move on to the first item on agenda for public hearings, which is 813-1817 Bridgeway. And Director Phipps, staff report on that. |
| 00:15:13.36 | Director Phipps | Yeah, thank you, Chair. We have just prepared a short staff memo in connection with this item for Council's review. I will just summarize it briefly. Staff recommend that Planning Commission approve continuance of the application or of this project to a date uncertain. Staff will schedule the matter as soon as city departments and the fire department can complete review and comment on the adequacy of the revised plan and proper public notice has been provided in advance of public hearing review. Thank you. |
| 00:15:43.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps, if I could have a motion to that effect. So moved. |
| 00:15:48.22 | Nastassya Saad | Second, with just one note, I think the memo states Chair Feller, uh, |
| 00:15:55.22 | Andrew Junius | presence. |
| 00:15:56.00 | Nastassya Saad | as opposed to Commissioner Fowler, as a point of just reference. Thank you. |
| 00:16:04.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Zad. With that, I will, before we take a vote on this, I want to open it up for public comment on this item. Director Phipps, if you could manage that, please. |
| 00:16:15.73 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:16:16.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, thank you, Chair. |
| 00:16:17.03 | Director Phipps | looking to the audience for any raised hands, seeing none. looking to our zooms group. virtual group for raised hands seeing none. Thank you. |
| 00:16:28.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, with that, could you take a roll call |
| 00:16:31.03 | Director Phipps | We'll vote on that. Yes, Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:16:32.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:16:32.86 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:16:33.55 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. Thank you. |
| 00:16:34.83 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:16:35.08 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. Um... |
| 00:16:40.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda is 388 to 390 Sausalito Boulevard. With that, Director Phipps, you're gonna turn it over to Matthew for staff reporting. |
| 00:16:53.19 | Director Phipps | Yes, I will turn it over to Assistant Planner Matthew Mandage to provide a presentation. He will also be present for questions and discussions. |
| 00:17:10.52 | Director Phipps | Just give us one moment to load up the presentation. |
| 00:17:25.42 | Matthew Mandich | Hello, commissioners. Matthew Mandich, assistant planner. Probably never seen me up here before because this is my first presentation. So I'm excited to be giving it. Excited to be here today. This should be Hopefully relatively straightforward. Application before you today is a tree removal permit for 388 390 Sausalito Boulevard of One Bay Laurel Tree. Next slide, please. This is the location of the site right here. 388 390. It's a duplex about a block away from where the slide was on Sausalito Boulevard several years back. There's a street view of the house and the bay laurel in question. Next slide, please. Project summary, again, removal of one bay laurel tree requested by the applicant and the owner, Marianne Pearson. This is a heritage tree due to its diameter at breast height, which is 23 inches. It's located on the southeast corner of the property along Sausalito Boulevard, as you can see in that image there with the red circle. It's less than one foot from the home, which we'll see in some photos coming up. It's undermining a series of retaining walls that are right there, which are those two lines adjacent to the tree. And it is considered a flammable species by Southern Marin Fire Department in their vegetation management management plan. The arborist has also said the tree carries a negative value equal to its price of removal. There's some images from my site visit that I carried out on June 6th. You can see how close the tree is indeed to the house, less than eight inches in the first photo there. You can see some of the undermining of the retaining walls I was speaking of in the previous slide as well from the subsequent images. and just the overall proximity to the house. Next slide, please. Thank you. So findings, found that we could make two findings pursuant to the Sausalito code section right there. First of all, A, that there is a potential hazard to property and proximity to an existing structure. And B, this would, or D rather, this would be a good pursuance of professional practices for forestry and landscape design. Although a replacement tree is typically required when one is removed, I would recommend no replacement tree in this case due to the fact that there is a live oak in the near vicinity. That is T1 in the arborist report and the subject tree T5 right there, which is scheduled for or requested for removal. And this would give the live oak more room to expand the canopy in that area and it's a native species. Also, the slope and the proximity to the house that we're dealing with is a really tight enclosure. the live oak, you know, more more room to expand the canopy in that area. And it's a native species. Also, the slope and the proximity to the house that we're dealing with is a really tight enclosure. So requesting a replacement tree in that area wouldn't seem prudent. Next slide. Recommendation is that the Planning Commission approve the requested tree removal permit through the adoption of the attached resolution. And I would not recommend a replacement tree due to the reason just stated. And the only conditions of approval would be that the applicant apply for an encroachment permit to carry out work in the public right away, considering that the tree is very close to both the house and the road, and they were likely have to be a chipper and work being done in the on South Slido Boulevard to make this happen. So Thank you. And any questions? |
| 00:20:33.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Mandich. With that, questions of of staff. Amen. |
| 00:20:40.24 | Andrew Junius | and then, |
| 00:20:40.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:20:41.10 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:20:41.12 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:20:41.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 00:20:41.44 | Andrew Junius | That encroachment permit, that's a simple over-the-counter permit, right? Yeah. That just allows them to do work in the street while they're sitting down. Right. |
| 00:20:45.19 | Unknown | it. |
| 00:20:45.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | through DPW. |
| 00:20:46.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:48.31 | Andrew Junius | And then That was it. Thank you. All right. |
| 00:20:52.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions? I just have one which may be more for the applicant, but there are a bunch of tree protection requirements in the arborist report. Is there beyond just removal of this tree, is there any construction anticipated beyond this or it's just the removal of the tree? |
| 00:21:11.17 | Matthew Mandich | just the removal of the tree. They're just worried about, you know, you can see how close it is to the home right here. And it's been a really wet winter, the slope giving way, the retaining walls, the whole system. They're just frankly worried about it impacting the home. |
| 00:21:24.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so are they requesting, are we requesting, because it's in the arborist report for them to put protection around the other trees when they take this tree down? That's usually for construction, |
| 00:21:35.10 | Matthew Mandich | Oh, no, there's no construction undertaken as far as I'm concerned. |
| 00:21:39.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we're not necessarily going to require them to put fencing around. That's what's in the arborist's report. |
| 00:21:42.09 | Matthew Mandich | around the other. Right, right. I think that was just a suggestion and maybe due diligence by the arborists. Trying to cover all the bases, but talking to the applicant and on my site visit, she didn't mention any kind of construction going on. It was really just a concern about damage to property. |
| 00:21:57.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. With that, is there a presentation by the applicant |
| 00:22:04.79 | Matthew Mandich | No, applicant is not here today. |
| 00:22:06.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. uh with that um uh should there any additional questions of staff before we open it up for public With that, will Director Phipps, if we could undertake public comment for this item on the agenda. |
| 00:22:27.41 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. Let me just check the, firstly, checking the audience, seeing no hands raised, looking at the virtual meeting. And... Seeing no hands or aids. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:22:38.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:22:38.27 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:22:38.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I'll bring it back up to the dais. So they're- Move to approve. |
| 00:22:38.55 | Director Phipps | Thank you. you've got. |
| 00:22:41.96 | Peter Johnson | move to approve. Thank you. |
| 00:22:42.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. back home. |
| 00:22:45.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:22:45.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:22:46.84 | Nastassya Saad | It's quite straightforward. |
| 00:22:48.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Director Phipps, can you call Royal |
| 00:22:48.68 | Nastassya Saad | No. |
| 00:22:50.62 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:22:50.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of the Thank you. |
| 00:22:50.80 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:22:50.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:22:50.87 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:22:52.74 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:22:53.12 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:22:54.85 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:22:54.89 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:22:55.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:22:55.17 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:22:55.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:22:55.63 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair of Junius. Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:22:57.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chair Luxenberg. Yes. |
| 00:22:58.77 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:22:58.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all. Matthew, thank you for your first presentation. It was excellent. The staff report as well was excellent. We're very pleased to see that Community Development Department is now fully staffed and congratulations. |
| 00:23:02.99 | Unknown | Thank you, commissioners. |
| 00:23:12.20 | Matthew Mandich | Well, thank you very much. Look forward to being up here more often. |
| 00:23:16.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We will move on to the next item on the agenda, which is item 6C 145 Santa Rosa Avenue. With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Toff. |
| 00:23:30.11 | Neal Toft | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg and members of the Planning Commission. I'm Neil Toft. on the associate, excuse me, Principal planner here at the city of Sausalito. And looks like I just made it in time. right on time. A little bit of a backup coming out of our one lane road in Tiburon. Glad I could make it here. So this is an item That is a request for planning commission approval. of design review permit for exterior renovations. and the addition of approximately 1300 square feet. a floor area to a single family dwelling. at 145 Santa Rosa Avenue. The additions do result in about a three foot, six inch increase in the height of the structure. the peak roof ridge height. and additional projections of roof line and a new, basically a new third level composed of a high roof line and dormers. The project includes replacement of the carport with a new two car garage. Project site is in 8,890 square foot parcel on the uphill side of Santa Rosa. It is currently developed with one primary residence in a detached garage. excuse me, a detached carport. the site is somewhat landlocked between surrounding parcels and is accessed via a private driveway easement. There's also an adjacent stairway on the property to the east at 143 Santa Rosa Avenue. That extends along the east side of the property. which is also part of an access easement for this and other properties. The structure is composed largely of one main living level uh, large basement area and a steep slope roof with some expansive attic space. Due to the slope of the lot, the structure represents a two-story house towards the front and one story off the rear. The existing carport is a simple box structure with a flat roof and retaining walls where it is somewhat tucked into the hillside. Um, I would note the applicants have recently received a zoning permit approval to construct- |
| 00:25:59.11 | Unknown | recording in progress. |
| 00:26:01.39 | Neal Toft | to construct a detached ADU of 300 accessory dwelling unit. of 350 square feet of floor area, that would be located in the southwest corner up Absolutely. uphill of the dwelling This ADU has been ministerially approved per local code and state law. a matter of consideration or review under this application. I'd also like to note the project the applicants did submit for a historic resource determination by the historic a preservation commission. The house is fairly old and fairly intact from its original construction. However, based on the historic determination information packet, all the information provided, and the recommendation of staff, Um, Commission did. I did find that the site and dwelling while old and intact does not qualify as a historical resource. uh, per the public resources code. So the applicant's requesting design review approval to modify the dwelling and site in a variety of ways Um, improve the basement area, A little bit of grading, but mostly creating a new main entry. and adding 560 square feet of habitable space and covering the porch room at the entryway. renovating and expanding the main level. to convert the area entirely to dining, kitchen, office, and living area. and expand the attic via shed roof dormers, raising the floor level in the front area. extending the roof ridge and gable roof to the west elevation. pop-outs to the east and south elevation. The new bedroom level will add about $1,100. and 17 square feet to the building. and doesn't contain two small outdoor balconies, kind of tucked in where the where the North elevation kind of juts out in the East elevation connect those two areas. That's where the, balconies are. Um, The exterior modifications to accommodate these improvements include a series of small pop-outs, extensions to the front and to the right side, and raising the main roof ridge by approximately three and a half feet. to maintain a pitched roof while accommodating shed roof dormers. for the third level, the exterior is proposed because composed of off white cement horizontal siding. the first and second level, cement shingle siding, natural wood color on the upper level. a standing seam metal roof, steel vertical railings, white aluminum clad windows. the Carport is the current 322 square foot carport is proposed to be replaced with a 400 foot square square foot garage. That would complement the building in terms of form and materials. The applicants are also proposing to modify the front retaining walls to provide a more direct stairway access to the garage. a flat landing area at the new entry at the bottom basement level. No significant other significant site work grading how landscaping is proposed. |
| 00:29:48.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:48.48 | Neal Toft | Thank you. in the staff report. We identified the Several objectives, policies and programs from the land use and growth management element, community design. historic cultural preservation elements, and the circulation parking element. We discussed these that parcel is located in the medium low density residential district It's developed with a single family dwelling. It's meant to continue as I used. as well as having an approved accessory dwelling in it The use and design are consistent with the general plan, land use designation and the proposed design. Materials and colors complement the surrounding neighborhood. and the historic character of the community. So in conclusion, we recommend it is consistent with the identified general plan goals and policies and programs applicable to this type of development In terms of zoning, It is located in the R16 single family zoning district. This is low density detached single family residential land use. We have analyzed the project. It is consistent with the development standards of the zoning ordinance. but is subject to design review permit approval as well as because the FAR proposed in conjunction with the ADU does exceed the 80% 80% of the permitted FAR, it is subject to heightened review findings. for design review. Additionally, we noted the side yard setbacks two of the existing to the east and the west side, Those elevations slightly intrude by a few inches into the five foot setbacks. expansion on these because they are being raised in height somewhat is permitted under as a side yard structural projection. subject to a few standards, which we identified in the staff report. It is consistent with those standards. However, this adds to the approval it is Part of allowing these projections is that it is subject to design review. So that's part of the design review permit approval. In terms of the design review permit, In general, the project does not attempt to replicate the structure, but it does build off the existing footprint and envelope. Um, while modernizing the dwelling, it does to current codes and standards, It generally maintains the character of a structure somewhat 20th century, Cottage. you know, certainly larger. but a lot of architectural forms and modulation and detailing, particularly with the combination Gable and shed roofing. The structure being a combination of two stories towards the rear and three stories towards the front is consistent with the general development pattern of the neighborhood and the scale of other buildings in the neighborhood. It will not result in a prominent building profile relative to the hillside or certainly the ridge line, it's not near a ridge line, And it does not require significant changes to the landscaping or tree removal, minimizing light and air impacts to adjacent property, and no major grading is required. Further, the upper level balconies are rather small. They're part of the bedrooms and they're rather tucked into the to where the front elevation is kind of the two parts of the elevation meet itself. And so this as bedrooms and these small balconies reduces privacy impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. uh, In the staff report, we did discuss communications we've received identifying privacy impacts to the downhill neighbor at 155 Santa Rosa Avenue. Certainly the extension in height and the projection forward of the bedroom does present some potential privacy impacts to the rear elevation and or yard area of that property. However, the project is designed to maintain or otherwise improve It's basically building on the existing and there is a significant amount of of vegetation and landscaping. between this, the project site and 155. It's over a hundred feet distant. and The the applicants have provided some photographs as well from their attic space, which came as a late mail item which really demonstrates some of the vegetation that really obscures that that view down to that property. um, In terms of parking, the project is designed to maintain or otherwise improve the availability of parking and ease of movement. And there are several parking spaces on Santa Rosa Avenue. Granted, Santa Rosa is like many streets in Sausalito, fairly narrow and challenging to negotiate at spots, but In this particular neighborhood, there are a number of parking spaces below and has generally been some parking available during daytime hours. um, We've discussed privacy regarding the downhill neighbor. Um, In terms of views, While the proposed improvements will raise the roof line, expand the building footprint slightly, the structure is located on a steep hillside. Surrounding properties are fairly distant and do not enjoy primary views directly over the structure. The most impacted site we've seem to feel it might be the property at 144 Spencer Avenue. That is a three level structure located well above the site. It is to the west of it. And it has expansive views out towards Richardson Bay and Mount Tam. Um, The increase in roof height would obstruct and obstruct only a portion of views of some harbor views from the most lowest levels of that building and a lower level outdoor space So it's it's a pretty relatively a limited impact to that property and virtually no other impacts to any other surrounding properties. As such, the project is located and designed to minimize obstruction of both public views and primary views from private properties. We recommend that it is consistent with the record Requisite findings. include in height and review findings, that can be made to approve the design review permit Now we do know there has been public comment, which was attached to the staff report. We had five letters that came in Later, which are attached to the agenda. Many of the stated concerns do not apply directly to the project design and the design review findings rather Uh, a number of comments applied to the ADU. the accessory dwelling unit. Um, or the maintenance of the driveway and or concerns regarding construction activities. and response to the concerns regarding the ADU and the parking. I know for number one, the state law and our current ordinance consistent with state law does not require an additional parking space for an ADU in this location that is just within the half mile radius or distance to a bus stop. Uh, And regardless, they do have a guest parking in addition to the two compliant parking spaces in the proposed garage They have two guest parking spaces. Regardless. The ADU has been approved. It is not a matter of review at this time and we cannot impose conditions on the ADU development. Regarding the driveway and the stairs, these are located within a private easement. We've attached the records of survey the city has no authority to regulate or mediate private agreements through this design review process. There's concerns about the stability of the foundation relative to the new garage. That will be addressed as a matter of building permit review. and approval. The city also will apply conditions of approval, which are in the resolution provide a required construction management plan to outline how staging and construction activities can be done to minimize impacts to surrounding neighbors and maintain access to the public right of way. We do have standard conditions of approval for drainage. and utilities plans. in conjunction with, the proposed renovations. Further. Hours of operation, the hours of construction are established under the municipal code. And that is also reflected in the conditions of approval. So in conclusion, we recommend The commission approved the project as proposed based on the findings and conditions of approval outlined in our attached resolution. And do you have any questions? |
| 00:39:28.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks. Steve Sautas, Thank you very much for your report again staff report was excellent and thorough and you've identified the various issues so we really appreciate the thorough work there and thorough work this evening. Steve Sautas, Before we get the questions I do have one clarification on the garage. on the north side of the garage, which would be the right as you're looking at the garage, is that a front yard setback? Is that why? Because it's like about a foot and a half from the line. So is that because that's a front yard setback, even though it feels like a side, but technically that's the front yard? |
| 00:40:06.44 | Neal Toft | Yeah, well, as an accessory structure, it can encroach up to three feet. into that side. into that front yard. But it's not a front yard. It would be a side yard, a secondary side yard setback. |
| 00:40:23.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'd be a secondary side, okay, because the front yard setback is zero in this district. |
| 00:40:29.03 | Neal Toft | you. |
| 00:40:29.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 00:40:29.39 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 00:40:29.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:40:29.59 | Neal Toft | So what would- Yeah, and a front yard would be against a street. So I don't think we would argue that a front yard setback would apply against a private, against a secondary property line. |
| 00:40:44.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:40:44.21 | Neal Toft | Yeah. |
| 00:40:44.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:40:44.38 | Neal Toft | So it's a |
| 00:40:44.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | secondary So what would the setback requirement be? It would be two feet if you're saying you can encroach three feet? |
| 00:40:53.91 | Neal Toft | It can encroach up to three feet as long as it's offset. equally offset. And so it also applies under that projections into side yard setbacks. |
| 00:41:07.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:41:07.80 | Neal Toft | I apologize I did not point that out as clearly in the staff report. |
| 00:41:13.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:41:13.37 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 00:41:13.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have some other questions, but let me go to other commissioners first. Commissioner Gratt. |
| 00:41:25.79 | Unknown | people were wondering is, |
| 00:41:29.01 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:41:30.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:30.22 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:41:30.32 | Unknown | that can require on. |
| 00:41:32.01 | Richard Graef | Right. Pardon me. Does this require any kind of a landscape plan to show what might be changed because of the construction or is that not a requirement? |
| 00:41:46.00 | Neal Toft | A landscaping would be required particularly with a building permit. We didn't require a landscape plan for this particular site because most of the perimeter in edging is not proposed to change in any way. The only landscape change is really in that very front yard, entryway where they've got the um, the stairway and kind of the flat area. opposed. So otherwise, they're really working within the footprint of the building and the and some slight expansion of the garage. |
| 00:42:27.75 | Richard Graef | Thank you. I have no other questions. |
| 00:42:31.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:42:39.02 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for the staff report. Just to... further expand on what you just said. Can you just reiterate that the city does not have any bearing on a private easement? Is that what I understood you to say? in terms of the public comment that we received about potential damage, et cetera. That has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the city. |
| 00:43:02.46 | Neal Toft | Well, the city cannot. sort of regulate or mediate a private easement or agreements about a private easement or oversee or enforce the requirements or conditions of a private easement. or we certainly would be We would not recommend going in that direction of trying to do so. We regulate. the private the public right of way. through conditions and requirements through public works department. to make sure You know, access to properties is provided. and so on. You know, this is an interesting situation. Granted, it is a narrow driveway that serves a variety of properties. but the city can't specifically regulate how that is done, particularly maintenance issues, those maintenance agreements or how they I think you've seen in some of the Letters, suggestions about changing the agreements of who pays for what, et cetera. um, That would be problematic. What we're really approving here is a design. a design solution. And We're providing conditions of standard conditions of approval for construction. and certainly will try to assist help in any way, but you know, to be able to provide assurances you know, would never be an obstruction of the right of way at any time, as you've seen in some letters. deliveries, of all types to any of the residences have at times created blockages of the driveway. Um, if we If we get involved in that, then we'll, It's a... it becomes kind of a rabbit hole. It could be a rabbit hole. And we certainly can't condition the applicant to perform in ways other than Why? already exists in the agreement. So I guess try to put it very simply, We don't have authority to regulate private easements and how they are managed or maintained. |
| 00:45:22.10 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, that was very helpful, thank you. I see Attorney Rudin. |
| 00:45:26.66 | City Attorney Rudin | Yeah, I was going to concur with our staff. That is all. |
| 00:45:34.14 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. Thank you both for clarifying, just for my own knowledge. just because I don't have the plans up in front of me, but when you were referring to the the side yard setbacks that are going to, I think it's 10.40, the side yard structural projections, Did you happen to have how far... out the structural projections are did you just say a few inches I just was having a hard time looking at it on the plans |
| 00:46:11.93 | Neal Toft | Well, on the on the right side, on the table of the zoning table, determined is on the right side, which is would be facing. Westward. they maintain a setback of four feet, six inches. So that's a six inch intrusion into the five foot setback. but it's at an angle and then that face of building offsets. because the property lines kind of go in a somewhat in a V shape. They sort of expand out. Nothing's at perfect angles. And then on the other side, it's four feet, five inches. So you've got about a, seven inch encroachment into the setback there. But then as you can see, part of the standards or the requirements for doing those encroachments. One is that the face is more than offset the amount that it goes into it and that the whole elevation is more than, five feet and that you had no point of you closer than three feet. |
| 00:47:25.39 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for the clarification and the staff report. That's all I have. Chair Luxembourg. |
| 00:47:29.98 | Neal Toft | Thank you, Commissioner. And then sorry to just add on as you can see here, carport, does extend close to three and a half feet from that setback, but then quickly resolves away from it. So that's that's more than more than enough setbacks. Thank you. |
| 00:47:52.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, again, is there a front setback in this diagram though? Thank you. |
| 00:47:59.43 | Neal Toft | What would the... |
| 00:47:59.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. Thank you. Bye. |
| 00:48:00.12 | Neal Toft | Well, I think the diagram may not show it, and I'm not sure if it indicates that, but I would And I'd have to double check the code, but I would look at the typically you don't you apply a front set back to a street and then for a landlocked parcel you'd you'd have to apply at least side setbacks and maybe one, you know, one rare setback based on what is kind of the established rear of the property. I see. |
| 00:48:33.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:48:33.84 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 00:48:33.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:48:34.06 | Neal Toft | I get it. |
| 00:48:35.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, I got an address on Santa Rosa, It's not actually on it on the public. Like on a through parcel, you might have no setbacks on |
| 00:48:42.61 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 00:48:42.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | both sides and I'm... Thank you. |
| 00:48:45.48 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 00:48:45.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair Junior has a question. |
| 00:48:47.66 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Feller. Thank you, Neil, for the great... report. I mean, these are really unusual situations that we find a lot of in Sausalito, where you've got a landlocked parcel surrounded by other homes, no real street access or frontage. But I think isn't to kind of simplify things to some extent, the footprint of the existing building really isn't getting much bigger. most of the addition is going up, right? So there are about 1,300 square feet being added to the home |
| 00:49:13.29 | Neal Toft | That's correct. That's correct. |
| 00:49:14.76 | Andrew Junius | With only a three and a half foot increase in height. |
| 00:49:17.02 | Neal Toft | Right. |
| 00:49:17.41 | Andrew Junius | you The sloped roof is getting a little flatter, filling in with dormers and cool little rooms and stuff. That's, That's like what we're seeing here. That's all I have, thank you. |
| 00:49:28.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. I just have a couple quick questions. The CMP, the Construction Management Plan, It does talk about various construction issues. And I just want to make sure it can cover, even though it's a private easement, I think it does cover or should be covering deliveries, parked cars, carpooling for cars. for contractors, those types of issues can be covered by the CMP, even those as a private easement. Is that correct? |
| 00:49:55.45 | Neal Toft | No. |
| 00:49:59.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:49:59.80 | Neal Toft | Yeah, what we would be looking for in the CMP is at least for the contractor, because typically it's up to the contractor to really figure out how their doing the project, how they're staging what what is not every contractor works with the same type of equipment and people. So the contractor would identify how they're planning to manage the construction where they're going to stage equipment at different phases. and how they all manage deliveries. Yeah. what we're generally asking for is give us a, and give us a concept on how you're gonna do it and at our building permit and our planning level. public works department. can give some feedback. Is this going to work? Are there are there red flags? Um, It's it's really just an effort to get the contractor to be aware that that it's important that they be cognizant of various issues and they start committing to at least trying to Um, you know, manage the project in a way that minimizes impacts. to surrounding properties. We all know nothing runs perfectly. hitches or something happens, but we'll It's the first step to really try to get construction management on the uh, on the mind of the contractor and, the applicant as well, the property owners. |
| 00:51:38.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So when you do that as part of the building permit process, the steepness of the road, the fact that trucks could be blocking because it's so narrow are all taken into, it's a very specific, it's not a generic construction management plan. It's very specific to the land. |
| 00:51:55.29 | Heather Hensley | Yeah. |
| 00:51:56.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And then there's also a vegetation management plan that the fire department's requiring, which is not, we used to include those with our conditions, but that's now, but that will become out as part of the building permit process as |
| 00:52:12.03 | Neal Toft | Well, |
| 00:52:12.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:52:12.59 | Neal Toft | That's correct. |
| 00:52:13.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:52:13.85 | Neal Toft | We work with and hand in hand with the fire department They're really their own jurisdiction. So they enforce and regulate those things. But our job is to really let the, property owner and the applicants know up front at this point, these are the things they've got to start looking for. And then as part of the building permit, they'll have the fire department will be part of that process as well. |
| 00:52:39.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Other questions of staff before we have an applicant presentation? With that is who's presenting for the applicant? If you could come up and give your name and address for the record, that would be appreciated. |
| 00:52:57.54 | Heather Hensley | Good evening. Heather Hensley, property owner, 145 Santa Rosa Avenue. My husband's also on Zoom, Peter Johnson. And hopefully my architect or my husband can pull up a presentation that we had. |
| 00:53:16.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If the Zoom team can make them co-host, that would be appreciated. |
| 00:53:20.59 | Heather Hensley | Oh, thank you so much. |
| 00:53:41.89 | Peter Johnson | Thank you. |
| 00:53:41.91 | Tom McElroy | This is Tom McElroy. Can anyone hear me? |
| 00:53:45.26 | Heather Hensley | Yeah, we can use them. |
| 00:53:45.40 | Tom McElroy | Yeah, we can eat them. |
| 00:53:46.48 | Heather Hensley | Our architect is on as well. Yes. |
| 00:53:46.70 | Tom McElroy | Okay. Okay. Hi. I, Oh, here's my video. Okay. Hello. And I can try to share screen just as it's disabled. Uh, I could share the presentation for Heather. |
| 00:54:05.20 | Director Phipps | Mr. McElroy, you should be able to share, and same with Mr. Johnson, as appropriate. That's right. |
| 00:54:12.01 | Peter Johnson | Yeah. Okay. |
| 00:54:17.72 | Heather Hensley | Great, thank you. |
| 00:54:18.16 | Peter Johnson | Bye. Thank you. Right. |
| 00:54:21.07 | Heather Hensley | Okay, next slide. We'll go quick. So this is our family. This is me and Peter and our daughter Dot. She's one year old. We're expecting a baby boy in the fall. We moved to Sausalito in 2018 and then we purchased our home in 2020. Peter is, he works in finance for the solar industry, and I'm an attorney representing school districts and cities, primarily SFUSD. um, And we also have a crazy border collie mix named Tommy. Next slide. The house in its current state, it's two bedrooms. It has one bathroom and one half bath. and two very, very small closets. So yeah, we'll need a bit more space as our family grows. Um, When we purchased the home, It was sold to us with plans that the previous owners had drawn up with an architect. Those, of course, weren't submitted for approval yet. Um, But then, you know, in the house, we've also seen plants from various owners throughout the year. So it's very clear to us that previous owners have intended to modify the home in some way as well. um, The condition of the house is, while it was built in 1927, we believe that's just one portion of it. And there've been lots of additions over the years And that comes with that kind of interior design that is very incohesive. The floors don't match, the inside kind of design doesn't really match. So we'd love to address that. We also were aware when we purchased the home that there were some foundation issues that we needed to address. And the windows and doors are fogging and rotting in many places, so we'll need to address those. There is a very, very, very small kitchen that allows for probably about one and a half feet of actual working countertop space. so we'd love to improve the size of that just to allow for, Um, our cooking needs. Both Peter and I love to cook. Um, And the carport is very low such that we can't open our trunk. Currently in our car, we have to kind of park outside of it. So we'd love to address that. And also it's, very damaged due to insects. Um, and we have three floors currently as, um, the commissioners have discussed, um, We are trying to stay within the footprint as much as possible. Thank you. and we have three floors we're just trying to kind of make them connected as well. So, so they're all inaccessible. So we'd love to put interior stairs so that we can access all of them. Next slide. Um, We have a goal of maintaining the current aesthetic and feel of the house. We really loved it and that's why we purchased it. So we're just trying to kind of expand such that it meets our family's needs, but also maintaining the small cottage feel that we love. Um, Both Peter and I work from home and our families live out of state so providing a space for them to come visit and stay visit their grandchildren would be great and also. Peter and I having some office space would be really nice as well. And... Yeah, next slide. Um, We. Tom, our architect, will go into this in more detail, but keeping the Sausalito aesthetic or incorporating the Sausalito aesthetic that we love is really important to us. As you can see with this rendering, we're adding that front porch area. We see a lot of those in the flats and we really love that idea. Chair Luxenberg, that, the houses behind you in that painting in Fort Baker, they have a lot of those porches as well, which we're trying to incorporate. And then, of course, the siding, you see that everywhere, as well as the window style. exciting. Sustainability is also really important to us. We hope to add solar panels and rainwater collection, and hopefully gray water usage in our garden where permitted. And we're converting as much as possible to, to, uh, gas, or excuse me, from gas to electric. And we're adding a metal roof, all of this with, um, sustainability and fireproofing in mind. Next slide. Um, our architect will go into more detail about this, but we've done as much as we can, we feel, to outreach to our neighbors, and to include them in the process of our design and get as much feedback ahead of time as possible. We just wanted to show you some of the positive comments that we've received about the design itself, as those are indicated on the slide here. Um, But yeah, we've put in a lot of effort to reach out to our neighbors here. and have received some positive, a lot of positive feedback as well. Next slide. And then, As Neil mentioned, um, there are some driveway concerns that were submitted. Um, we just wanted to, to show that, um, The... there are But I suppose large trucks are able to come up often. We get delivery from UPS and FedEx often and they are able to turn around in our spot easily, as well as moving trucks and large delivery trucks. You just have to kind of explain to them the process of turning around at the top and if the truck is too large, then you kind of manage it to um, do it in a different way. So that would all be a part of the construction management plan that that Mr. Toft went into. And, I just wanted to clarify as well that I think most of you have been to the property, but we're at the very top. So any sort of blockage issues would not really be a result of of trucks coming to our property because hopefully. um The project is approved. The carport area could be kind of torn down and used as a staging area. for trucks to kind of use that area. So there would be no reason for trucks to kind of stop or be blocked along the driveway, if that makes sense. So, okay, I'll turn it over to Tom. |
| 01:01:40.99 | Peter Johnson | Thank you. |
| 01:01:41.01 | Tom McElroy | All right. |
| 01:01:41.48 | Peter Johnson | Bye. Thank you. |
| 01:01:41.87 | Tom McElroy | um, Between Neil and Heather and myself, I don't want there to be too much repetition. excuse me, the existing house was built in 1927, As everyone has said, it is composed of a single story of living space over an unfinished basement with an attic above. The basement is walk out the front crawl space at the rear. The living spaces are not connected. The goal is to connect the, living spaces to create a three-story house, maintain the overall aesthetic and hillside cottage character of the existing house, And we keep talking about the amount of square footage being added. And I just want to remind everyone that that is capturing existing square footage in which you cannot stand up or access or live because it's too low or not conditioned or disconnected. And so it's not necessarily increasing the mass of the house by twofold, it's adding you a several hundred square feet of additional square footage outside the mass of the building, but the actual full envelope. excuse me, footprint is not changing dramatically. Uh, Okay. Sorry. Looking down from above, as we have talked about the landlocked parcel. has no frontage on a public street. There's a shared easement connected in the northeast corner of the lot to Santa Rosa Avenue. Although the parcels in a dense neighborhood due to the topography and mature vegetation and generous spacing between the houses, there is a sense of privacy. As we plan the remodel and upgraded the exterior, we ensured that our proposed building materials are compatible with surrounding context and most elements we're proposing can be found among the immediate neighbors, including shingle siding, horizontal siding, steel railings, multiple windows facing the views. This rendering shows where the proposed materials will be located, as Heather was talking about a minute ago. We have Shingle at the top story at the top part of the garage. bottom part of the porch. or is all deciding on the rest of the body of the building This building and much of Sausalito being in a WUWE zone, code will require the materials to be fire resistant. And so these shingle and horizontal siding materials will be of a fiber cement makeup some proposed details. that maintain the character and style of the existing house include pitched roofs, shed style dormers, bay window, divided light windows. And these elements as well help to break up the overall mass of the building. and maintain the character and charm of the existing house. The following are some renderings showing the existing and proposed house in its immediate context. These illustrate the massing and how it's compatible with the footprint being minimally expanded. This is proposed. This is aerial view. Next one is a sort of a bird's eye view of the hill and the surrounding context with a approximate rendering. in place and a third view a little bit closer, existing and proposed. And so since the majority of the proposed expansion is an increase in roof height to create living space, I thought I'd share these building sections These give dimensions. The top row represents the north gable with existing on the left proposed dormers at the far right. The bottom row represents the East Gable. The proposed wall heights of the dormer sides are approximately seven feet at the primary bedroom bathroom and eight feet at the loft. So these are modest heights and spaces, these are not extra tall rooms. The bulk at the edge of the building was kept in mind during design. this, Long cross-section illustrates the pattern in the neighborhood. which is houses tucked into the hillside where the uphill portion is typically walk out on grade. with a deck or a garden and downhill portions appear taller with more floor levels visible. Downhill portions typically have more windows and doors, balconies facing the view. And the following images are some examples of this condition. This is 155 Santa Rosa with walk out guard on the left, on the right, from below it appears much taller. 144 Spencer, same thing, Garden on the left. Downhill view on the right, 134 Spencer. Far left is the uphill side porch. On the right are the balconies seen from below. And then the subject property 145 Santa Rosa garden and view from the driveway. Once we had a plan in place, we did our due diligence, as Heather mentioned, contacting immediate nearby neighbors about two weeks prior to submittal for the permit. Um, The names and addresses highlighted in the yellow are those who received contact and floor plans and elevations. two weeks before we submitted. Um, The green course in this diagram represents the right of way driveway easement that's shared by 145, 143 and 141 Santa Rosa. maintenance and cost of the driveway are equally shared among the owners. We are aware of concerns about the safety and of drainage from the existing driveway easement as well as concerns about access and potential damage during construction. as we have discussed, part of the approval or construction process will be to implement a construction management plan with the contractor to address easement access deliveries worker parking noise debris etc, and we are aware that drainage on and from the site is to be addressed with public works. We visited multiple sites and neighbors on their lots prior to and after the story poles were installed. The following photos are- |
| 01:08:03.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just wanted you to know you've got about 25 seconds left, so I don't want you to get cut off, so just stick accordingly. |
| 01:08:07.07 | Tom McElroy | point. Oh. OK, well, these photos are taken from 155 Santa Rosa Avenue. And as of today, I believe that the hedges at the top of this image toward the subject property have been trimmed. So there is some more visibility. But overall, there is there are other properties visible from 155 Santa Rosa Avenue. Here you can see the story poles above the hedge and then vegetation gets largely blocked as you move throughout the site. |
| 01:08:10.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Trevor. |
| 01:08:39.32 | Tom McElroy | and then from other properties. Thank you. |
| 01:08:41.33 | Director Phipps | Mr. McGillroy, thank you very much. |
| 01:08:43.42 | Tom McElroy | Thank you. |
| 01:08:47.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, we will now have questions from the dais here. Anybody wanna start? I see any hands raised, no? Commissioner Sada, I see you nodding. |
| 01:09:04.30 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. Thank you guys for the presentation. Can, You go back and this could just be a color issue from my screen, but I think it was at the beginning of your part of the presentation. Um, from the architect I'm seeing much more of a gray color and you had much a lighter color on the siding. Can you just explain the colors, just for clarification, please? |
| 01:09:37.10 | Peter Johnson | Yeah. |
| 01:09:39.06 | Nastassya Saad | I think on your drawings, it says fiber cement horizontal siding, and then it says painted, and I just want to clarify what that painted color is going to be. |
| 01:09:47.87 | Tom McElroy | We don't have a specific like an actual call or a number from a manufacturer, but this would be an off white like a warm. creamy white tone. |
| 01:09:59.78 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so not necessarily that gray cement color that leads Yeah. Please, your proposed rendering. |
| 01:10:10.55 | Tom McElroy | Correct, and there is shading on this, and this is of course approximate computer. image. And so colors are not exact. You know, if that's required, I can come up with that with the homeowners. |
| 01:10:26.88 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify since it looked a little different. And then can you just expand a little bit on the top in terms of the height since some comments were around the height at the very top. Could you go back, you were mentioning I believe the 8B but if you can just expand in terms of the design at the top height of the building, if that is from a design element, is that a, Um, needed development for structural support. If you could just expand a little bit on that height. |
| 01:11:03.15 | Director Phipps | And if I may, Commissioner, the applicant team has the opportunity to share their screen. Yeah. |
| 01:11:07.89 | Tom McElroy | Thank you. |
| 01:11:07.90 | Director Phipps | Thank you. They so please to assist in answering commissioner's questions. |
| 01:11:12.49 | Tom McElroy | Oh, am I no longer sharing? Correct. |
| 01:11:15.90 | Nastassya Saad | That actually would be great if we could look at look at it on the screen, please. |
| 01:11:22.06 | Tom McElroy | Hey. Let me see the screen now. |
| 01:11:25.76 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, we can see. |
| 01:11:28.14 | Tom McElroy | you can see the diagram. These are the building cut sections. |
| 01:11:31.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:11:31.41 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:11:31.43 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:11:32.29 | Tom McElroy | Okay. Now the top row, starting at the left, where the cursor is, this is the existing section. This is at the north elevation of the building. So it's about a seven and a half foot ridge in the attic. um, And then, On the bottom left is the East Gable. So you have about a six foot nine height. So we're taking each of these roof and maintain the pitch and lifting them about three and a half feet. to achieve and the attic floor level will remain the same on the East Gable and on the north gable, it is being raised to be at the same level as the east gable. So the top Third floor will all have the same floor level. And the roof at the same pitch, because we like the style and the shape of the roof is being raised up vertically. And so the middle Section cuts represent the resulting Thank you. roof form just raised up three and a half feet. in each of those locations and the far right is very heavy dormer. So the dormer roof pitch is much more shallow than is the existing steeper pitch. And so they're flattened out so that you can have almost full height vertical walls. So at the edge of the bedroom, they're about seven feet. When you walk up to the edge to the east and west of the bedroom and the bathroom, The wall is about seven feet. and in the loft. facing east, a little bit higher just because that floor level is already where it is. And so that is about eight feet at the sidewalls. Thank you for your question. |
| 01:13:25.32 | Peter Johnson | Thank you. |
| 01:13:27.19 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, the measurements are definitely helpful, but Did you explore at all reducing the pitch on, I'm sorry, because I'm at an angle and my eyesight is poor, the proposed section, middle, bottom, middle, on the gable, I believe is that the pitch, one of the pitches that remain. |
| 01:13:50.97 | Tom McElroy | It is. So that's the East Gable. Um, Right. No, we did not look at a steeper roof angle here. I think that that would limit the usability of that space anywhere where there wasn't a dormer. |
| 01:14:09.68 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so this was designed with the intent to create enough space to have what I'm trying to understand is from a structural support versus a living habitable space versus a design. the intention on that, on the pitch for those gables. |
| 01:14:28.56 | Tom McElroy | Yeah, it's a combination of everyone appreciating the existing pitch and within the style that it creates, but also the fact that you know, up there in Waukesha. left to right without hitting your head too quickly, They need to be at a certain height. And so, Anywhere where there's not a dormer, it's much more restricted in terms of how out. wide the room is, but then when the where there is a dormer, yes, that that becomes a little bit more of a full width room. You can walk side to side without hitting the ceiling. Yeah. |
| 01:15:09.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. That's all I had. Thank you. |
| 01:15:10.08 | Tom McElroy | I appreciate it. |
| 01:15:10.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:15:10.84 | Tom McElroy | you |
| 01:15:12.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so, |
| 01:15:12.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:15:12.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. you Other comments? Well, I just I'm going to allow you to go back because I am interested in pursuing the Commissioner Saad's question about the height. If you could go back to the photographs you were showing, I think of 155 Santa Rosa and you were about to make some points and then we were rushing you through. But I would like to hear that part of the presentation, if you could. |
| 01:15:37.87 | Tom McElroy | Okay, thank you. So we visited this as prior to story polls being installed. We visited 155 Santa Rosa. So I'm looking south toward the subject property, which you can see peaking up. This is the North Gable. above a hedge row. I'm standing in the driveway, 155 Santa Rosa Avenue. Um, and as We moved around a lot. This is just illustrating that there are other buildings toward the south that are visible through the vegetation, Um, And then as we moved forward, or the South standing in the patio area. This is after story poles were installed. just illustrating the visibility of a portion of the top of the gable on the top of the dormer. This was taken by one of, this is taken by Heather or Peter, not myself. Just to clarify. And as they moved around the site to look at the story polls from different points of the patio, Again, the existing vegetation starts to screen that. |
| 01:16:47.11 | Tom McElroy | And then this is, toward the south end of the lot of 155 Santa Rosa Avenue, there is a guest house. This is looking up over that guest house The. Um, proposed story polls. And then this was turning around, looking in the opposite direction. from 155 Santa Rosa Avenue toward the bay. |
| 01:17:08.20 | Peter Johnson | Thank you. |
| 01:17:09.77 | Tom McElroy | and kind of give it over. |
| 01:17:11.04 | Peter Johnson | All the time. view of the lot. |
| 01:17:16.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. That was appreciated. |
| 01:17:19.32 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, may I ask a question based on that question? Could you kindly go back to those images looking at 155 where you had just another... |
| 01:17:22.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | should. |
| 01:17:33.43 | Nastassya Saad | One more. Sorry, I think you need to go one forward. From this perspective, can you state just where on the design in those story polls roughly, are there windows on that? on that side. |
| 01:17:50.66 | Tom McElroy | Yes, there are this so this would be the primary bedroom location and there is a a small square window within the shed dormer here and there are a couple of windows. with a triangle at the top and rectangles below in this area here. |
| 01:18:10.79 | Nastassya Saad | And can you please comment? Because I believe the staff report said to address some of those concerns that they were mostly intended for light. But could you just expand on the size of those windows if you have that. |
| 01:18:25.54 | Tom McElroy | I believe the staff reporter is referring to the Windows. on the building at 155 Cineros Avenue. |
| 01:18:34.82 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, that could be my mistake. I'll look in the drawings at the same time. Do you have the dimensions of those? |
| 01:18:40.36 | Tom McElroy | Yeah. |
| 01:18:43.77 | Nastassya Saad | proposed windows for that location. |
| 01:18:47.61 | Tom McElroy | can get those for you before we're done. Yes, I can pull them up pretty easily. |
| 01:18:53.45 | Nastassya Saad | And I don't mean to hold it up. If you want to look for that, I can let other commissioners ask questions as well. |
| 01:19:00.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Any other comments? So at this point, we will open it up for public comment. Director Phipps, if you could manage that process, please. |
| 01:19:11.71 | Director Phipps | Certainly. Thank you, Chair. We will start with... Hands raised from the audience. Looking to the audience for raised hands. Gentlemen in the blue, please step forward. Please state your name and address for the record. And you have three minutes. |
| 01:19:30.19 | Unknown | Boom. 144 Spencer. I, uh, I bought my house in 1967. Extensive. |
| 01:19:42.91 | Unknown | Good doubt. |
| 01:20:07.58 | Unknown | You know us. Yes. Thank you. What do you want Yes. I'm biased. Thank you. |
| 01:20:25.76 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. Looking to the audience for additional raised hands. Sir, please step forward. Please state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes. |
| 01:20:40.30 | Russell Zink | assignment. I'll skip to it pretty quickly. That'd be something |
| 01:20:44.94 | Director Phipps | You'd have to clarify exactly what slide deck you'd like me to select. Is this related to public comment previously provided? |
| 01:20:51.88 | Russell Zink | Bye-bye. I don't remember the name of the file. The PDF is submitted on June 12th, I think. Z-I-E-K 155. |
| 01:21:02.11 | Unknown | THE SAME THING. Yeah. |
| 01:21:08.92 | Peter Johnson | Give me one moment. |
| 01:21:11.79 | Unknown | just said. |
| 01:21:18.36 | Director Phipps | Is this what you're referring to, sir? |
| 01:21:18.49 | Russell Zink | Is this what you're saying? There were two versions and hopefully this will come right |
| 01:21:22.48 | Director Phipps | Alrighty. |
| 01:21:24.90 | Russell Zink | you |
| 01:21:24.92 | Unknown | and then |
| 01:21:25.82 | Russell Zink | Thank you. |
| 01:21:25.92 | Unknown | and I think that's a good thing. second submission. So second. It's probably calling it |
| 01:21:37.24 | Russell Zink | Feel free to direct me. Okay, thank you. My name is Russell Zink. I live at 155 Santa Rosa with my partner, Sean Callaway. We bought the home in 2006, and it has spectacular bay views and a beautiful garden, which is kind of unusual for Sausalito. We have about two-thirds of an acre, mostly flat, that we've turned into a really... beautiful garden. Um, We spoke with Peter and Heather originally, and we had made up this list, and that was in October. And then there were just a couple things. They modified. They had an ADU over the garage, and that came off. So other than that, the concerns still remain the same, and that is around the height of the new construction. If you would skip to slide four, So this shows the house as it is, and our house is the one below it. the, Kind of the big difference is the dormer that comes north towards our house is a couple feet below the ridgeline of the main house. So that it's actually going up closer to five feet because it's below by about a foot and a half to two feet. So in addition to the whole thing going up three and a half feet from the main cable at the top, this one's going up even more because it's originally lower. So that issue, that's an issue for us. You can see here the windows. We've highlighted in yellow the challenge, you know, where the windows are coming in, we can skip to Slide six. So this is our view from the upper side of our property, and you can see that In addition to having all the views towards the bay, we have a lot of the, most of the views towards the garden as well. And Thank you. This is the area that we are looking into the new house as it comes up. So next slide. Slide seven. from the foyer, which is, you know, we walk back and forth on the interior of the house frequently, we will see The yellow triangle here that I've highlighted in the bottom left corner, that's where the new construction pops through. and its windows, and we'll see it at night, and we do see it during the day. It's less visible when they're just flags and strings, and there is an oak tree there, and it offers some protection, but when you look up, you're gonna see this monolithic mass rising above the Laurel hedge that we put in, we put in the Laurel hedge originally to block Shortly after we bought the home, people had the house then put in the big windows on that second floor. And unfortunately, it gave us views directly into their bedroom and bathroom. So we put up the Laurel hedge to block that. And then this now jumps up another another level. Um, Slide eight, the next slide. This shows the concern. We do a lot of entertaining, obviously, that the garden is a big piece of our house. And this shows from the garden where the new North Gable pops through. And it's very visible and there's a lot of glass. And what we're really asking for is if there's any way to do some sort of consideration. We talked about in October and they came back with the story polls and nothing had changed. but just some sort of consideration for the privacy issue. And knowing that they want to build a bigger home, it makes sense, additional privacy issues. Next slide I'll just show quickly is the view from the master bedroom. |
| 01:24:44.84 | Director Phipps | Three minutes is up. Okay. Thank you very much for your comments. Thank you very much. |
| 01:24:51.76 | Director Phipps | Chair, look into the audience once more for raised hands, please, sir. Please state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes. |
| 01:25:02.61 | Tom Skunda | I am Tom Skunda. I live at 141 Santa Rosa. at the bottom of that driveway that you guys have seen. hopefully by now. I'm here with Patricia Shea. We both live at 141. Um, I guess the main thing I wanted to check in with you on is to see if you've actually been to the site. We sent pictures. I think there's been some presented here tonight just talking about how, oh, it's easy in and out. It's a small project. Um, We did meet with Peter and Heather on the 1st of June, and we expressed some concerns. And I think they heard those concerns, but this construction management plan is going to be a really big deal. Um, This is probably an 18-month project. Maybe longer. I don't know how often you guys run into projects happening on time. But the thought of this on this driveway in close proximity, how close we are to each other. this going on 18 months or 24 months or whatever it would be. It's alarming. And we share that. with Peter and Heather. Um, Lewis, who's at 143, is not here tonight. He's out of town, but I know he sent a letter as well. So I'd love to learn more about what we do moving forward with the construction management plan. Um, I guess because this is a private driveway, the city feels well, anything can happen. We don't have to worry about whether, oh, a truck gets stuck or not. We can't get in and out. We can't go to work. We can't get out for emergency services or whatever we need. we've lived on in this place for 27 years. see trucks, small vans. caught all the time trying to make ill-advised turns. And the thought of construction trucks, suppliers coming in and out, what that could do during the day. or evening. It is not uncommon for vans to get caught there from three in the afternoon to one in the morning. And imagine that if I think if any of you are living on this driveway, you would look at this 18 month project, what is possibly a small footprint change, and the scale, the scope of this project and go, wow, We better take a look at this. So I think We're all for Peter and Heather, improving their home, We think that's great. We just want you to really look carefully. at the scope of this and the impact it's going to have and what it's gonna mean for that construction management project. Also, two little points before I forget. There was a discussion about any additional excavation. We were told in the meeting on the 1st with the neighbors that in order to get materials in and out, because there's no space between 143 and 145, that besides parking a lot of materials on where the garage is or carport right now, Materials might have to go under the house. in order to get into the backyard or something like that. So that should be clarified. And the other point, I didn't have a notepad with me today, But two-car parking in front of the carport might not be there. And I just want clarification on that. Thank you, sir. |
| 01:28:18.43 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:28:21.62 | Tom Skunda | Thank you. |
| 01:28:21.63 | Director Phipps | Looking to the audience once more for hands raised. Sir, please step forward. Please state your name and address for the record. And we will put three minutes on the clock. |
| 01:28:32.18 | Sean Callaway | Even Commissioner, Council. Sean Callaway, 155 Santa Rosa, the other half of this. Just want to build on what Russ pointed out, the lift at the front of the property. It's also proposed that that front door come forward two feet. So it's coming forward two feet, going up five feet. It's that mass that we're considering problematic and would like to see if there's any way that it could be pulled back or minimized or reduced. There's so much room behind the property. going up three stories plus a fourth at the very face front of the property feels daunting. And being all glass, it's gonna just recreate the movie screen that we were looking at before when they put the windows in the lower floor. So we've worked hard to create privacy, we'd like to see it maintained and we'd like some cooperation or consideration on the third floor bump out, forward and up. We'd like to see it come down and back. Secondly, the new garage is proposed to be wider and come closer. We have an existing property line situation. It's reduced down to three feet in the new plan. With the overhangs, it's 18 inches. That's awfully close. Just looking at it, awfully close. So like some consideration about the garage placement to the adjacent building in the distance between. Lastly, Thank you, Brian, the time here. Lastly, we've talked a lot about the driveway. It is a dangerous situation. The car's getting stuck, the truck's getting stuck. And I don't assume Peter and Heather are going to be there to manage this. We don't know how you'd live in the house. It's going under that kind of construction. So who is going to manage that traffic on the driveway? Um, because it has been, uh, not only damaging to the, to our property, but dangerous and somebody could get seriously hurt in a big truck going off the edge. um, Let's see. Yeah, so those two considerations on the house back and down on the third floor, pulling the garage back, and then lastly, a good plan for fixing the driveway. Thank you. |
| 01:30:35.98 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you, sir. for your public comment. Looking to the audience once more, sir, please step forward. Please state your name and address for the record, and we will put three minutes on the shot clock. |
| 01:30:49.93 | Alan Wiedmer | Hello, my name is Alan Wiedmer. I live at 139 Santa Rosa with my wife, Michelle. We're at the very bottom of the driveway and we're not party to the agreement on the driveway that's shared by the properties above us. Just a very quick comment that would need to be addressed in the construction management. And I sent a letter to this effect. the culvert at the entrance to the driveway. which is actually on city properties. I think it would be under your management is already cracked and we're concerned that heavy construction trucks going up that driveway further compromise that culvert and i think it's something that needs to be addressed or at least taken into consideration Thank you. |
| 01:31:29.62 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. Once again, looking to the audience. raised hands. Seeing none, looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. I'll give folks one minute, Just another second or two to raise their hand if they're having trouble. Cherishing none. |
| 01:31:49.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. At this point, we'll bring it back up to the dais. uh, We'll encourage Tom and Peter to stay around in case so there are something that comes out of this, but the public hearing part at this point is closed. With that, does somebody want to start? |
| 01:32:14.10 | Russell Zink | Oh, these. |
| 01:32:16.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:32:16.16 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:32:16.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair Julius. |
| 01:32:17.04 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. These are difficult cases to deal with for sure. Thank you. Thank you. But in my practice, I'd seen this a lot. Um, kind of as I started with the comment to the staff It's an unusual one of a kind you know, home situation, you've got to Private easement is pretty narrow. I think I will want to focus Any questions and concerns I have? The construction impacts While temporary, I can see that they're real. So I want to think a little bit about that. And if there's any way we can help you with that, But with respect to the project itself, I frankly think this is exactly the kind of home project that South Toledo would with. should be embracing and encouraging. Clearly a family has moved to Sausalito and wants to grow and wants to stay here. And this is a, you know, old substandard hundred year old home that needs to be upgraded. You're not going to put the kind of money they're gonna spend on this house without making it bigger. And I think they've done the right thing to go up Yeah. So, I'm pretty satisfied. I'm looking forward to the other commissioners about what they think about the design and the height. But, You know, the height limit here is 32 feet. at the maximum this height, this project is going to be 26 feet high. So still well below the height limit. I think it's a thoughtful design. think they've, I think it's impressive how they've squeezed 1300 square feet into an additional floor with trying to make it as thoughtful and less impactful as possible. So, I just want to start out by saying I'm very, very impressed with the design. I'm very supportive of the edition itself. I. Happy to dialogue with the other commissioners here and ask you all some questions about, about the construction. management. I think that is a real issue. And it's an unfortunate one in that You know, you guys are also apparently There's some type of an easement and maybe some people in the room are part of the easement and some aren't. Um, This is also somewhat common in Sausalito. We've had a few situations where, you know, we've had a number of properties accessing a private road. It looks like a city road, and frankly, it's not a city road. And so those are really, really tough issues. This one doesn't seem to be quite as tough because I think it's a shorter easement area and probably fewer homes at issue here. but, I do think the applicant is is gonna need to think about this a lot and figure out a way to assure your neighbors that there aren't gonna be serious problems here. That said, I don't think there's any, there's gotta be a way to figure that out. that can't be something that stops this project. Any significant construction here is going to have that impact. And so that impact just needs to be addressed and mitigated in some way. And we're gonna apparently, we're gonna get the city attorney up here at some point clarify what we can and can't do. But I think that's where I'll leave it for now. |
| 01:35:20.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 01:35:20.40 | Andrew Junius | on. |
| 01:35:20.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Commissioner Graff? |
| 01:35:26.34 | Richard Graef | Thanks, Chair Luxembourg. Thank you. So, Well, let's see. I find a lot to like about the project. I think it's very clever the way taken the the existing space and, with not adding too much. |
| 01:35:48.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:35:48.80 | Unknown | My name is Jamaica. |
| 01:35:50.09 | Richard Graef | My mic is on, yeah, make it work. I am. somewhat concerned though. I'm concerned about the garage being so close to the edge of the property and potential structural problems there. If the garage was pulled in a little bit, it might affect the stairway and it might affect the amount of added space on that front of the house, which I wouldn't mind seeing being reduced a little bit. I think that we're going to be Um, From a design standpoint, I think the height, if there's any way at all to achieve this by lowering the ridge line Some, I think that would be a real plus. Um, And the other thing is from a design standpoint, While generally I think it's a pretty good approach, I find it to be rather busy. and we've had so many pop outs and bumps and bumps and balconies and dormers and so on, I feel like somehow, the simplicity of the original structure, which was rather nice, is gone. That's my comments. I think they're design issues. I don't know how far that will go in terms of influencing Commission. as far as approval goes. Uh, I would like to see some their effort, personally. to mitigate some of these problems. As far as the construction management and the easements, that's a sad story. I'm sorry to see it. the way it is, but that's the way it is. And I don't know, We can't do anything about that. And I think it's really up to the, to the homeowners. to resolve it. acceptable way. since we don't seem to have any jurisdiction So that's my comments for the moment. |
| 01:38:13.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Saad. |
| 01:38:17.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Chair Luxembourg, and thank you for all the public comment. and for all the presentations. I... I think I share some of the concerns. This is a heightened review. And so with that in mind, you know, there are extra findings that we do have to make. I think overall, the design, My first take was that it was a little busy and also seeing the character of the home. It is a beautiful home, completely understand that there are structural issues and it needs needs work. Um, I think the project makes sense from the It's a great narrative and nice to have a family stay and expand. Um, So I'm hoping we can eventually come to some form of conclusion here. But I think my real noted standout concern would be some of that height that is And I don't have the... Northwest, East, South in front of me. So excuse me, but looking towards the 155, Um, Santa Rosa, I do share some of that public comment concern from looking at it in that respect. I do think that our municipal code does cover all of the construction related issues overall. From personal experience, my neighbor has been building his home for 10 plus years now, very empathetic of constant disturbed peace. And unfortunately, it's Every property, Owner has a right to develop their home And it's, it's, everyone gets their turn. So I understand the frustration, but you know, there are there are practices in place in our code in terms of limits and noise control and when construction can work. So fortunately, we won't be able to address any of that. But I am, I do empathize with the neighbors. But I really think my big standout would just be some of that height looking towards 155 Santa Rosa. I'd even concede on some of the design for that for that height. I think the color scheme now that we are understanding that white and the shingles does keep in the character and that I appreciate. in terms of the easement again. I'm not going to necessarily touch that. I think our attorney made it clear that that's not for us, although I understand that those concerns as well. So, Um, I don't know if I can currently make every finding, but I'd definitely like to hear all our discussion points. |
| 01:41:01.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Yeah, this was a hard one. I think this is a landlocked parcel as Mr. Toph indicated today, this wouldn't be, these projects that were built in the 20s wouldn't be built this way. There would be frontage on roads and whatever. It is a very steep driveway. uh and the construction will be difficult but i think the construction management plan is critical here i think that that's included in the conditions of approval um and is important to be addressed we do have a lot of steep driveways in sausalito we do have lots of houses built on hills in sausalito this is what sausalito is all about so um uh i've had in my neighborhood we've had projects go many years as well so I understand the concern of that with regard to the easement I think that that's for the people that are part of this easement to work out the details on the construction as far as the cost and the road the details for the management of construction vehicles, we can take care of here, I think. I mean, that's an important part of this. I do want to ask Tom a question with regard to this garage. Is it possible? This is the confusion I had. supposedly it's at least two feet off the sidelines but it might be one and a half feet with the overhangs is there any possibility to reduce the size and still get two cars in and pull it back six inches or a foot to get it off the line slightly I guess that's the question. |
| 01:42:48.55 | Tom McElroy | on the |
| 01:42:48.79 | Peter Johnson | Thank you. |
| 01:42:48.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, we can take- Can we unmute Tom if we could? |
| 01:42:48.86 | Peter Johnson | Thank you. |
| 01:42:48.89 | Tom McElroy | Yeah, we can take that. |
| 01:42:53.28 | Tom McElroy | Yeah, we can take a look at that. I can't answer that right away. I have to just take a closer look. |
| 01:43:00.31 | Neal Toft | Tom, can you? Can you, Can you pull up the site plan because the garage is over |
| 01:43:06.83 | Peter Johnson | Yeah. |
| 01:43:07.20 | Neal Toft | I think it's about three and a half feet at its closest point to the side property lines. What's happening is the, I believe the, is on or slightly over the road. the line. to the topo map that they've That's the basis for the site plan. So that's what actually gets the buildings closed. There may be some building code requirements. Even though the, typically if you build a structure within uh, Within three feet of the property line, you need exceptional like fire. protection measures in the WUI zone. So typically you need a minimum of three because there's an structure nearby that may trigger some requirements for some exceptional construction methods, but I don't know if that's the case. But the The garage itself is outside of the five foot set, but five foot. is intrudes into the five foot setback, but still is more than three feet from the, from the property line. And one thing I did want to clarify, I did check in the ordinance A landlocked parcel is required to have a side property line on all sides and one rear property line. And that's established. So there's no front set. |
| 01:44:36.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There's no sign. There's no. Let me just clarify something you said now I see it. So the adjacent 155 Santa Rosa building is over the property. |
| 01:44:47.03 | Neal Toft | be lying. |
| 01:44:47.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:44:47.99 | Neal Toft | according to the topographic map survey that they have on file. |
| 01:44:53.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, because when I visited 155, I came out the rear door of that onto where the garage is, and it is closer than, now I understand why it's closer than the, The two feet, the three feet, because that property is not |
| 01:45:04.92 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:45:07.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | on the property it's supposed to be on. I get it. Okay. Thank you for that. And thank you, Tom, for that. |
| 01:45:16.77 | Neal Toft | And if I may, one other clarification, because Commissioner Sud brought up the issue of an extended construction project 10 years in the running, I guess. And as reflected in the conditions of approval, the city does have an ordinance that requires a time limits that applies time limits for construction depending on the valuation of the work, it may be, a year, 18 months or two years. And I'm not sure what applies to this, but we do have time limits. that may not have been and force at the time that that building permit was made, but we do. restrict that now. |
| 01:45:58.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Toff. So my thoughts on this are that, I mean, everyone has a right to build. This is, I understand the concern about the height. I was on 155 Santa Rosa. There are parts of it that will be visible. There are parts of 155 Santa Rosa where this is shielded back where the, the fireplace was, it was in the picture, you cannot see this. But as you get into that driveway, you can see this. But, you know, 155, looking down in the people across the street, they look down on people. When you're built into a hill, this occurs. I think the applicant here has tried very hard to work with the abutters and come up with a sensitive design. They are still, I think, six feet, maybe three and a half, four feet below the maximum height limit for the project. I think they're coming up with a height that is needed to make this project work. I was concerned about the garage, but now that I realize the abutting property is over the line, I think that that's a little less of a concern. I think that the major issues that I'm hearing from the abutters at 141 and 143 are related to this driveway. I think that needs to be addressed in the construction management plan. Workers are going to have to carpool to the site. We see that in a lot of places all over Sausalito where, you know, instead of coming with four cars, they come with one car with four people and they park in another area. That's for the construction manager that's from the contractor to work out and CDD will work with them to make sure that there's a construction management plan that does that. I think that's part of the restrictions here. Okay. You know, there's no good solution. Construction does take a while. I think if the contractor is sensitive to the neighbors, then the deliveries come during normal hours. They don't work Saturdays. They don't usually, they sometimes do. They can't work Sundays and holidays. And so, and there are noise restrictions. So I think the city has various things in place and we can do that. I think that all things considered things in place and we can do that. I think that all things considered, they've tried to do the best they can and I think I can make the findings for this project. Without further questions, Vice Chair Juniors. |
| 01:48:37.75 | Andrew Junius | want to continue the discussion thank you chair um luxembourg so um commissioner graff are with the with the fact now that we understand i can see it clearly now i didn't notice it before that the |
| 01:48:37.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 01:48:48.88 | Andrew Junius | that the proximity of the garage is partially because Um, 155's building is over the property line. That seems to, again, And I'm also curious, are there, are there, immediate design changes that might be straightforward enough. I mean, you know, to the extent I'm just a lawyer, not an architect, I do maybe see what you're saying in terms of the busyness. Are there, windows that could easily be removed. These some of these small windows that, you know, is there something you'd like to make some comments? If there's a way to get this across the finish line tonight, it'd be great. I'd rather not have this come back. You know? |
| 01:49:27.90 | Richard Graef | Sorry, I don't have the drawings in front of me, I couldn't comment on the windows really succinctly at this point. |
| 01:49:36.73 | Andrew Junius | Could we put up the nice rendering at the very front? I think kind of, could somebody bring the very, well, there's that image, but, Just the very first page, I think, if we can even blow that up. The rendering, I think, is really interesting. And there's a lot of windows. I think some of them are almost decorative, like the little corner ones at the top that are in that front dormer. |
| 01:49:46.80 | Heather Hensley | Yeah. Uh-huh. |
| 01:50:00.37 | Richard Graef | Oh, Dormer. |
| 01:50:01.99 | Andrew Junius | I mean, if those went, they would clean up, you know, |
| 01:50:04.81 | Richard Graef | I'm not sure which of the windows are the ones that might be in question in terms of privacy issues. I would assume that... |
| 01:50:14.54 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:50:14.56 | Richard Graef | Well, at this point, I'm |
| 01:50:14.57 | Andrew Junius | Well, this one, I'm curious about you. You were just trying to clean up the design. It's too busy. I mean, I thought that was something we'd like to get Rizzo Holmes |
| 01:50:18.49 | Richard Graef | Oh, oh, oh. |
| 01:50:23.57 | Richard Graef | Oh, Um, I mean, yeah, I think I really more, more, um, concerned about the pop-outs. I mean, it just somehow it In my mind, it's conflicting with the form with the, Thank you. |
| 01:50:45.32 | Andrew Junius | The one pop out in the other, that little bay there that's really on top of it. |
| 01:50:45.35 | Richard Graef | The one pop out in the other end. I was looking at the plans and it buys a few more feet inside but it is not required space. So I just feel like it could be simplified a little bit. And basically, as I said, it's a nice solution. And it's a nice approach. I just think it's not quite cooked from my standpoint. But, Anyway. Otherwise, it's a good project. |
| 01:51:27.41 | Andrew Junius | Is it not quick enough that you're going to move for continuance and ask them to do some things? I would. |
| 01:51:32.02 | Richard Graef | I would like to see a little more study on the building. That would be my preference, yes. I'm not quite ready to at this point. |
| 01:51:47.07 | Nastassya Saad | So, I think we should probably give some specific direction in that regard. I wouldn't disagree in terms of the pop-outs. That was my initial reaction in terms of, form of the building. I don't know, just there's a, I know in keeping with the footprint, which is a lot of the intention here, There is a very large career setback And it's not necessarily to solution, but I'm just wondering if it was thought about go to the rear versus that the next edition facing just as some general feedback, but I don't know if that's going to make sense for the overall project. It's just notably a lot of space, but I agree in terms of the driveway, I think that's completely resolved at this point. But, I'm looking specifically at, in this in the packet, it's I, the project provides a reasonable level of privacy to the site and adjacent properties. That's where I'm wavering in terms of being able to make that finding. But like I said, I would concede on design if we could maybe help address that. But I too, I'm not crazy about the pop out, but I think I'm my sticking point is finding I, which might have a number elsewhere. |
| 01:53:17.47 | Nastassya Saad | Does anyone else share that? |
| 01:53:19.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, I understand the privacy issue, but I'll tell you the amount of landscaping that is around here that is going to grow further up that compared to a lot of other places in Sausalito, this privacy issue is even from 155. And I understand their concerns, but there are parts of that backyard that are the main part where the fireplaces that you can't see this building. So even at this height, so it really, there are a couple of places where you're in the middle, where the cars go that you can see it and they use that area. And I understand that, but I don't, I think this is a reasonable height for this building and don't think that privacy is the issue. I mean, the busyness we might be able to solve by adjusting that pop out. But I think they've gone out of their way to address the neighbors, both on Spencer and at 155, the best they can. In the backyard, they do have this ADU, so there's not that much room back there. So, and they're not looking at these, they've got sloped roofs. These are not unreasonable heights for a building. So, and they're again, they're below the zoning limit. So, you know, and again, if you look at the, when you look at it from the aerial, the amount of landscaping around this is immense and it's gonna keep growing. So I think that the privacy issues can be handled by landscaping and other issues. So I was, with regard to the pop out, I don't know about that Juliet balcony either, but it doesn't bother me, but we can ask whether that's a critical part of the square footage. I was trying to look on the plan and see where that is in this thing. |
| 01:55:11.95 | Andrew Junius | And yeah, I totally agree on the privacy issues here. I mean, the only way to eliminate the issue that 155, I think is raised is to eliminate that window. And that doesn't appear appropriate because that's beautiful new living space and they need light and air. So, Uh, But yeah, the pop out is interesting. if the architect... has any comments about how much square footage will be lost there. If there's a, easy fix that keep this moving. |
| 01:55:40.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Tom, can you show us the site, not a site plan, the floor plan where that pop out in that Juliet balcony, it's not really a Juliet balcony, cause you can go out to it, but can you show that on a floor plan, Yes. |
| 01:55:54.89 | Unknown | Yes. Can I just add a comment here as well that the pop out is part of the current house as is? |
| 01:56:02.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Oh, OK. Really? Peg, you're part of it. If you're able to share the... Can you go back to your original, can you go show your original drawing, your first drawing showed the comparison of the two, because that would be useful. Whoops. OK. The presentation part. |
| 01:56:07.57 | Unknown | If you're able to go back. |
| 01:56:19.21 | Peter Johnson | Okay. Yeah. |
| 01:56:22.21 | Tom McElroy | Bye. |
| 01:56:22.37 | Peter Johnson | Yeah. |
| 01:56:22.55 | Tom McElroy | Thank you. |
| 01:56:23.19 | Peter Johnson | Yeah. |
| 01:56:24.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, |
| 01:56:24.66 | Tom McElroy | here. So, I can zoom in. It may not be very visible here, but there is a whoops. There is a small bay with a gable roof above it on the east side of the bedroom currently. Oh. It's not that's that's sort of out. |
| 01:56:42.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. that sort of balcony on top of it. You're not the pop outs in existing pop out. |
| 01:56:47.78 | Tom McElroy | It's an existing... There is an existing pop out. However, we're enlarging it. you know, again, with the, with the increase in height and with the addition of the floor and putting a balcony on top of it. But there is a small projecting window bay there. Yeah. |
| 01:57:05.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, so if you could go to the floor plan and show us where that is on the floor plan, the proposed floor plan, that would be helpful. |
| 01:57:17.07 | Andrew Junius | So I would just thank you for that, but it certainly got bigger and more noticeable. I think that's what we're seeing. Right. |
| 01:57:24.21 | Tom McElroy | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:57:24.48 | Andrew Junius | Um, |
| 01:57:24.97 | Tom McElroy | sort of at the bottom of the screen on the left, this is existing. It projects. I don't have a tool to measure in a PDF here, but maybe it's about a foot out and the proposal is about 30 inches. So it becomes a window seat. as part of that. you know, cottage detail and sometimes a built in window seat with a cushion. We thought that'd be a nice reimagining of that small bay. |
| 01:57:55.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and can you show us the next floor up where the balcony then is? |
| 01:58:01.73 | Tom McElroy | Right, so that'd be off the primary bedroom. And Otherwise, there are windows facing north, but these are Obviously, doors that could be opened and to allow a lot more air to step out. you know, taken the view. |
| 01:58:19.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This is just a question. I'm not suggesting it, but if that pop out was removed and it became an actual Juliet balcony, which is just you leave the doors and you put railings, from a design point of view, it's physically possible to do that? |
| 01:58:37.53 | Peter Johnson | It is. Yeah. |
| 01:58:43.74 | Peter Johnson | I guess. |
| 01:58:44.03 | Richard Graef | that's true. |
| 01:58:44.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Not sure. Would that be something you think would help with this design of this? |
| 01:58:44.45 | Peter Johnson | Sure. |
| 01:58:44.71 | Richard Graef | and then, |
| 01:58:44.82 | Peter Johnson | Bye. |
| 01:58:44.96 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:58:50.60 | Richard Graef | As this discussion progresses, I'm beginning to back off my discussion. critique of the pop out, I can see The balcony, and I can understand the balcony being the top of the pop out. I'm not going to. I'm not going to pursue that any further. I'm getting pretty sold here. Yeah. |
| 01:59:29.80 | Nastassya Saad | I mean, they're not the same, the pop-out. I visited the property. It's going to look much different, but again, that's not my That's not my sticking point here, so I'm not gonna argue about the, but yeah. It is an addition. I'm not crazy about it, but that's not my issue. I do wanna just maybe ask, us and maybe staff, since we understand where the easement situation lies and that's out of our scope. But if that culvert is public property, excuse me, city property, is, Do we need to address anything there? If there is any potential damage or is that something down the line from building and It's got nothing to do. |
| 02:00:15.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Toff, if you could come to the podium. |
| 02:00:15.36 | Nastassya Saad | with us. |
| 02:00:15.81 | City Attorney Rudin | I'm sorry. And there is already a condition of approval requiring repair and replacement of damaged public facilities in the right of way. So that's a standard city condition requiring all app. We require all applicants to repair any damage to streets and to. public property. |
| 02:00:34.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:00:36.27 | City Attorney Rudin | And that's again, assuming that culvert is in fact, public property, it may not be. |
| 02:00:42.14 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, yeah, and I know of that condition. I just don't know if we need to call anything out specifically or if there's anything to expand on there, but just a question. Yeah. |
| 02:00:49.77 | Neal Toft | Yeah, it wasn't identified. Typically public works will Um, identify if there are specific specific items of concern or something of that nature, but that would probably come more as part of the building permit process and the encroachment permit for any work in the right of way and part of the construction management plan. as they really identify what her How are they gonna park? How are they gonna travel? They do. uh, try to document some of the infrastructure in the area and identify that that's a way of knowing is there damage that's been done because of the construction. that needs to get fixed. uh, This doesn't help. necessarily the owners or the people who share the driveway itself, but in terms of the public infrastructure. The city also charges a, Um, road maintenance fee for construction. So there are monies that go back into general road repairs and things from all construction projects. Because there's an assumption there's going to be damage that occurs that we don't catch. And so that's part of just from trucks and everything up and down the roadways. |
| 02:02:08.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:02:08.07 | Neal Toft | Sure, thank you. |
| 02:02:09.03 | Nastassya Saad | expanding on that. Okay. That's |
| 02:02:10.77 | Neal Toft | Thank you. |
| 02:02:10.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have a question to director Phipps. |
| 02:02:10.99 | Nastassya Saad | Makes sense. |
| 02:02:15.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh, Do you, are you comfortable with the language for the construction management plan when, I mean, this is going to come back to the building department and your department, that when we get to construction, there are going to be issues of the easement. Obviously they have to work out themselves, but related to if there's construction vehicles blocking that, that, that you'll be able to manage that with the wording that you have in this notice of approval, or do we need to modify that? I guess that's the question. |
| 02:02:44.64 | Director Phipps | I personally believe that the language at current is sufficient and gives us sufficient authority and gives us sufficient direction. You know, just, just as a high level note, this is city of Sausalito, these hills, these turns, these kinds of projects in the hills on narrow streets are part and parcel to living in the city and building in the city. So again, I believe that the language is sufficiently worded. |
| 02:03:11.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Fibbs. |
| 02:03:14.57 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:03:14.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other comments at this point from |
| 02:03:19.09 | Richard Graef | I just neglected to say before that from what I can, I was not able to really explore the site from all the angles just because I can't do it physically. but um It seems to me that they, the visual and the privacy issues are really not major issues. And I think a lot of that will get covered with landscape in time So I don't see that as a real deterrent. So as I said, I think, I think, I'm pretty satisfied that I can make the findings. |
| 02:04:03.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | now. Thank you, Commissioner Graff. I'll look for Commissioner Junius. Do you have any commissioners? |
| 02:04:10.58 | Nastassya Saad | I was, I'm just going to say I think based on the math. From looking at the staff report and the distance of 100 feet and the conversation around the landscaping I can understand the opposition from 155 it feels. looming to be honest from the visual, from the photos, but I guess from the 100 feet aspect, I think, I think I can concede there, especially given the concept around the vegetation growing. |
| 02:04:46.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Junior? |
| 02:04:49.31 | Andrew Junius | I make a motion to approve as recommended by staff with conditions of approval as proposed by staff. |
| 02:04:57.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:04:57.90 | Richard Graef | Second. |
| 02:04:59.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, any further discussion? With that, Director Phibbs, if you could take the roll, please. |
| 02:05:05.15 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad. Yes. Mr. Graff. Thank you. |
| 02:05:08.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:05:08.71 | Director Phipps | Yes. Vice chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 02:05:15.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you for the staff on this. A lot of work. And thank you for all the butters coming out and identifying the issues and which CDD can manage. Thank you. With that, we move to the next item, which is adjournment. |
| 02:05:31.26 | Nastassya Saad | Second. |
| 02:05:32.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All in favor. |
| 02:05:32.96 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 02:05:33.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. |
| 02:05:33.50 | Nastassya Saad | All right. |
| 02:05:33.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:05:35.31 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, members of the public. |
Tom Skunda — Neutral: Resident of 141 Santa Rosa Avenue, not opposed to the project but emphasized the need for a robust construction management plan due to the narrow shared private driveway, potential for deliveries to block access, and safety concerns during an 18-month construction period. Raised questions about material staging and parking. ▶ 📄
Sean Callaway — Against: Co-owner of 155 Santa Rosa Avenue, requested the third-floor bump-out and dormer be pulled back and reduced in height to minimize massing and privacy impacts, especially the glass frontage. Also asked the new garage be set back further from the property line and for a plan to manage dangerous driveway conditions. ▶ 📄
Alan Wiedmer — Neutral: Resident of 139 Santa Rosa Avenue at the bottom of the driveway (not a party to the easement), requested that the construction management plan address potential damage to a cracked culvert on city property at the driveway entrance from heavy construction trucks. ▶ 📄