| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | call the September 26, 2023 Planning Commission meetings to order. Can you, Director Phipps, can you take the first time? |
| 00:00:10.80 | Director Phipps | Yes. Good evening, Chair Luxenberg, Planning Commissioners, staff and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito's Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:00:28.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Can you call the order? |
| 00:00:31.86 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you. Commissioner Saad. Here? Commissioner Graf. Thank you. |
| 00:00:35.86 | Kristina Feller | Sure. |
| 00:00:36.97 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. you |
| 00:00:38.02 | Kristina Feller | I'm here. |
| 00:00:38.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:00:38.83 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. Present. Chair Luxenberg. |
| 00:00:41.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you're a good person. |
| 00:00:41.97 | Director Phipps | Sure. All members are present. |
| 00:00:44.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. I'll look for an approval of the agenda. Do I look for a motion for that? you |
| 00:00:49.59 | Nastassya Saad | So moved. |
| 00:00:50.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I can. Director Phipps, can you please call roll? |
| 00:00:54.71 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Graff. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion carries. |
| 00:00:57.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Jeff. Yeah. |
| 00:01:02.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Next item on the agenda is public comments for items not on the agenda. Director Phipps, if you could give us the instructions for that. |
| 00:01:12.07 | Director Phipps | Yep. 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. |
| 00:01:53.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. I note for the record, we received an email on September 26th asking that that item be included as part of the record for this evening, so we will do that. Are there any other comments from the public in the audience? I'm not seeing any. Is there anybody on Zoom? Director Phipps. |
| 00:02:18.05 | Director Phipps | Chair, seeing no raised hands in the Zoom application and looking to the audience, seeing none. Back to you. |
| 00:02:24.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Next item is approval of the Planning Commission minutes. |
| 00:02:31.18 | Kristina Feller | So moved. Second. |
| 00:02:33.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All those, can you please call roll, Director Fitz. |
| 00:02:37.00 | Director Phipps | Yes. Thank you, Chair Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:02:38.88 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:02:40.97 | Director Phipps | you Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:02:41.10 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yes. |
| 00:02:46.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. At this point, we're going to move on to item five, communications. Director Phipps, is there a report from CDDD? Yes. |
| 00:02:57.86 | Director Phipps | Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. I have a few brief communication items this evening. The first relates to an inquiry from Commissioner Feller in connection with our tree fund. Regarding the fund, following correspondence with our finance director, Chad Hess, I understand we currently have just over $2,000 in that account. This is due to two instances of funds being paid in the account, one in fiscal year 2022 and one in fiscal year 2023. These funds can be used at any time. And staff will collaborate with Kevin McGowan, the city's public works director, to identify projects where new trees or tree replacements are needed and allocate those funds as appropriate. So that does it for the tree replacement fund. The second update is related to code enforcement in the city. And let me just Bear with me for a moment and let me share a screen. |
| 00:04:07.60 | Director Phipps | All right. Regarding code enforcement cases, we have seen a significant reduction in outstanding cases since I joined the department. Around 11 months ago, there were approximately 100 outstanding cases. |
| 00:04:15.67 | Kristina Feller | I know. |
| 00:04:15.75 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:04:15.77 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:04:23.38 | Director Phipps | That number stands at around 28 today, which represents a nearly 75% reduction. Those results are partially shown in the graph displayed here, which reflects some of the performance metric tracking that we have implemented in the department since our newest code enforcement officer, Mr. Paul Van Hook, joined our team. His efforts are extremely appreciated, and he has not only significantly reduced our outstanding case list and assisted me in integrating performance metrics into our code enforcement case tracking, but has also made meaningful connections within the community while doing so. So I commend him for that and look forward to future progress in addressing some of these additional or ongoing outstanding code enforcement cases. On to update number three this evening related to the housing element, the odds and the EIR. Specifically, staff is bringing contract amendments with our housing element and odds consultants to City Council on October 3. And this is in order to continue collaboration with consultants in preparing our housing element EIR, program EIR, general plan amendments, rezoning amendments, as well as preparation of the final odds document. So look forward to bringing that item to council. We're in preparation on the staff report now. Feel free to join us. |
| 00:05:42.10 | Kristina Feller | Uh, |
| 00:05:54.05 | Director Phipps | On to the last update, following Planning Commission approval with conditions on September 13th, CDD received an appeal, timely appeal, from Michael Rex on behalf of a group of 42 total appellants in connection with the Ferry Landside Improvement Project. Pursuant to Section 10.84 of our code, CDD will work to schedule a public hearing with the City Council to review the record of the decision and hear testimony of the applicant and any other interested parties. We are still settling on the exact date of that hearing, but we'll keep the Planning Commission apprised of any updates. That does it for me this evening, Chair, and back to you. |
| 00:06:36.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. At this point, we'll look for planning commissioners who have any updates on any of our working groups. I will give one for our parklets. I now understand we'll be meeting in October with the working group and with the intent of having something to the city council by the end of the year. So that's where we stand with parklets. And with that, any other commissioners want to give updates? Commissioner Junius. |
| 00:07:02.39 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. I think you mentioned this at the last meeting. You know, the work in Sacramento just continues unabated on housing issues. SB423, though, I just wanted a heads up for the community. That's a pretty important one. It's complex. I'm not going to go through any of the real details here, but one of the biggest changes, that's the one that extends SB35 to January 1st, 2036. So we're going to, you know, that law was going to soon, and it did just get extended out quite a number of years. You know, a big piece of that has to do with San Francisco, we're not going to talk about that. But I would comment that, you know, one of the features of a lot of these housing laws is that they require certain pay grades and prevailing wage and things like skilled and trained workforce, which, you know, is, is a, can be a costly issue for projects and is probably one of the reasons why we're not seeing a ton of construction right now, you know, notwithstanding the, you know, including the interest rates and all the other, you know, economic headwinds that many developers are facing. But I would say, point out that smaller projects don't have to comply with some of those uh, issues. And so I think there may be a chance here that we're going to see in Marin County and other places in the Bay Area, lots more smaller projects that are going to try to take advantage of SB 35. And of course, it continues to refine and Make sure everybody's aware of how limited the scope of local review for communities all over the Bay Area and all over California will have for these kind of projects. They are ministerial. So at some point when the economy starts to really start moving, I think we're going to see a lot of those projects. Thank you. |
| 00:08:42.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Other commissioner? Anybody on Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:08:48.22 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much, Chair. First, Director Phipps, bravo on some really heavy lifts on getting the department on track and really excelling. It's most appreciated, and it's nice to see that our tree fund is actually working, it's doing its purpose, and really pleased about that. So thank you, Thank you for all the hard work there. I will note that the Planning Commission still has its Housing Elements Subcommittee in place as well. Where we can be of help, I know you will call upon us. So I will leave that to you. I just wanted to give an update to the Commission and to the public here. Karen Hollweg, about the landslide task force and i'm looking at my notes here so forgive me for looking down, but I did coordinate earlier this week with director mcgowan our director of public works. Karen Hollweg, who does have a contract with Miller Pacific to assess sauce alito and it looks like they have been making great strides in progress and i'm pleased about that as well. A couple steps were outlined here, which I am reading off my page here. Miller Pacific will be drafting a report for which there'll be an internal review with the rest of DPW. and probably CDD as well, I'm assuming, but that will be internal with city staff. um, Any minor changes to that will then be forwarded, incorporated and then forwarded to the landslide task force for our review, our preliminary review, and then we'll meet with Miller Pacific and And then that report would be presented to the city council. with any of the landslide task force comments. I don't have any specific timeframes on this, but I do believe that it's very clear what the roadmap is and the path forward. And there's obviously been quite a bit of progress here. So I'm delighted to be able to report on that. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:10:47.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller, Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Saad, any updates? Okay. With that, we'll close. Do I have to have public comment on communications director? |
| 00:11:00.89 | Robert Metzger | Yes. |
| 00:11:01.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yes, at this point, we will allow for public comment for anything regarding item five communications. I'll look to the audience. There is none. |
| 00:11:12.03 | Director Phipps | Chair, seeing none on the Zoom application. |
| 00:11:14.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We'll now close public comment on items five and move on to item six, public hearing. At this time, I'm going to ask commissioners if there were any expert communication for regarding the public hearing items. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:11:29.34 | Nastassya Saad | visited both sites on my own, walked by, but nothing to declare, no ex parte communications. |
| 00:11:35.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Julius. None to declare. Vice Chair, I mean Commissioner Grant. |
| 00:11:43.38 | Richard Graef | None. |
| 00:11:44.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Feller? |
| 00:11:46.35 | Kristina Feller | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:11:47.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And myself, nothing to declare. At this point, we will move on to item 6A, which is 660 Bridgeway Boulevard. I'm going to turn that over to Matthew. Thank you. |
| 00:12:09.61 | Matthew Mandich | Hello, Commissioners. Good evening. Yes, first item on the agenda today that we're presenting on is 660 Bridgeway, which is a renovation to the second story front elevation of the Barrel House. If we could get that presentation up real quick. Thank you. |
| 00:12:33.30 | Matthew Mandich | Okay, great. Next slide, please. So just to give you guys a little orientation, I know everyone knows where this is in town, but we're in the heart of our historic district here in Sausalito, right at the intersection of Bridgeway and Princess Street. You can see the Barrel House restaurant right there with its distinct barrel vault architecture, right next to several historic buildings, including 666 Bridgeway, which is now a Morver, and several other buildings across the street on Princess. also to the right, south side is Yi Tak Chi, a little pocket park there that we're all very fond of. Next slide. The request from the applicant is for a certificate of appropriateness and a design review permit to again renovate that second floor front elevation of a historic structure located at 660 Bridgeway, which is now the Barrel House. The scope of works includes a demolition of existing second level recessed storefront style windows, partial demolition of existing front material fixed to the concrete arch, including metal supports, wood trim, plaster platform, as well as the sign. The replacement of storefront windows will be done with accordion-style sliding doors, as we'll see in a second. These will be placed forward in the arch to be flush with the facade. Construction of the new glass and steel safety railing to create somewhat of a Juliet balcony will also be in play. It will match the rear east elevation of the building, which is again glass and metal balconies, and it will be flush with the concrete arch facade. As mentioned already, the sign will be removed, but will also be replaced after the renovation is complete. Next slide, please. So as you're well aware from the staff report, this already went to HBC a couple times. So I'm just going to give you a little bit of a site history on the building because it is quite an interesting building here in our historic downtown. The site was first occupied by the real estate offices of Sausalito Land and Ferry Co. That photo right there is from 1910, but that building was originally built in 1902. The upper floor of that building also housed Sausalito's first public library, which is now here in City Hall. So a little interesting bit of history about the site there. In 1941, the building was demolished and the Purity Market Store was placed there and has that distinctive arch of many Purity Market Stores around California at that time. And you can also see in this slide in particular the windows and the glass that were at that time also flush with the facade and the concrete arch. Next slide, please. Um, The building was then changed first in 1968 to a restaurant up on the upper floor right there. You can see in the deep background of that photo a restaurant known as the Deck House. That photo is from 1971. You can kind of see that deck protruding from the exterior of the barrel vaulted structure there. And then this photo was taken slightly before when the building was for lease. You can see the arch at that time was painted green, which is kind of interesting. And it became an Italian restaurant known as Il Piccolo in 2009. Next slide, please. And as you can see, some of those distinctive features I discussed before of this chain of markets that ran throughout California. You can see that, again, the distinct barrel vault arch there, one in Pacific Grove right there. And then you can see the windows with the horizontal glazing matching our example in Sausalito down to the bottom left. Next slide, please. As mentioned, this project has gone to the HPC in several occasions in various forms. I'm just going to touch on the last two primary occurrences here. The first of those was in February of 2023. This original design that was presented at this meeting had a protruding extending deck that encroached over the public sidewalk and came pretty close to a traffic light as well. this and you can see that in the slide to your left there. This was a was a was recommended for denial by the HPbc at that time the applicant then revised their plans and this was heard um last month or sorry beginning of this month september 7th 2023 um where you could see that the deck was brought back in to be flush with the exterior of the building and there are the accord accordion style doors that you can see there and the balcony that is proposed. This was recommended for approval by the HPC at this hearing. And this is the design we'll be discussing today. The HPC also had several recommendations for conditions of approval. But I'm going to wait till the end of the presentation to touch on those. Next slide, please. So this is a bit of the existing plan that we're familiar with here at the barrel house. As you can see, the arch right there with the window kind of recessed back several feet. Some of the wood trim on the interior of the barrel vault will be removed. Those two metal support beams that you see right there will also be removed, and the glass will be brought forward to be flush with the facade. Next slide, please. So there's an example of what we're gonna be looking at with this new design. You can see on the left and then on the right, we have a bit of a site plan there, a floor plan looking at the accordion style doors that will move back and allow light and air to then pass through the building where that balcony is. Next slide, please. And here is just a rendering provided by the architect, a little bit more practical feel of what that would look like from the street with those doors open. Next slide. So recommendation based on the scope of work proposed and the work done also by our historic architect and the previous historic evaluation staff recommends approval with conditions of the design review permit and the certificate of appropriateness. The project is consistent with the requisite findings of both the certificate of appropriateness and the design review sections of the Sausalito Municipal Code. The proposed alterations meet the intent and the direction of the Secretary of Interior Standards 1 through 10, as discussed in the staff report. Overall, the changes are rather minimal. The main distinctive features of the buildings are not being modified. In fact, they're actually being enhanced. The primary envelope of the building with its barrel vaults will remain intact, including the roofline, elevation and arches. No conjectural elements are being added in this proposal. If we go to the next slide I've touched on some of the recommendations of approval right here so the conditions of approval rather HPC had a couple recommendations and I kind of want to leave some of these at the discretion of the planning commission to decide if they would like to enforce those or not. The first one of their recommendation was that the applicant consider reconfiguring the new glazing, the new window glazing, so that it more closely resembles the original 1941 glazing pattern, which we've seen previously of that more horizontal pattern on the front. If you can go to the next slide really quickly. They've also provided a rendering of what that might look look like if that's something that the planning commission would like to have as a condition of approval and we'll leave that open for discussion you go back to the previous slide please also there's some exposed piping on the second story on the northern elevation of the building this abut 666 bridgeway they recommended that this should be covered and hidden from public view and that any unpainted or unfinished surfaces and siding should be repaired and I do agree with this recommendation and would like to include that as a condition of approval. There was also some discussion about the sign and whether or not there was a legitimate permit for that sign. I've done some research on it and found that we do have a sign permit that was issued at a joint hearing of the then historic landmarks board and the Planning Commission at that time in 2012 and i've included as an attachment as well to the staff report. And then, when it comes to our department CDD standard conditions of approval apply, including conformance of plans on file and. Indemnification of the city and that the permit would expire in two years if there wasn't any construction pursuit. So that is the end of my presentation and happy to answer any questions the commissioners may have. |
| 00:20:25.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Mandage. Again, an excellent report as usual. We really appreciate that. |
| 00:20:30.27 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:20:30.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. At this point, questions from staff? for staff. Questions for staff, of staff, of staff. Questions for Stan, Mr. Hassan? |
| 00:20:46.00 | Nastassya Saad | I get it. Thank you. That was a great presentation. I actually only had one question in terms of the standing area that Juliet balcony. Is there a. people limit? Will people clearly be able to stand out there or any, can you just touch on that? Absolutely. |
| 00:21:02.20 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, absolutely. So, I mean, the way it's kind of shaped now, I think it's more of something for people to be passing by. It's not an extended balcony where people, I think the original design that we saw the slide from, from the February HBC meeting had more of an extended balcony where perhaps people could mingle or you could put a couple of chairs and tables potentially. but in this design I feel like it's more of just letting light and air in I can let the applicant speak on that a little bit in a second when it comes to be that time but there might be some changes in seeing arrangements in there to take advantage of the new accordion doors. But you know, I don't anticipate people really just like standing there and hanging out there a lot. But again, I could be wrong on that. I think it's more of just kind of creating a different ambiance in there, allowing you've been in the restaurant before I imagine like the way it is now those windows are pretty dark, you're kind of set back, you don't really have access, you feel kind of cut off from the street. This will be, you've been in the restaurant before I imagine, like the way it is now, those windows are pretty dark. You're kind of set back. You don't really have access. You feel kind of cut off from the street. This will be, you know, a more open feel, feel more connected to that intersection. And I think again, just kind of letting air and light pass through. And as you know, the back end of the building is open as well and they're seating back there. So it'll just kind of create, especially on a nice day like today, a more flowing, you know, light environment. |
| 00:22:09.53 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:22:09.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:22:10.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:22:10.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Commissioner Graff, any questions? Commissioner Powell? |
| 00:22:15.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Matthew. That was an excellent presentation and great report. I do just have a couple quick questions. And one is, do you have a photograph or any information about those pipes that were mentioned? I do. |
| 00:22:28.02 | Matthew Mandich | I do actually, actually I do. I'm, I found it that there's one, um, Maria, if you can pull the presentation back up very quickly on the, I'll point it out to you here. Once we get it up, Just the second slide, please. |
| 00:22:41.07 | Kristina Feller | And they're barrel house pipes. They're not the adjacent owners. |
| 00:22:45.98 | Matthew Mandich | No, they're on the, yeah, that slide. And we make that larger. You can see right here, there's this bit. |
| 00:22:50.67 | Kristina Feller | Right. Oh, okay. |
| 00:22:54.33 | Matthew Mandich | Um, slide two. No worries. All good, all good. Thank you. Yeah. So right here, there's this bit of siding and there's some piping coming out and it's unfinished and it kind of like remains in this condition today. So you don't really notice it that much from the street, but it, but it is there. And, um, it would be nice to get that finished off and covered up and just, you know, more aesthetically pleasing for the building. Yeah. There you go. Oh yeah. Is that from Google? |
| 00:23:08.99 | Unknown | but it, |
| 00:23:14.41 | Director Phipps | THE END OF |
| 00:23:14.55 | Kristina Feller | Oh, no. |
| 00:23:14.83 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:23:14.87 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:23:15.02 | Director Phipps | Thank you. This is from the Street View on Google Maps. Okay, yeah. |
| 00:23:19.74 | Kristina Feller | THE FAMILY. Yeah, I have to admit, I... didn't notice it when I've been by. So thank you for clarifying that. |
| 00:23:26.98 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:23:27.00 | Matthew Mandich | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:23:27.25 | Kristina Feller | Do we know? |
| 00:23:27.31 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:23:28.52 | Kristina Feller | what those pipes are. |
| 00:23:30.82 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not 100% sure. I think they might be related to the HVAC system. But I don't know. I don't know if the applicant has any idea about that. We can discuss in a second. Yeah. |
| 00:23:40.97 | Kristina Feller | That's great. This is helpful. Thank you. |
| 00:23:42.68 | Matthew Mandich | Uh-huh. |
| 00:23:43.51 | Kristina Feller | The only other question I had, uh, is in terms of hours of operation, because you're gonna have these open accordion doors and take advantage of our wonderful weather here. Do you know if the applicant is looking for any modification to their existing operating hours? |
| 00:24:00.82 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not aware of any that was not mentioned in the application. Feel free to ask them. I'm sure they could clarify. |
| 00:24:05.91 | Kristina Feller | I'm sure they could clarify. Yeah, will do. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:24:08.70 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:24:11.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. I just have one quick question, just clarification. You said that that sketch, well, they provided that sketch. Who's the they? Is it HPC or the applicant? |
| 00:24:22.97 | Matthew Mandich | Which sketch are we referring to? |
| 00:24:23.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The one that showed horizontal |
| 00:24:27.18 | Matthew Mandich | The applicant provided that. The one that we showed at the end with the horizontal. Yeah, that was the applicant. That was a rendering that was provided just this week before the meeting, just as an idea to show what that could look like. |
| 00:24:37.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I just wanted to clarify whether it was HPC or the application. |
| 00:24:41.39 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, no application. |
| 00:24:41.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No applicant, yes. With any other questions? No. So with that, we will go to the applicant's presentation. You'll have up to 15 minutes to do your presentation. If you want to save some time in case there's any questions from the audience afterwards, you can wrap up at the end as well. So feel free to reserve some of that 15 minutes if you need it. |
| 00:25:07.31 | Miller Darterberry | you |
| 00:25:08.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:25:08.22 | Miller Darterberry | Okay, thank you very much, Chair Luxenberg. And thank you, commissioners. I'll be pretty brief because as you said, we had a great presentation by our planner, Mr. Mandich. Let's see here. I just wanted to point out that Um, It was heard by the planning committee, or I'm sorry, the historic planning commission three times. And this deck was initially two, two projects, but it was split in two. And so this deck was, meant to provide an outdoor space for the Varel House restaurant along the bridgeway frontage. The deck protruded approximately two feet initially into the public right away. and had beveled corners. The design was ultimately denied. But based on the feedback provided by the HPC, and the historic preservationists we consulted with. We determined that the deck protruded beyond the face THE FEDERAL. too much and was not consistent with the history of the building. Therefore, we sought to change the design to one that would be contained within the boundary of the outside face of the facade. What we eventually settled on is a Juliet balcony solution. This is a guardrail that is flush with a facade wall. fronting a door opening. In our case, we pushed the existing storefront wall forward. And so it is directly behind the new glass and steel guardrail. which is set back from the building face six inches. We also introduced a 20 foot by eight foot five panel folding door system in the center of the storefront. This gives the feeling of an outdoor space to the people at the front of the restaurant while the doors open. while in reality we're only adding indoor space, 219 square feet of it. The existing signage will remain. I wanted to also briefly comment on the three recommendations of the HPC. The first one, which is the horizontal mullion bands. While we appreciate the recommendation, we prefer not to add them. The second recommendation, which would be providing screening for those piping, which include the main electrical feed, and I believe gas. We actually welcome that a great deal. I think it's a great recommendation. And we'll simply continue... one of the forward faces of the wall to conceal those piping. And the last recommendation, which was just a check on the validity of the signage that was a previously approved signage that is to remain unchanged. Commissioner Feller, I'm actually glad you asked about the piping because, yeah, we were really looking forward to cleaning up the facade, so. That's all I have. It's a pretty small scope of work. So we appreciate your feedback, and we welcome any questions |
| 00:28:37.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. Just quickly, just to clarify, you're adding this 219 square feet of space inside. There's a series of banquettes that are currently there. Are you intending to add any seats or are you just going to adjust where the location of the seats? Thank you. |
| 00:28:56.37 | Miller Darterberry | There will be additional seating added. |
| 00:28:57.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:28:59.18 | Miller Darterberry | you know, And that's. |
| 00:29:00.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do you know how many seats you'll be adding? |
| 00:29:04.06 | Miller Darterberry | At this time, we don't have a specific count. |
| 00:29:07.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. All right. With that, questions from commission members, vice chair, junior. |
| 00:29:14.96 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Can you identify yourself and your relationship to the project? |
| 00:29:19.91 | Miller Darterberry | Sure. My name is Miller Darterberry. I'm the applicant and designer. |
| 00:29:23.67 | Andrew Junius | So you're the designer, you're the architect. Okay. Is, and the, the, Can you expand a little bit on, you know, I mean, I totally understand why you wouldn't want to change after you've decided a certain window profile or window system. Is it just aesthetics or is there a significant reason why you wouldn't be open to the different windows, just out of curiosity? Yeah. |
| 00:29:43.55 | Miller Darterberry | Well, I would humbly suggest that I wouldn't say just aesthetics. I think aesthetics are very important. And it's an extremely important facade. I have great respect for the history of the building. One of my first jobs was at an historic preservation firm in San Diego. So I'm very familiar with the Secretary of Interior's standards. But I think in this particular instance, the building has evolved to a point where THE PROGRAM IS A It's mostly clear glass, unencumbered views of Bay, of City, of the street. And we want to reflect what's happening at the rear. which is which is that. |
| 00:30:29.35 | Andrew Junius | And I would also assume that the I should have looked at the plans a little more carefully, but the window change, would it change your, it would change the operation of the folding doors and it would be a totally different system? Yes. |
| 00:30:40.97 | Miller Darterberry | That's correct. And currently it's just a fixed glazing. |
| 00:30:44.23 | Andrew Junius | Exactly. Great. Thank you. |
| 00:30:48.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions, Commissioner Graff? |
| 00:30:52.81 | Richard Graef | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Well, I'm also interested in seeing the relationship between the proposed glazing and the sketch that responds to the recommended glazing. Is it possible that we could look at those two sort of side by side? to compare them. Do we have the capability to do that or one after the other? I'd like to see them both again. |
| 00:31:24.01 | Miller Darterberry | Commissioner Grafe, I did notice those slides going by. They were towards the end. So I'm going to do that. |
| 00:31:39.68 | Richard Graef | And while we're waiting for that, there was in the description Um, that had to do with some partial demolition of some of the surrounding features or uh you know, around the window. I'm not, I didn't understand what that was exactly. I think you have a section there. Thank you. |
| 00:32:06.72 | Miller Darterberry | So... Yeah, yes, sir. As a matter of fact, the demolition will actually be pretty limited, but you'll notice because the current facade, you know, the current glass storefront wall is set back, call it like two or three feet. And then so there's an exposed ceiling there, you know, with starter boards, with stained starter boards there. And so we have to, you know, in bringing the storefront forward, those, you know, that finished ceiling is now going to be inside. So it's going to be a different, it's going to conform to what's happening inside the restaurant right now. |
| 00:32:50.19 | Robert Metzger | graphics right there. |
| 00:32:54.09 | Matthew Mandich | It's been provided. And then we have the first pattern here at the accordion doors, just a rendering of that. And you can see here as well. So you've got those openings there, and then this would be the potential change. |
| 00:33:14.61 | Unknown | Also, to the president, we can step on the show on the . Yep. Yeah, there. That's what we look at. |
| 00:33:28.38 | Miller Darterberry | Thank you. |
| 00:33:29.64 | Unknown | And those two where I call members are what, support? |
| 00:33:33.98 | Miller Darterberry | They're actually non-structural. |
| 00:33:37.57 | Unknown | from your God's name. the way I understand it, they're going to put the glass red |
| 00:33:47.95 | Miller Darterberry | That's right. |
| 00:33:49.40 | Unknown | How are you doing? |
| 00:33:56.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Correct. |
| 00:33:59.09 | Unknown | So. |
| 00:34:02.55 | Unknown | I was just trying to understand what and take a photo of that. |
| 00:34:11.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Before we leave that, how would you do the horizontals? I mean, it's still folding glass, right? Are they going to be in between the double glazed windows or are they applied or how would the horizontal be done? |
| 00:34:26.16 | Miller Darterberry | they would be in between. So they'd be integral as opposed to applique. |
| 00:34:34.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Other questions, Commissioner? Thank you. |
| 00:34:39.35 | Unknown | No more, of course. |
| 00:34:39.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Keller. |
| 00:34:42.39 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Mr. Ardenberry, for your presentation here. Just a quick question. Would you have to close the restaurant to do the demolition and new construction of this curtain wall that you're contemplating here? |
| 00:35:02.32 | Miller Darterberry | That's a very good question, Commissioner Feller. Actually, I believe that the work could commence with the restaurant operating. I would point out that our owner, Mr. Chris Henry, is probably watching, so he may have some comments and he may be able to better elucidate on that. |
| 00:35:29.84 | Kristina Feller | He's welcome. If he is, he's welcome to answer that question now or he can use. I think you've got 11 and a half minutes to. you know, for conclusion after we take public comment, and he's welcome to take some of that as well. One of the reasons I'm asking just for insight to you is There have been times, depending on the complexity of the demolition and new construction, that we will require that the building permit for the new construction be issued before you start the demolition so we don't end up in a situation, particularly a prime business and location like this downtown that it just sits half done or empty and not generating traffic down here. That was the reason for my asking and sometimes how we condition things. Otherwise, I think that this is a fantastic project and thank you for that. I'm interested to hear public comment on it as well, but I'm delighted at what I see. |
| 00:36:16.55 | Mike Kunzik | Thank you. |
| 00:36:16.59 | Unknown | And |
| 00:36:16.97 | Mike Kunzik | something. |
| 00:36:33.41 | Miller Darterberry | Thank you very much. |
| 00:36:34.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Other comments, other questions of the applicant? Does do we does Mr. Henry is on zoom. Does he want to respond to that question because it was a question from the Commission. |
| 00:36:53.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Henry, if you want to respond to that question, just raise your hand in the Zoom application. |
| 00:37:01.81 | Chris Henry | Can you hear me? |
| 00:37:04.71 | Director Phipps | Yes, go ahead, Mr. Henry. |
| 00:37:05.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:37:06.03 | Chris Henry | Okay. |
| 00:37:06.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:37:07.16 | Chris Henry | I'm not sure. |
| 00:37:07.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:37:07.70 | Chris Henry | Thank you. Okay, thank you. Well, first of all, I just want to commend Matt for doing a great job and putting this presentation together. I think it's the best one that I've heard and, you know, nice job on that, Matt. To answer your question, we wouldn't plan on closing the restaurant down and maybe close one day when we're, you know, doing the transfer of the actual door. but the demolition is minimal. We would just be replacing... you know, doing the transfer of the actual door. But the demolition is minimal. We would just be replacing some of the fixed-pane windows with |
| 00:37:17.27 | Kristina Feller | is that. |
| 00:37:44.20 | Chris Henry | with the door system. And we would coordinate all that. And we may have to close for one day, but it certainly wouldn't keep it closed for any more than that. That's the objective. |
| 00:37:58.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much for that. With that, let's turn it over. |
| 00:38:02.43 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask one quick question? |
| 00:38:04.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | One quick question. |
| 00:38:06.04 | Nastassya Saad | What you just said earlier about not preferring that HPC recommendation on the glazing, if it were approved with that condition. would you not move forward with that project and design? |
| 00:38:25.19 | Miller Darterberry | I believe we would move forward. Yeah, we would move forward. |
| 00:38:33.10 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:38:35.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. At this point, we'll ask for public comment. Anybody in the audience wants to provide public comment, please fill out a speaker card. And in the Zoom application, please raise your hand. Don't see anybody in the audience coming forward, and I don't see anybody on Zoom. Therefore, I will close public comment portion of this hearing and at this point bring it back to the commission. um Vice Chair of Judeo. |
| 00:39:11.34 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Yeah, I get a feeling we're very supportive in general, and I don't think there's going to be much of an issue tonight, although I think the windows are probably going to be the talking point here. I mean, I'll just kick it off. I'm pretty familiar with historic buildings and historic preservation standards and the secretary of interior standards. And I do find it kind of fascinating that the historic preservation commission has, you know, asked you to move forward with the glazing design that harkens back to the, you know, a previous, some previous construction and original design, I think. And that's kind of not consistent with standard number nine, which specifically says the new work will be differentiated from the old. And so, I don't know. I... I'm usually the guy that's going to support the sponsor here. And so you're going to see that tonight as well. I don't see a significant difference in terms of the look and feel. I think you're probably going to have some different doors and a whole different program if you're, if you're asked and forced to do a different window. a different window pattern there. So I'm very much supportive of what you've already proposed. And I do think given the fact that the only really remaining historic relevant piece of this building is the barrel roof, right? Everything else has been changed over the years. It's been remodeled and remodeled and remodeled. And so I think you should be able to do what you want with the windows and I'd be supportive of the project as is. With the change, I, of course, support screening the pipes. Thank you. |
| 00:40:43.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Other comments? Commissioner Fallis? |
| 00:40:50.05 | Kristina Feller | it. |
| 00:40:50.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:40:50.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Vice Chair Junis, for bringing up number nine there from the state historic... standards. Because I support that as well. I think you have designed this. You're well aware what those standards are. And I don't think we need to. pile on and design from this dais, a facade. that you have taken a lot of time to consider. both in terms of form and function and what those standards are, Um, I would. completely support screening or enclosing those pipes and just cleaning up that facade, if I can refer to it that way. And then I would also want to consider Karen Hollweg, And proposed to the rest of my Commissioners here another condition of just ensuring that we have a design permit before we issue the DEMO permit. Karen Hollweg, To make sure the sequencing of the work is as quick and painless as possible and should you need to close your operation temporarily. that you have everything in place to do so quickly, expeditiously, and without disruption to the service. And I'm fully supportive of your project, and I thank you for the time and care you took to proposing this. Thank you. |
| 00:42:07.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Other comments? Thank you. |
| 00:42:11.20 | Richard Graef | Oh. |
| 00:42:11.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:42:11.52 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:42:11.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:42:14.59 | Nastassya Saad | I just would put a motion on the floor to approve this project. I think we would, we're all stemming down the line of alignment here, but I do think there is the condition of approval as of right now with the glazing in there. So we would probably just need to discuss that if we're, we're saying to remove that. I, I, I agree with both vice chair genius and commissioner Feller on that topic. And I think the windows are fine as is as designed. So just to clarify that so we can note that in the conditions. |
| 00:42:48.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Stodd, Commissioner Graham. |
| 00:42:50.62 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Sure, Luxembourg. I'd like to go back to the windows again. Could we look at the elevation or one of the renderings that shows the proposed blazing that you were that you are proposing. Can we look at that? Not that one. |
| 00:43:25.19 | Unknown | . |
| 00:43:26.76 | Richard Graef | Yeah, okay. I'm assuming that, is there one that's got just a straight on elevation that doesn't show it? I think there is one somewhere. Aww. |
| 00:43:46.98 | Richard Graef | of your proposed windows. Well, yeah, I guess that would be it. Okay. Above the doors is that glazed |
| 00:44:01.56 | Miller Darterberry | Yes. |
| 00:44:02.81 | Richard Graef | And in the corners, it appears dark in the rendering. That's all a glaze, correct? |
| 00:44:09.17 | Miller Darterberry | That's correct. |
| 00:44:10.33 | Richard Graef | Okay. |
| 00:44:11.01 | Kristina Feller | Just for clarification, the applicant is saying yes to your questions. He's not at a microphone, but just so the public can. |
| 00:44:17.62 | Richard Graef | Oh, okay. And also, I apologize, last time around, I don't think I had my microphone on, so I hope it was recorded. Okay. then The only question I have is this kind of a design issue, and that is why some of the verticals didn't extend up all the way up to the top of the arch. Um, This is kind of a design thing. I'm wondering if you thought about that. |
| 00:44:54.85 | Kristina Feller | Commissioner, this is deliberation. |
| 00:44:55.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:44:55.76 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:44:55.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to the podium. This is the |
| 00:44:57.45 | Kristina Feller | This is the liberation time. |
| 00:44:58.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I think we might |
| 00:45:00.30 | Richard Graef | Oh. |
| 00:45:00.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:45:00.45 | Kristina Feller | Bye. Bye. |
| 00:45:00.61 | Richard Graef | Well, it's just, I'm curious as the answer to that question has to do with the deliberations. But anyway. |
| 00:45:05.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 00:45:09.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Why don't we have the architect just explain why the mullions don't go all the way up? |
| 00:45:18.44 | Miller Darterberry | If we had to go with that solution, we probably would want to bring those verticals up, I think. But |
| 00:45:28.33 | Richard Graef | It appears, yeah, in the other rendering, something goes all the way up. Yeah. Okay, so you would... prefer to do that, you know? Okay. Right. Then the only other issue in my mind is the sign. And I don't know. think there's any problem with the sign because it was approved. However, I would. like to offer that the sun is almost impossible to read. because it's the same color as the background and it's cut out letters and there are shadows and it's just kind of a little salad there. I was thinking that that would be a much more successful sign if they were a lighter color, lighter than most of the background, just a thought. I think that would really help it. Thank you. and that anything behind it was also darkened so that it just, it's busy. when you look at it, and it could be a lot cleaner looking And that's a comment on the effectiveness of the sign. Otherwise, you know. It's fine. I like the project. I think it's well designed. I think the rest of the commissioners are pretty much on board with it, and I am too. So well done. Thank you. |
| 00:47:07.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. I also am supportive of this proposal and I'm satisfied without, pursuant to number nine of the historic standards, that we don't want to make it appear like it was there originally. So I'm okay with not adding those elements plus a block view and that type of thing um with that um i'm going to note that the commissions uh the conditions of approval attached to the agenda do include that change and do include the uh enclosing the piping uh and do not include a specific thing that says the building permit must be issued prior to any demolition. So with that as a baseline, I heard a motion for approval. We need to clarify what conditions are in and out, and we need a second. So I'm going to turn it back to Commissioner Saad for what is the motion at this point. |
| 00:48:13.64 | Nastassya Saad | So I'm trying to find it because I thought I saw it. |
| 00:48:16.93 | Kristina Feller | I thought I saw it. Touchment, touchment one. are the findings. Yeah. |
| 00:48:22.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, but it's under the agenda. It's the last, I think it's the last detachment. Yeah. |
| 00:48:27.78 | Kristina Feller | attachment to their five |
| 00:48:34.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and there's conditions four and five of the relevant ones. |
| 00:48:40.97 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry. |
| 00:48:48.01 | Nastassya Saad | Am I not? Thank you. |
| 00:48:48.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Here's a print copy. Thank you. |
| 00:48:55.94 | Nastassya Saad | So the motion would be to approve and to remove Condition 4, which will remove the glazing that has been proposed by the HPC. And to keep condition 5 for the exposed piping. you to be hidden from public view. And I think I heard Commissioner Fowler ask for the permit to be the building permit to be issued at the same time. So we can add that if everyone's comfortable. Take a second. |
| 00:49:40.85 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, and for clarification that's issue the demo permit once the building permit is ready. So you'll have you'll pull both permits at the same time. So you'll have ease of efficiency and sequencing and completing your work. And with that I would second that motion. |
| 00:49:47.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:49:48.26 | Mike Kunzik | Yeah. |
| 00:50:00.89 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:50:01.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any questions, Commissioner Griff? |
| 00:50:03.90 | Richard Graef | Yeah, back to the glazing, the issue of extending some of the... Mullins up to the top of the arch. You were saying that you would prefer to do that It's not shown in the drawings. if you wanna do it, and I think it would be a good idea, then we need to have a mechanism for you doing that, either in the conditions or you have to make us a promise or something. |
| 00:50:30.92 | Kristina Feller | It has to be a condition. Yeah. |
| 00:50:32.22 | Nastassya Saad | You'd have to condition that. |
| 00:50:32.64 | Kristina Feller | condition that. |
| 00:50:33.38 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:50:33.43 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:50:34.14 | Richard Graef | Thank you. So do we wanna condition that? Or does anybody feel it's important? or a condition? |
| 00:50:44.30 | Andrew Junius | Well, I'd like to clarify from the applicant if that really is what they wanted. I mean, they proposed what we're going to vote on in a second. Absent that, you raise a very good architectural question. I mean, if they want to change it, now's the time. Or, yeah, we would, you know, so. |
| 00:51:02.99 | Miller Darterberry | I'd just like to state that we'd prefer to not have any muttons, but if we were compelled to do them, we would bring the verticals up. |
| 00:51:12.06 | Richard Graef | I misunderstood. I thought you said that you were thinking of doing that and would prefer to do it. So apologies. Thank you. |
| 00:51:19.82 | Miller Darterberry | I think you have a very good eye, Commissioner. I kind of agree with you, but yeah, we prefer not to have any mullions. We get it. It's not going to live or die on those money. |
| 00:51:26.62 | Richard Graef | I get it. |
| 00:51:29.25 | Kristina Feller | So let's leave the motion as is on the floor. |
| 00:51:29.32 | Miller Darterberry | Thank you. |
| 00:51:31.51 | Richard Graef | THE END OF |
| 00:51:31.58 | Nastassya Saad | Exactly. |
| 00:51:31.97 | Richard Graef | Bye. |
| 00:51:32.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, any further questions from commissioners at this point? Okay, with that, we have a motion and a second. Director Phipps, are you clear on what the wording is and the adjustments that we need to make? Yes, thank you, Chair. |
| 00:51:48.76 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Sheriff. |
| 00:51:49.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, with that, can you take the role? |
| 00:51:52.07 | Director Phipps | Certainly. Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Graff. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. |
| 00:51:53.84 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yeah. Yes. |
| 00:51:57.32 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:52:00.35 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:52:00.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 00:52:02.66 | Kristina Feller | Congratulations. |
| 00:52:04.22 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:52:04.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | PB, David Ensign PB, David Ens |
| 00:52:24.76 | Matthew Mandich | Hello again, Commissioners. So moving from a commercial building to a residential building here, talking about a duplex located in the neighborhood known as Hurricane Gulch on Crescent Avenue. We get a presentation up there real quick. Thank you very much, Maria. |
| 00:52:46.34 | Matthew Mandich | All right. Yes. So this is for a nonconformity permit to replace a existing nonconforming deck that is built into a setback and slightly overhangs a property line. If we could do next slide, please. This is just a little idea of the project location here. We're dealing with a very narrow, long lot. If I remember correctly from the report, about 34 feet by 180. So a very narrow lot there. You can see it on the left in the rendering from Marin map. And then we've got a Google map. You can see that the duplex itself is set really far back from the street, deep into that area. And Sausalito Boulevard is right there above. So very steep drop off from Sausalito Boulevard down to Crescent. Next slide, please. So the request of the applicant is for the approval of a nonconforming permit to demolish and reconstruct an existing nonconforming 359 square foot entry deck and the accompanying staircase. Right now, the existing deck encroaches into the required easterly side yard setback and extends over the easterly property line onto 21 Crescent and 324 Sausalito Boulevard. As proposed, the replacement deck would continue to occupy the required side yard setback up to the property line, but the encroachment onto that adjacent property would be removed. Here are just some images of the existing site plan. As you can see here, that red line is the property line, and the deck as you enter just hangs over ever so slightly over that property line. and then the deck does continue. This is where we're getting a lot of the square footage for the deck is back here, not the thin narrow entry pathway that you see here. The proposed site plan would again, keep the entry deck in a relatively similar location as it's needed to access the entrance of the lower unit. that you see here. The proposed site plan would again keep the entry deck in a relatively similar location as it's needed to access the entrance of the lower unit of the property 27 Crescent, but it would bring the deck over back onto the property and negate any encroachment that is existing currently. Next slide, please. Just a little bit of highlights from the elevation here. As you can see, here's the deck and the proposal. It's pretty much a like-for-like replacement, giving you an image here, kind of looking to the south along this line. So this is, there's the staircase right there, right there, looking. As you can see, it's a pretty deep drop off here. You've got a slope moving down and then also a slope here. In fact, can we go back one slide, please? You can see on the topo survey here, how it kind of drops down in this little valley and then drops off here and you can see slope and slope there. Forward again, please. So that's the Eastern Elevation. Next slide. Northern elevation is here looking at the deck. We can see definitely need a repair. The railings really folding over here and steps are pretty dodgy and the wood itself is all pretty old. If we go to the next slide. So one of the main things for the nonconformity permit and something that the appellant needs to prove is that this is a legally existing deck and is a pre-existing nonconformity that was not built illegally without permits. We've got a permit here from 1979 from the city that clearly shows that the deck was there. In fact, the deck that we're looking at today was probably the one built in 1979. You can see, again, the north elevation right here and the east elevation, very similar. so we do have documentation on file with the city that this is a pre existing nonconformity next slide please. This is also visible from the permit on the site plan. Apologies for the quality of the site plan. Obviously, it's pretty old 1979, but it's the same permit number here. Here's the address and you can see that the deck is right there, right up against the property line slightly hanging over. Next slide, please. The applicant was also able to find some documentation at the county level from the county assessor records from the 1980s showing the deck on some plans here, which you can see it's again tougher rendering but that is the footprint of the building and the entry deck into on the side right there. Next slide please. Finally, the city also approved a zoning permit in 2020 for the replacement of this deck that was applied for by a different owner in 2020 and approved by the department at that time. That permit has since expired, expired a year later as it was a zoning permit. And then when the new applicant bought the home, new owner bought the home and applicant applied for the deck, I actually caught that it was hanging over the line and in the setback and requested that they, you know, pursue a nonconformity permit to get this replaced and legally replaced. So, next slide please. With that recommendation is staff recommends approval with our required CDD conditions. Staff has determined that the proposed project meets the requisite findings of Section 1062.070, governing nonconforming structures. Documentation of the existing nonconformity is on file with the city and the county. The proposed project reduces the existing nonconformity to an extent reasonably practical, which is one of the conditions and one of the findings. And while it still provides access to the entrance of 29 7 Crescent, it eliminates the encroachment onto the adjacent property. It also fits the neighborhood character and matches with several other non-conforming entries on the block. As we saw previously in the slide, these are a lot of narrow, long property parcels. And a lot of them have entry points that go up rather steeply and are built into the setback because there's really no other choice for some of these properties. So with that, we recommend approval of the nonconformity permit. Thank you very much and happy to take questions. |
| 00:58:21.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Mendich. Just a quick question clarifying this. When you take out the deck, what's going to happen on the abutting? What are they putting back on the abutting property? Are they just filling it in with mulch? Is it still inside their fence? What are they doing with it? |
| 00:58:38.97 | Matthew Mandich | So that is a pretty steep, it's a drop off right there. So it kind of drops down pretty quick. So there's going to be, the deck's just going to replace like for like with, um, with tracks decking, which is wooey approved, um, rather than wood. And, um, the idea is to try to keep all of the construction on that side of the property and not encroach onto any neighboring properties, but I don't think there's going to be any mulch or anything put down. I can let the applicant speak on that in a second. |
| 00:59:03.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. I only ask that question because I point out that in the public works conditions, they added something that said all work shall be performed only on the above mentioned property, but in order to get the deck off of the abutting property, they obviously have to probably work a little bit on the abutting property or something. |
| 00:59:23.86 | Matthew Mandich | Potentially, yes. And I think if they need to do that, then I think we have an agreement in place with the neighbor that that's going to be okay to be able to get over there. And again, I'll let the applicant and the owner discuss that a little bit and answer those questions in more detail. But obviously, the majority of the work, they're going to try to stay as much on the property as possible and, you know, pull it back and keep it towards that way and keep all the construction there. there's really not again with the way that the property is kind of situated in that little valley we pointed out in the topa survey it's really steep right there so there's not a lot of work you can really do from the other side. You kind of have to be on the 2729 Crescent side to kind of pull that stuff away because that's the surface you have to work with because it is a pretty steep drop there. |
| 00:59:23.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But... |
| 00:59:34.93 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:00:02.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:00:02.12 | Matthew Mandich | We're good. |
| 01:00:02.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Questions of Commissioner Feller? |
| 01:00:06.67 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you for another great presentation. I just want you to confirm, if you could, I didn't see any public comment come in on this in writing. I just wanted to ask you as the planner if you had any communications with any neighbors or anybody within the sphere of influence. |
| 01:00:26.30 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you for the question, Commissioner. No, we have not received anything. We did do the noticing 10 days in advance, 300-foot radius, posted the site as well physically. And we had no comments from any neighbors or anyone else in the community. |
| 01:00:38.42 | Kristina Feller | Right. Well, I certainly appreciate the project and I appreciate the applicant being proactive in taking care and cleaning up you know, their property here in Sausalito, we have a number of these circumstances and I really appreciate the applicant being proactive. So no more questions, Chair, thank you. |
| 01:00:55.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Any other questions from commissioners? With that, we'll have the applicant do his presentation. |
| 01:01:03.46 | Unknown | Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioners. |
| 01:01:10.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you could give your name and address for the record, and you have up to 15 minutes, and if there is any public comment, if you want to reserve any of your time, and whatever time you don't use can be reserved for response if there is any public comment. |
| 01:01:22.34 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you, Planning Commission. Staff did a great presentation on describing our project. Like he mentioned, all we're doing is building it, bringing it up to conformance. Right now, we are three inches over the adjacent property owner. We have full communication with the neighbor. They're very friendly. They understand that we're fixing the project and... |
| 01:01:24.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:01:45.92 | Unknown | to answer the chair's comment about does the owner, are we gonna be on this side during construction? We might be a little bit, the owner is, we already spoke to them in writing, the owner is here, has very good communication with the neighbor. Like I said, we're trying to fix the three inches over. We're trying to just stay on our property. And at the same time, We don't want anyone falling. We don't want anyone getting hurt on the site. So it's really just building like for like. We plan to make it, you know, it's going to look beautiful. So that's our goal. So everything, the owner does have experience in building. He's very, has a lot of experience. So project should be short. So there should not be a lot of noise. It should be quick. But that, I hope I answered everyone's question. |
| 01:02:36.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. With that, we will open it up for public comment. Anybody in the audience wanting to comment should fill out a speaker card. Seeing none, anybody on Zoom should raise your hand in the Zoom application. Director Phipps, is there anybody on Zoom? |
| 01:02:55.27 | Director Phipps | Chair, we have one raised hand. That is Robert Metzger. Robert, please unmute yourself, and you will have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:03:01.82 | Robert Metzger | Thank you. Robert Mitzker. My wife is next to me, Patty Gluski. We are the the new owners of the property in 324 Sausalito Boulevard, which is one of those that, uh, has been approached upon by the stack. Uh, You know, we're kind of new to this process. not living in the property now we're making plans to bring it up to spec. permits and get city approvals as necessary down the street. on an apartment, Second Street, right? So, So, first, uh, We looked at the staff report from the Planning Commission, which said that the approachment. onto adjacent properties would be. to move. that, um, Then I heard it said, that during this hearing, that the encroachment He produced. we would like it to be removed as opposed to reduced. uh, second, We were aware that the owner was considering this the action. but we've never agreed to it in writing. We were informed, but there's no way written agreement. our principal concerns is making sure that there's no encroachment when the work is done. We do not expect to be resident during the period of the work itself. a long way to go in our own planning process. but you can understand that it's important to us have the encroachment completely as opposed to reduced but for me. |
| 01:04:52.18 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:04:52.52 | Robert Metzger | Oh, and I, and my wife mentioned since I have just a second, So we want also, of course, to be sure that after the encroachment is removed, that there will be no damage or hazard on our property that was the subject of encroachment But, now will be changed. by the construction that's necessary to build a new deck. |
| 01:05:17.93 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 01:05:18.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 01:05:21.88 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that the encroachment will be entirely removed. That is how it is proposed in the plan set. I don't know if it was mentioned reduced or not. Reduced to the extent of removing it entirely from the properties. And again, there are two properties that are overlapped. One is the neighbor at 21 Crescent, which I believe Mike and Fernando have had more contact with rather than yourself at 324 Saucoletal Boulevard. But I'm also wanted to turn it over to the owner, Mike, here to just say a few words about that. |
| 01:05:51.43 | Kristina Feller | We need to take him to overcome. |
| 01:05:53.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Mr. Metzger, are you done with your public comment at this point? Okay, thank you very much. With that, we will turn it back over to the applicant. We had how much time remaining? Pardon? 14, but we have plenty of time. |
| 01:06:14.62 | Director Phipps | And just for the record, there are no additional public comments. |
| 01:06:17.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There are no additional public comments. So we'll close the public comment portion of this hearing and we'll turn it over to you as the applicant. And you can use up to you. You've got up to 14 minutes. No. |
| 01:06:26.93 | Mike Kunzik | No, it'll be short. I'm Mike Kunzik. Hi, I'm the owner of 2729 Crescent. Just to clarify that the encroachment would be removed and it would be off of bringing back to the property line to zero. And to elaborate on the situation where you said the removal as far as getting onto their property to do so. At the present time, there's actually nothing built physically in the ground on their address. Okay. It is actually cantilevered. property to do so. At the present time, there's actually nothing built physically in the ground on their address. Okay. It is actually cantilevered out. Okay. And the actual posts sit back approximately about a foot from the property line. But the way we're going to build it, the post will be cantilevered. It would be cantilevered, I believe, two feet. We have a two foot cantilever. So there's no encroachment whatsoever onto their property. not even a surcharge from the soil. So anyway, with that, that's all I wanted to get clarified. And it is steep. We couldn't stand there. If we wanted to, we wouldn't want to. But right now, I believe it's ivy and dirt. Okay, that's all that's there. But I would definitely... Now, to picture this, though, the building was built in 1947. And I don't know if it was over the property line at that time or not. But in 1983, there's a permit list there of all the permits that were pulled. There's a permit pulled in 1983 It doesn't have documentation other than the permit paperwork, but that was to replace the stairs and the steps at that location. Now, in 1979, it was remodeled again. and built over the property line. I mean, those must've been the days where you could do whatever you want, but we live in a different time now. We don't build onto the neighbor's property. Um, But having said that, it has been over the property line for many, many years. And we plan to pull it back to where it belongs. And we've already had building approval. to have a less than 36 inch travel or pathway to the door. So we've kind of covered our bases here. Anyway, that's it. I appreciate you guys. Thank you very much. Just my first time speaking public. I'm a carpenter by trade. |
| 01:08:42.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you so much. With that, with the public hearing closed, we'll bring it back up to the dais here. I will point the commission the direction of the attached resolution and conditions of approval. I will note, which I raised during the session, that item three has a statement, as all work shall be performed only on the above response property. I would encourage the commission that we take that sentence out. This is under public works because the rest of that paragraph indicate if any work is anticipated across the property line, they should go and submit to DPWA legal written authorization. So with that, we don't need the first sentence, which is confusing when we know it's over the property line. So if we take that out, the rest of it solves the issue that was raised by the abutter, because he wants to make sure he's contacted, which he would be under this condition. With that, I turn it over to the Commissioner of Thoughts on what you want to proceed or if you want to do a motion. |
| 01:09:45.55 | Nastassya Saad | Make a motion to approve the project with the stated edit from you, Chair. |
| 01:09:52.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Any questions? Director Phipps, can you please call roll? |
| 01:10:01.37 | Director Phipps | Happy to. Thank you, Chair Commissioner Saad. you |
| 01:10:03.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:10:03.56 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:10:03.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:10:03.68 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Graham. |
| 01:10:05.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:10:05.65 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Filler. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 01:10:06.82 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 01:10:06.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:10:08.44 | Andrew Junius | THE END OF |
| 01:10:11.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:10:11.78 | Kristina Feller | Congratulations. |
| 01:10:12.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next item is adjournment. |
| 01:10:17.01 | Kristina Feller | So moved. All those in favor? Aye. |
| 01:10:18.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All those are better. Thank you. I- |
| 01:10:21.65 | Director Phipps | Have a good evening. Thank you, commissioners. |
| 01:10:22.09 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |