| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.20 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:00:03.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well said. I'm going to call to order the October 25th meeting, regular meeting of the Sausalito Planning Commission. First item is call to order. Director Phipps. |
| 00:00:19.62 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg, and good evening to you and 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. With that, I will move to call roll, Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:00:39.69 | Katherine Spaulding | here. |
| 00:00:39.92 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:00:41.44 | Katherine Spaulding | Here. |
| 00:00:41.97 | Director Phipps | you Commissioner Feller. Here. Vice Chair Junius. Present. Chair Luxenberg. Here. All commissioners are present. Back to you, chair. |
| 00:00:43.10 | Katherine Spaulding | Here. |
| 00:00:46.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE END OF THE YEAR. Next item is approval of the agenda. I look for a motion. |
| 00:00:53.26 | Kristina Feller | So moved. Second. |
| 00:00:54.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director Phipps, please take roll. |
| 00:00:56.93 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Greff. |
| 00:00:57.74 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 00:00:57.76 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:00:57.96 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:00:57.98 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:00:59.35 | Director Phipps | Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. |
| 00:01:01.07 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:01:04.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:01:04.33 | Director Phipps | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:01:04.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:01:04.41 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Motion passes. |
| 00:01:05.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is public comments for items not on the agenda. Director Phipps, if you could give instructions, please. |
| 00:01:11.21 | Director Phipps | 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 would like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right, Maria Hernandez and Matthew Mandich. If you would like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when time has elapsed. Thank you. |
| 00:02:04.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | not seeing anything in the audience and not seeing anything on zoom. So we'll move on. The next item is approval of the planning commission minutes from October 11th. I look for a motion to approve. |
| 00:02:16.28 | Nastassya Saad | So moved. Thank you. |
| 00:02:17.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any discussion? Director Phipps, if you could take role. |
| 00:02:22.49 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Saad. Commissioner Graff. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:02:24.67 | Kristina Feller | Yes. Yes. |
| 00:02:29.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Next item is communications. Director Phipps, are there any updates at this time? |
| 00:02:36.38 | Director Phipps | No items of communication for me this evening. Thank you. |
| 00:02:39.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. For the commission, I have an update on the Parklet's working group. The Parklet working group met last week, and the staff will be sending to the city council for consideration by the end of the year a staff report along with the following. There will be a proposed ordinance that will allow the community development director to ministerially approve parklets uh it will be a simple revision to uh sausalito municipal code 17 16 20 which is the portion of the code that allows the community development director to issue permits for encroachment on public streets and property and in order to do that for parklets the staff will be sending to the city council for consideration two resolutions one to retire the emergency order that was provided for parklets and outdoor dining during the pandemic and then secondarily a resolution to approve a new parklet standards document developed by the staff and the working group that defines all of the standards for parklets. That resolution will also separately establish fees for parklets, and that will be all for the city council's consideration. and the staff will also be developing a formal application once that's approved by the city of council for people to submit on the parklet program and when they send this to the council they will be sending to the planning commission a copy of the Once that's approved by the city council for people to submit on the parklet program. And when they send this to the council, they will be sending to the planning commission, a copy of the of the transmittal to the planning commission as well. Any further comments on parklets? Any other working group updates or any other items of business from the commission? No. |
| 00:04:22.72 | Kristina Feller | None. |
| 00:04:22.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. With that, I will open up communications for public comment, if any. |
| 00:04:23.06 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:04:29.10 | Director Phipps | share looking to the zoom application for raised hands seeing none looking to the chamber audience for interested commenters seeing none back to you |
| 00:04:39.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | PB, David Ensign, He PB, David Ensign, He any ex parte communications from any of the commissioners. I will start with direct commissioner's thoughts. |
| 00:05:00.12 | Nastassya Saad | Nothing, no ex parte communications to declare, but I would like to declare I'm in within 1000 feet of 426 pine, but I intend to participate. I do not have any financial interest, according to section 18702.2, the Fair Political Practice Commission. So I intend to participate, but nothing else to declare. |
| 00:05:25.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair Jr. Nothing to declare. Uh, Commissioner Greff. |
| 00:05:31.69 | Richard Graef | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:05:34.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:05:35.62 | Kristina Feller | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:05:37.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will just declare that I visited the site at Fort 426 Pine. The owner, Jake Beyer, allowed me to access to the inside of the house and of the rear yard. There were no ex parte communications during that visit. I also visited 428 Pine Street, 104 Bonita, 19 Bonita, 11 Bonita, 505 Pine Street from the public way to view the story polls and look for view impacts. There were no ex parte communications on any of the visits, and I did not have any ex parte communications on 207 Woodward or 1000 Bridgeway. With that, we will move on to item 6A, which is 1000 Bridgeway. This is a design review permit encroachment agreement, minor use permit for parcel conversion of an existing parking lot into an outdoor garden and dining area. Mr. Mandich, assistant planner, if you could do your presentation, please. |
| 00:06:42.38 | Matthew Mandich | Hello, commissioners, good evening. So today the permits before you are an encroachment agreement associated design review permit and a minor use permit for the property at 1000 bridgeway concerning the restaurant taste of Rome. Next slide, please. Just a quick overview of the project location. I'm sure many of you are familiar. Right here at the corner of Bridgeway and Ensign Street and adjacent to public parking lot number four. Some aerial shots there for you. Next slide, please. So the request is for a design review permit and encroachment agreement. This is for the relocation of an existing driveway and driveway cut moving from its current location on Ensign Street to a proposed location on Humboldt Avenue. This relocation will also entail the relocation of three public parking stalls, one of which is a handicap accessible stall, as well as the removal of five on site private parking stalls for a new outdoor dining area, as well as a trash enclosure. There's also a minor use permit that is being requested that's been bumped up to the planning commission as it's associated with the design review and encroachment agreement. This is for the relocation of previous approved outdoor seating. It will amend previous conditional use permit from 2005, which allowed for 40 outdoor seats, partially on private and partially on public right of way. The new configuration will include 26 seats on private property and 14 remaining on the sidewalk on the public right of way. Again, a minor use permit is also required for outdoor dining seating of over 20 people on private property. Next slide. So I've gone with some pre-existing conditions here because this is kind of, this is the layout of the parking lot as it was prior to 2020 before COVID-19. There's been some changes with some outdoor dining and temporary COVID permits that we'll talk about in a second. But as you can see here, we have 13 parking spots in this space, in this private parking lot on site, 1000 Bridgeway. See those two right there. But if we move to our next slide we will see the current configuration which is the existing conditions um when outdoor dining was given temporary permits uh on june 4th 2020 by a city manager emergency order um shortly after this is when we have these parking spaces and there was a trash enclosure here trash enclosure was relocated to this parking spot here. Outdoor dining setups with tables and coverings here, tent like structures, and then two of these spaces also being used for outdoor dining. So this is the current existing conditions of the site can see that the driveway cut is right here. And then here are some of the parking spaces, the public parking spaces that we'll be discussing today. Next slide, please. Just again to give you some photos of this. Again, driveway cut here on Ensign Street, which currently goes through this kind of outdoor dining area that we have sent up temporary outdoor dining area, just a different view kind of looking to the northeast of that same driveway and driveway cut. Next slide please. And these are just some close ups of the outdoor dining areas that are not really in use in these photos, but you can see the two spots right here and as well the two spots right there, which are being taken up by those tables right now. Next slide, please. This is the existing trash enclosure right here in that spot that we've discussed on the previous existing conditions map. Next slide. And here is the public parking that was referenced stall 580 stall 581 and next slide please stall 582 which is the handicapped saw here. So moving on to the proposed project before you today. We can see that The change will be for moving that driveway cut, which you saw in the previous photos here, which is entering the private driveway in the on-site parking lot here, from Ensign Street to Humboldt Avenue. It will also entail the relocation of several of these parking places, one of which will be demolished for the entry drive. One will be slightly moved forward, and the very large handicap, which is a van-ac excessively large spot will be divided into two parking spaces. And that handicap spot will be moved into this location here on Ensign Street, next to the other handicap with the crosshatched area in between. Trash and closure will remain in its place, but it will be a new structure, a new more permanent structure, 174 square feet. And we also have done some additional or the, excuse me, the applicant has done some additional handicap accessibility lines here to allow for easier access across this parking area into the restaurant. So these are the main changes that we'll be looking at today. Talk about the outdoor dining area itself will be right here. There will be a wall put up, which will discuss all these aspects in a little bit more detail as we go through. But this will be the outdoor dining area with the associated landscaping, lighting, and a wall, a seven foot tall, 53 foot long wall that will now make the spot, make this dining location safer. It will have the traffic going around it, not through it. And we'll make for more aesthetically pleasing and attractive corner here on Insight and Humboldt Avenue. Next slide. This is just a close up again of the parking situations. So this is the existing parking here. There are those two spots, stall 580, 581, and 582, which is the very large handicap spot we can see there. And here's the proposed parking diagram. We'll be losing spot 581 or stall 580. Stall 580 will be sliding forward. And then the remaining space will be used for two stalls right here for the new driveway entering on Humboldt Avenue. Next slide. Just a little bit of a visuals to show you a little bit of what that would kind of look like again moving that spot forward one foot 12 inches here driveway would go through spot 581 entering here next slide. Next slide please. And then this would be the division of the two spots. I know this is, these are smaller than it would be. It's a kind of a wonky photo here with the wide angle lens and stuff, but this is where those two spots would then be placed. So we'd have no net loss of parking as part of this proposal. So focusing in a little bit more on the proposed outdoor dining area, this would take up part of those two spots that were here and as well as out here. We'd have 26 seats in this area, as previously mentioned. Here's just an elevation of what that wall would look like. Here's the gate right here. There's the gate right there. So this would be the new and improved outdoor dining area. It would be repaved, relandscaped. There'd be some planners here, several tables, as we can see, and some light posts, which we'll see on the next slide in a little more detail. There we are. So this is kind of the planting schedule right here. This is the lamppost, two plants hanging from there. There'll be three of these, one there, one there, and one here. There'll be some planters. And I know I see you straining a bit with the drawings. I know they're a little tough. These are hand-drawn architectural diagrams, but There'll be some planters right here. These will be fixed into the ground. There'll be some pipe bollards as well to protect from any errant cars coming across. Again, this driveway will be filled in. So this has just become a traditional sidewalk going by here. And the new driveway cut will then protect diners with the wall that we saw in the previous slide. And there'll be, Different types of landscaping going on. There's a tree that will remain here. Another tree will be inserted. There'll be some wall vines and some succulents and general ground cover. So it should be a nice repaved with some different styles of pavements as well, terracotta. So it should be a very nice, aesthetically pleasing improvement to this corner here on Bridgeway. which all traffic heading northbound, we'll see, as they come across. This is the proposed trash enclosure. Again, I think an improvement on the current situation that we have right now. So it'll take up that entire space. It's a little bit larger, 174 square feet, 18 by 9 feet, which is pretty much the entire parking space. As you can see here, doors entering on there, exiting. Bay Cities has agreed to service this trash enclosure as they service the one that is currently there right now. So that's already been taken care of. And yeah, I think after that, we can move on to recommendations. Yep. So... In sum, staff recommends approval of the design review permit and a recommendation of approval for the encroachment agreement. Staff finds that the proposed project is in conformance with the findings for the required design review permit from the SMC 1054 chapter. Staff also finds that the proposed project is in conformance with the encroachment agreements findings listed in 1056 and supports recommendation of the Planning Commission for City Council approval for that encroachment agreement. As discussed, there will be no net loss in public parking. There will be some relocation and shifting of those parking places, but no net loss. As far as the loss of the private stalls on site, there will be five that will be permanently lost. However, due to a law passed September of last year, AB 2097, this prohibits local municipalities from imposing parking minimums on commercial developments that are less than 0.5 miles from a major transit stop. The ferry landing does qualify as a major transit stop under the section of government code, and the location of the restaurant is 0.3 miles from the ferry landing, so falls within that category. Finally, staff recommends approval of the minor use permit and finds that the proposed project is in conformance with the required findings for minor use permits from 1058. Next slide please. Just some key conditions of approval that I want to talk about. Obviously, the list of the resolution is much longer and features a lot of boilerplate conditions of ours, but I just wanted to point out that the new minor use permit being sought here will supersede the previously issued conditional use permits and this will be for the 26 outdoor seating on private property as well as the 14 on public property on the sidewalk. This will also require the issuance of the sidewalk dining encroachment agreement by the Community Development Department as well as the issuance of an encroachment permit by DPW. So that concludes my presentation. Thank you very much for your time and I'm happy to take any questions. |
| 00:16:54.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr man is Thank you very much. I want to say this is was an excellent report and excellent presentation also appreciated the. permit list update in your staff report because it gives you the history and makes it clear what's being asked what was previously approved, so it was well appreciated with that i'll open up to questions from Commissioners. |
| 00:17:17.42 | Andrew Junius | uh, |
| 00:17:18.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But you're sad. |
| 00:17:19.13 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 00:17:19.68 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. It was an excellent report. If we could just go back to the drawing... I just want to make sure I'm understanding the gate, I suppose, and the wall. So on the side where Ensign is currently, where the sidewalk will be filled in, there's no proposed gate over there. That's going to remain open sidewalk, like you mentioned. |
| 00:17:38.38 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, correct. Open sidewalk, there will be some fixed planters right here. That's kind of what this rectangular shape is that you're seeing. There's gonna be some fixed potted plants in there. But the gate and the elevation of the wall that we're seeing will be on this side here. So that's the wall. And then here's the gate and here's the gate. |
| 00:17:53.69 | Nastassya Saad | And is that intended for people to go through to the parking lot or park in and come through? |
| 00:17:58.73 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, that would be access to the parking lot. Yeah. |
| 00:18:00.12 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Okay. Um, |
| 00:18:02.56 | Matthew Mandich | And there's other ways to access too. If you didn't want to go through, you can obviously go around this side, which is get you to where that handicap access point was that we saw in the other diagram. |
| 00:18:05.58 | Nastassya Saad | go around. |
| 00:18:11.45 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. And then are there any concerns with like any ingress or egress going into that new turn that's coming off of Humboldt? |
| 00:18:18.56 | Matthew Mandich | This one here, if we go back, I think a couple of slides, Maria, we might be able to see that there's a turning rate. Yeah. So one, one forward. Yeah, there is. So there's a turning radius that was put in here by the architect. And this was confirmed by DPW that this is an acceptable radius to get in. I, |
| 00:18:19.51 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. All right. |
| 00:18:36.55 | Matthew Mandich | do agree that it's probably a little bit tight, so you're going to take it slow, but it is definitely an acceptable turning radius by DPW standards. |
| 00:18:42.88 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I was just confirming that they also checked it out. And then what, can we talk about that second tree? Cause there is one existing at the corner. I believe. So what is that second tree and where is that gonna be placed? |
| 00:18:50.03 | Matthew Mandich | Correct. I believe it's on the planting schedule. So if we could skip forward a few slides. Yeah. right here. And I think it's going to be placed kind of in the middle right here. I can let the applicant speak on that a little bit more. He is here today and the owner and applicant. So they could talk a little bit more about the location of that tree, but yeah, you're correct. That's the tree that's existing on the corner right here. And I believe the other one will be. |
| 00:19:16.98 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, great. Thank you. |
| 00:19:17.67 | Matthew Mandich | I'm sorry. Yeah. |
| 00:19:18.35 | Nastassya Saad | That's all I have. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:19:20.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Saad, Vice Chair of Juniors. |
| 00:19:24.71 | Andrew Junius | Uh, |
| 00:19:25.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:19:25.20 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. you |
| 00:19:25.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Click sugar. |
| 00:19:26.03 | Andrew Junius | No? Commissioner Phillips. |
| 00:19:27.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you again for a great report. Just a couple quick questions to make sure that when we're looking at this, it's clean. Are there any considerations or conditional approval regarding serving alcohol outside or ABC approval, or do they already have that |
| 00:19:45.43 | Matthew Mandich | So yeah, they already have ABC approval and approval to serve outside longstanding restaurant. It's been running with the land for a long time. So yeah, that was something I looked into as well, just to make sure. And I don't think that any of the changes here are going to affect the current situation. They already have the license to serve on private and public property. And I think that the division here by the planters and the bollards and the landscaping will kind of keep that in an enclosed area which i know the the abc licensing prefers to have the alcohol contained um within a space so um yeah i can look into that more and get additional no i just want to make sure that |
| 00:19:50.11 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:19:50.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:24.41 | Kristina Feller | No, I just want to make sure that while it's here, all of that's clean and |
| 00:20:27.21 | Matthew Mandich | I love that. |
| 00:20:28.97 | Kristina Feller | And, um, And that's clear to the owner as well. |
| 00:20:33.80 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:20:34.02 | Kristina Feller | And then I just wanted to ask about the handicap spot on Humboldt and make sure that that's not creating an issue for Seahorse restaurant next door. |
| 00:20:38.05 | Unknown | I'm humbled. |
| 00:20:46.01 | Matthew Mandich | Oh, right, for Seafood Peddler, yes. |
| 00:20:48.28 | Kristina Feller | Sorry, seafood palace. |
| 00:20:48.90 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. No problem at all. Yeah, no, I mean... That one, I don't believe will create any problems for Seaford Bedlar. I've not been in touch with them directly. It is a public parking stall. It's an extremely long spot. It's about 30 feet, 31 feet long in its current situation. And I believe that moving that spot over to Ensign Street, it puts it next to another handicapped spot. And then the handicapped accessible spot that's in the private parking lot itself will provide, I think, adequate handicapped parking. And I don't see that being a major good point, but I think that's a really good point. |
| 00:21:03.36 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:21:30.23 | Matthew Mandich | There we go. So yeah, this is kind of where 1000 Bridgeway ends and where Seafood Peddler begins. So talking about this kind of portion right here. That's in question. But yeah, I mean, these spots right there will all remain unchanged. And I don't anticipate, you know, two cars being able to park here is much different than the current situation. |
| 00:21:36.32 | Unknown | Talk to you. |
| 00:21:49.67 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Honestly, I, this enhances. this particular property a lot and it makes a lot more sense. So thank you for answering those questions. |
| 00:22:00.11 | Matthew Mandich | Absolutely. |
| 00:22:01.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | PB, David Ensign, Thank you, Commissioner fellow at this time, Mr cuts on behalf of the owner Thomas young are either them going to do a presentation. |
| 00:22:11.70 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, the owner, Thomas Young, is here, and I believe he has a couple of things to say. |
| 00:22:14.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, we will go to that presentation. You'll have 15 minutes. And if you want to reserve some time in case there's any public comment, please do so. You need to come to the microphone because it's telecast, so. |
| 00:22:29.02 | Unknown | to the mayor. |
| 00:22:29.42 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Richard. |
| 00:22:30.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:32.77 | Kristina Feller | This is being recorded, so you need to be up at the mic. |
| 00:22:36.82 | Thomas Young | Thank you. Thank you. on. Hello, my name is Thomas Young. I'm the owner of the building. Damith, the restaurateur is not here tonight. And I think Matthew did a fantastic job. We just want to kind of present something to the to the restaurant um patrons that they like what we did during the covet period seems to have been really embraced and i think this would just be a an enhancement to the city of Sausalito. So we'd like to go ahead and do that. Thank you. |
| 00:23:09.76 | Unknown | M |
| 00:23:09.92 | Thomas Young | I think Matthew kind of got all the points. I'm happy to answer any questions for you if you'd like. |
| 00:23:14.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. Did you have multiple copies or you just had one copy of that? |
| 00:23:19.17 | Thomas Young | It's just a sketch from the architect. It's just simple so you can visualize what it looks like if you go to sit. |
| 00:23:24.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, if you can show it to us and then show it to the camera. or whatever, if you could. You have copies. So if you pass out the copies to us and then the how does can the camera zoom in on it? |
| 00:23:40.11 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:23:41.14 | Alice Merrill | and post it. |
| 00:23:44.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then, Director Fuchs said you can post it at some point. |
| 00:23:56.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll let the camera focus before I move on. |
| 00:23:58.40 | Andrew Junius | I'll let the. |
| 00:24:13.24 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 00:24:14.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That looks good. At this point, we'll stop the timer and other questions of the of the owner. |
| 00:24:23.84 | Kristina Feller | No. |
| 00:24:24.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Gregg. |
| 00:24:26.62 | Richard Graef | Um, hmm. Thank you. Sheryl Luxembourg. big one for me. I would like to know a little bit more about the light fixture this proposed. There was a picture of it in the drawings And I don't have that. handy, but I want to know about the height of the light, the lamp. And also it said the LED fixture. And I want to to find out what kind of LED, what color light it is, because some LEDs are horrible. |
| 00:25:05.65 | Thomas Young | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:25:06.02 | Thomas Young | I don't want that. I know the height is in the drawings itself. I can't read it. It's 10 feet, but I tend to 11 feet. I'd have to pick 13. |
| 00:25:09.65 | Richard Graef | I can't read it. |
| 00:25:15.42 | Richard Graef | Eric Flint, Or, trend. |
| 00:25:16.13 | Thomas Young | That's to the top, right? And then the light comes down a little bit. |
| 00:25:18.97 | Richard Graef | Does it need to be that tall? |
| 00:25:19.25 | Thomas Young | Bye. Well, in order to get the lighting there, I'm understanding of what you're saying, right? The last thing I would want to do is blind anybody that's driving down on Bridgeway. So I'm happy to work on the lighting being the right brightness to make sure that that doesn't happen. Uh-huh. |
| 00:25:38.20 | David Berenson | Uh-huh. |
| 00:25:38.63 | Thomas Young | But according to the architect, that's the right size to have for the proposed square footage. |
| 00:25:48.45 | Richard Graef | Okay, and so as to the quality of the light, |
| 00:25:52.03 | Thomas Young | Well, so we haven't picked the actual fixture yet, but I will tell you, like the town center, we've been looking at the street life and the kind of all the items that they have there. So we're thinking of like the town center and Corte Madera, those types of fixtures, so high quality fixtures. very high end, right? At least the lights will be high end. and a couple of nice other pieces that'll be high end. But the most important thing, that the only thing that's really fixed in the whole garden will be the light fixture. So I do want those to be very nice. |
| 00:26:26.69 | Richard Graef | I know, I have no doubt that'll be, excuse me, a nice fixture. It's just... is it the right height and is it the right light quality? That's all I'm interested in. Well, I, |
| 00:26:41.28 | Thomas Young | Well, I'm trusting that my architect got the right lighting scheme so that it covers the square footage properly. |
| 00:26:50.45 | Richard Graef | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:26:53.80 | Andrew Junius | Other questions, Commissioner? |
| 00:26:55.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | OK, Commissioner Fowl? Vice Chair Junius. No. Okay. Thank you for your presentation. At this point, we will open this up for public comment. If anybody in the audience wants to speak, please fill out a speaker card and people and on zoom need to raise their hand in the zoom application. Sure, I am seeing it. |
| 00:27:18.31 | Director Phipps | I am seeing no raised hands in the Zoom application, and I have not received any speaker cards in connection with the site. |
| 00:27:23.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. Okay, thank you, Director Phipps. Mr. Young, do you have any other comments? You have extra time if you need it. No, thank you. With that, I'll bring it up to the dais. Pleasure of the commission, Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:27:38.25 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to kick this off and say I'm going to put a motion to approve. I think this is a great project. I think this is much needed, and I've been waiting for this. I frequent this cafe, and there have been very near accidents with the way it's currently set up, so very unsafe. So I think this is a huge improvement. Thank you for the visuals. I now understand. I couldn't quite tell from the landscape, so I have no issue with the tree. I was just trying to understand its placement. So I don't even have any extra conditions here. I would just make a motion to approve as is. Okay. |
| 00:28:07.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. Other comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Gray? |
| 00:28:13.59 | Richard Graef | Not really, it's just that Even if we... you feel the need to condition anything about the lights. That's the only thing I'm really concerned about. Um, |
| 00:28:27.34 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 00:28:28.32 | Richard Graef | I'm not quite sure what we would say exactly, but I don't know the specs that I'm looking for. |
| 00:28:34.67 | Kristina Feller | Can I make a recommendation? |
| 00:28:36.61 | Andrew Junius | research fellows. |
| 00:28:37.42 | Kristina Feller | I believe that the applicant referenced the Corte Madera Town Center. If we conditioned to have a light fixtures similar to that and allow them to work with staff to achieve that, would you be comfortable? Sounds good. OK. OK. I'd be down for that. |
| 00:28:59.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is that an amendment to the motion? |
| 00:29:01.48 | Kristina Feller | I'll make that amendment to the motion. |
| 00:29:02.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and the maker of the motion of acceptance. |
| 00:29:04.77 | Nastassya Saad | Definitely accept it. Thank you. |
| 00:29:06.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner, Vice Chair, Junior, any comments? |
| 00:29:09.70 | Andrew Junius | No comments. |
| 00:29:10.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I also want to congratulate the owner and the proprietor. This is an excellent plan. The current situation of having to go across that driveway is not very safe, but it has a nice area on the other side of the driveway. So this makes it much improved and be very important for the downtown, both for local residents and for our tourists. So I think it's an excellent plan. With that, if there are no more comments, Director Phipps, can you take the role? |
| 00:29:42.96 | Director Phipps | Yes, and if I could just restate for the record that this application is being approved with the condition that the applicant ensure that the quality of lighting provided within the parklet is similar to that of the Corte Madera Town Center. |
| 00:29:58.60 | Alice Merrill | Right. |
| 00:29:59.18 | Director Phipps | Very good. With that, I will call roll. Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Graff. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:30:01.45 | Alice Merrill | Yes. Yeah. you |
| 00:30:04.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:30:04.91 | Alice Merrill | Thanks. |
| 00:30:10.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We'll now move on to item 6B. And this is at 426 Pine Street. This is a design review permit with heightened review to allow substantial remodeling and additions to an existing single-story, single-family residence. Kristen, take the floor is yours. Thank you so much. |
| 00:30:37.70 | Unknown | Can we call up the plants |
| 00:30:43.56 | Unknown | All right. So I'm just going to start with a little background project sites located on the lower block of Pine Street between Caledonia and Bonita in the R3 multifamily zoning district. The residential lot currently is a standard rectilinear shape. It's about 3,600 square feet. Homes along this block are located in a side-by-side configuration and pretty much all the lots are fairly small. ranging from 2,800 to 4,800 square feet. Um, This particular property, because it's over 50 years, we did take a look at it with regard to sequence directions to determine if the home itself, had any historic merit. The applicant was on top of this and in on February 17th, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed their application and determined it was not. necessary to elevate this home to the historic inventory. So it is not protected under that. In addition, on July 25, 2023, you all may remember that this application was originally scheduled to be heard and a large group of people turned up. But prior to that hearing, the applicant became aware of the amount of concern raised by the neighbors and also We had discovered that there was a side yard setback issue that was non-compliant. So they requested that we put the application on hold and we agreed until they came in with revised design. |
| 00:32:14.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:14.77 | Unknown | Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you. and take it a little bit away. So the applicant now is requesting design review and heightened design review to extensively demolish, remodel, and expand the existing single-family residence. Proposed alterations include demolition of a portion of the rear of the structure, lifting it, and constructing a new ground story. And adding a third story on top for a master suite. They will also want to shift the existing single car driveway to the south side and provide two cars as required by code. And they would like to do some site improvements, including a built-in hot tub and a fire pit in the rear yard. The total proposed floor area is 2,192 square feet and a.61 FAR, which is consistent with the zoning regulations applicable to single-family homes in the R3 zoning district. for the size of this lot. The proposed design of finishes present a contemporary three-story home with seven-inch horizontal nickel-gap siding that would have a burnt finish, black window trim, brown wood fascia boards, standing seam metal roofing with a weathered patina, a mix of solid and cedar glass railings around the decks, and a vertical entry door with black trims. In addition, on the rooftop decks, the applicants designed them to provide both sheltered and exposed spaces. with privacy walls, partial roof lines, and open beams that mimic the extension and extension of the roof line. To further support the proposal, applicant did provide, and we provided to you, a written address of the findings, An arborist letter that indicated the tree located at 428 pine would survive pruning back to make room for this home. In a shadow study, both in the plans and then a revised submittal that was received today and posted late on the agenda. And hopefully you may have had some time to look at that. I'm sure the applicant will go through it with you. Applicable code sections for this property because it's a single family in the R3. We took a good look at it and it does meet the floor area, lot coverage, height limits, impervious surfaces, setbacks and on-site parking. And as discussed in the report, this included some amendments to the applicable zoning standards based on the particular lot and the proposal. They did get a reduced side yard setback. It's a minimum setback required is four foot six inches. The applicant exceeds that by one inch on the north side. And it's five foot three on the south. A reduction of the permitted floor is required because it's a single family in the R2, and that applied also to the lock coverage and the impervious surfaces, and that was all checked and is in compliance. And this subject, this site is also subject to heightened design review due to the fact that the proposed primary residence is reaching 80% of the permitted FAR and lot coverage and impervious surfaces. When taking the required design review into and heightened design review findings into consideration, staff generally finds that although the design does not strongly reflect this prevailing character of the neighborhood. It does introduce a distinctive and creative architectural solution. that takes advantage of the site's limitations. while still stepping the structure back and in line with surrounding structures. The proposed three-story design allows the applicant to fully utilize the permitted floor area. And the third-story rooftops at the front and rear also, combined with the rear yard improvements, maximize their outdoor opportunities. Privacy screens along the south side and extended roof lines would somewhat screen the decks from view and reduce views towards the property to the south. |
| 00:36:19.67 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:36:21.09 | Unknown | Further, the three-story design is similar in scale with other structures in the surrounding neighborhood. Even the two-story structure next door on the right side, I think it's Fort 24. There, although the only two stories have a very steep peaked roof that is close to, but not quite as tall as the proposed home. When viewed from the street, the proposed scale would be somewhat mitigated due to the 19 foot front yard setback and the step back placement of the third story. However, the commission should note, and probably has already, that the property owner at 428 Pine and 104 Bonita, located immediately to the south of this site, has expressed quite a few concerns about the design and its potential impact on their property. Staff did visit the site. We viewed the story poles from both the bedrooms and the backyard of the site. And we note that the yard and the bedrooms are currently not really afforded significant views of the water or other features we normally protect, but they are afforded privacy from 426 Pine and a view of the skyline and access to sunlight and air. Um, |
| 00:37:34.38 | Unknown | It appears when you take a look at those story polls from these features on the adjacent property that this three-story wall plane combined with the extended roof line and privacy screens on the front and rear decks. would reduce access to light and air from the yard at 428 Pine in bedrooms of one of our Bonita streets. And additionally, the placement of the rear deck at the mid in the mid level living room window could impact privacy to the bedroom windows of 104 Bonita. Although the proposed residence at 426 Pine complies with all the minimum side yard setbacks, the setback does not appear to adequately offset the impact that the proposed scale of the structure being three stories. with a sort of unrelieved wall plane might have. if you determine it does at 426 Pine. So we also did receive at the very last minute some concerns from 19 Bonita, which staff did not have time to evaluate, but they had concerns regarding their views of the waterfront. over the top of this building. Due to the observations discussed, Steph, is concerned that the findings for design review number seven and nine and the findings for heightened design Number two, may not be able to be made. Find the findings for design review in particular, require the provision of adequate light and retention of reasonable privacy and light to the adjacent properties. And finding two of the heightened design review says that the site should be configured adequate width and depth to provide yard spaces and setbacks proportional to the size of the structure. It appears some reconsideration of the southerly side of this structure and its potential impacts might be warranted if the Commission determines that it is. Although there are many ways to achieve this goal, their staff report did provide you with a few options, including just removing the roof lines over the decks to reduce the loss of light and air. reducing the rear deck extension where it extends beyond the rear of the property because it feels when you're standing there that they may get a clear view into the windows of the home of 104 Benita. And modification of the second floor family room window, because it appears to be looking at one of Orbanita as well. And maybe even some staggering of the elevation to give it a little relief and provide for a little more light to come through. Um, Those are just ideas that may or may not have merit, but I wanted to give you some thoughts on that. So at this point, we're recommending the Planning Commission consider concerns raised above and determine if the requisite findings can be made. based on the proposed design for on a design perhaps that would include some minor modifications. That concludes my report. |
| 00:40:34.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mystique, thank you for your report. And at this point, we're going to have the commissioners ask questions of staff, and then we'll have a presentation by the applicant. Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:40:47.04 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:40:47.07 | Kristina Feller | I'm not right this now, but I might. |
| 00:40:49.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:40:51.51 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question for you. The findings that staff were not able to make were those discussed with the applicant before this hearing tonight. |
| 00:41:04.49 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:41:05.64 | Kristina Feller | OK, so they were not aware. |
| 00:41:05.86 | Unknown | Yes. that. |
| 00:41:06.99 | Kristina Feller | that. |
| 00:41:07.53 | Unknown | Not until the staff report was provided to him. We had provided... |
| 00:41:07.70 | Kristina Feller | Not until this. |
| 00:41:11.29 | Unknown | commentary in during the review that the building made. be a bit large in scale and have some impacts, but I don't know particularly what the prior planner said to them before this project was transferred to me. |
| 00:41:27.89 | Director Phipps | If I may, Commissioner, staff is not taking any positions on whether or not a finding can be made. What we're doing this evening is expressing some concern over a couple of the findings. Whether or not those findings can be made is ultimately up to the commission. |
| 00:41:36.89 | Kristina Feller | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:41:42.46 | Kristina Feller | Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. Are there any variances that are being requested with this application? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:41:51.86 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:41:52.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller, Commissioner Sade. |
| 00:41:55.99 | Kristina Feller | No questions. |
| 00:41:56.51 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 00:41:56.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair Junius. Okay. Thank you for... |
| 00:42:00.38 | Richard Graef | I do have one more. I can't come up with a question. |
| 00:42:01.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | One more. |
| 00:42:02.76 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:42:02.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 00:42:03.03 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:42:04.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Go ahead, Commissioner Graff, sorry. |
| 00:42:04.77 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Okay, we're on. Could you clarify when you spoke about one side of the building that you I think you made reference to The south side. Need some articulation or something. Can you clarify which side of the building, like on this drawing? |
| 00:42:18.61 | Unknown | The South Side. |
| 00:42:25.91 | Unknown | It'd be the left side on that line. |
| 00:42:26.82 | Richard Graef | on that going. Uh-huh. Okay. Got it. Thank you. You're welcome. |
| 00:42:32.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for that. I also have that question as well, because when I look at a plan, it appears to be the west side. But it's labeled on the drawings as the south side left elevation. But it seems to be, yes, I agree with you. Thank you for your presentation. At this point, we will have, will it be |
| 00:42:45.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:45.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:58.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh mr grabham on behalf of mr weyer and those glazy uh yes okay uh mr gradham if you could come up you'll have 15 minutes if you want to save some of your time in case there's public comment that you want to respond to you should reserve that accordingly |
| 00:43:16.81 | David Grabham | I have one of my BIM specialists at our office, and he's going to do a Zoom screen share, if that's possible. |
| 00:43:25.92 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:43:26.86 | David Grabham | Thank you. |
| 00:43:30.83 | David Grabham | I guess I'll get started. Good evening, Planning Commission. Thank you for volunteering your time to hear our application today. We've put in over a year and a half of work into this project personally, and I know that the Bayer family has put in a year besides that to get to this point. I'm working with several different planners and finally got here. So my name is David Grabham. I'm the owner of G Design, G Family Construction Design Build Firm in Marin. Over 100 employees, done over 700 projects in Marin, many in Sausalito. I'd like to start my presentation with a 3D visual fly around we did of the models that show the scale of the two adjacent properties. And if you just note the two story actually has a garage below. So third story, third story deck, second story deck, privacy screen. And this was kind of where we started our project, looking at the two adjacent homes. You can see that 104 Bonita and 428 Pine Street basically covers their whole entire lot. If you added those two houses together, it would be substantially larger than the project we're pushing for today. The proposed modernization traditional home was designed through an extensive collaboration with our clients, Jake and Georgia, the neighbors, several Zoom meetings with neighbors, outreaches to have a model review with neighbors. And lots and lots of time spent with the planning staff down in Sausalito. |
| 00:44:53.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:53.28 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:44:53.35 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 00:45:19.74 | David Grabham | we Tried to minimize impacts through conscious design from the start, trying to accommodate both neighbors on each side while addressing possible view impacts from all directions in a very high density neighbor, basically in Jake's backyard neighborhood. There's houses all the way around. It's very hard to have any privacy or any kind of yard. But basically what we were looking at first was the direction of the sun and how to avoid blocking light. And then the other thing we were looking at was setbacks between the houses. And if you look at 420, 4 Pine Street, which is the brown shingled house on the side, they're right on the property line. So in order to try to achieve a bigger setback, most of the development happened on the 428 side, which basically has the 10 foot setback. So you can see we stepped back the addition on their side. So when you're looking at the house from the front, you're looking at basically an even setback on either side. And as everyone knows, the sun goes back behind the hill over 428, which means we were trying to avoid. shadowing the whole front of 424 Pines and also their back rear decks. Um, |
| 00:46:45.89 | David Grabham | We also have a 19-foot front yard setback, as the planning commission said, which gives relief to the front yard. And we try to do some nice planter boxes in the front, which allows for just a more friendly front entry and neighborhood feel. um sustainability was prioritized in this project uh trying to get above the neighbors in the giant maple tree to provide some solar array for the project and batteries. which is, I know, something that is pushed for in the planning department. obviously today high-efficiency windows, quality insulation. We used recycled actually siding material, which we have a sample of, and decking electrical heat and forced air to work with the solar panels. One of the main reasons we put those roofs on the back deck is when you remove the addition, actually, Lamb, can you show a site plan? Yeah. Privacy angle one. Let me see if I can get over here. So if you look at, back deck here this is the third floor deck we tried to offset with the third floor deck and privacy wall on this side and so this is the front house this is the bedroom all of their main living area and all that gets great sun on this side the kitchen is right here right now when you're in for 24 pine street you're looking from a bedroom right into their kitchen window and so one of the things we did was actually create a drop down right here. We dug down two feet, put a retaining wall right here so that the first story, the main living level of Jake's family would actually be looking at the fence instead of four feet off the ground and looking right into 428's windows. Additionally, that allowed the second story not to line up with 424 windows also. Unfortunately, there's two houses on this property very close to the setback. And these windows actually do line up, except not the mass of the house. So we took the mass of the house and tried to offset the windows so that we're not looking view to view, which you can see right here. We're looking at the fence right here with the privacy screen. And then we're looking over their existing window right now. The floor is right here, looking right into these windows through several of the rooms. Then, of course, over right here. And then these windows are staggered with this lower level. Let's see. See an angle of them. Um, This is working with the neighbors and changing our roof lines. This is our original, sorry, it's hard to see from over here. This is our original model. You can see the gable roof goes all the way front to back, gives us a really nice solar array. And when we met with the neighbor up the hill, he had a little bit of a view right through here although his view is basically the whole entire bay he was specifically concerned with this little view right here and so we went through and made an adjustment here and actually Jake and I made story polls and went out there on the weekend and temporary story polls and met with him three times and redid the story post three times to try to recapture that view for him we also had met with uh 428 and his concerns at that point were the windows aligning which we cut a section and showed him how the windows don't align and his also concern was that he wasn't going to get sunlight back to his property but the way we designed this actually is with this giant tree right here and setting everything in the heart of the house. This tree blocks most of his light. And then there's only a three-foot pathway between the two properties, which his other house blocks the other most of his light. the window right here and we can see from the sun study in the highest point of the year it's a little bit of sun at nine until around 9 30 and we actually the reason we resubmitted our sun study was because we just so it was mentioned that it was incorrect and we wanted to confirm and show everybody that it was correct. So we took this picture at 9.35 a.m. on 10-19 and then we show our sun study at 9.35 a.m. on 10-19 and it shows the existing and the new that there's no change on those windows at all. So this was our revision we submitted which was just a confirmation of our sun study to show our accuracy of how we did the sun study. |
| 00:50:14.33 | Unknown | you. |
| 00:52:01.15 | David Grabham | So when we went into this project, like I said, our biggest concern was light and air in space over to 424. They support our project because they saw all the work we did. This is an example of looking toward 428 Pine Street. This is the windows on the lower level looking into the fence or green screen hedge. this bedroom window. We also put the bedrooms on this side because This is the windows on the lower level looking into the fence or green screen hedge. This bedroom window, we also put the bedrooms on this side because during the day he'll be in his kitchen at night, the bedrooms will be used by the kids and theoretically they're out of their kitchen doing other things. But basically the view out of this bedroom window is in front. This one is right in the heart of the tree. This one is in the tree. This is the only window that looks back. The windows to Benita are here, so you'd have to basically walk up to that front window and look like this to see the bedroom at Benita, which most of the time those windows are screened from what we've seen. Second floor deck, green screen. We actually had a wall screen here before. And then third floor deck screen is above Benita. This is a bathroom window, which would have privacy glass. This is privacy glass also. This is a mirror. |
| 00:52:27.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:52.33 | Unknown | here. |
| 00:52:56.43 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:53:23.75 | David Grabham | This figure shows the existing structure right here. And right now there's a big addition, which basically means there's almost no yard right now for Jake's family. And they have three young kids, and they're in their yard all the time. This part was legal, nonconforming, just like most of the rest of the neighborhood. But once this got taken off, that exposed these windows right here. and so what we did was we added back in the deck and then we put the privacy screen on the deck to try to block those windows from, for Jake's sake and his property and his background, but also for 428 Pine Street's own privacy, creating livable space, but a private backyard, which is not easy in this situation, but we tried to think outside the box and do that. These screens also provide wind coming over the hill, which is tremendous wind coming over the hill. And what these screens do is they provide privacy between the yards. They also provide availability to actually use the deck. I lived in Sausalito myself up on Edwards, and I know that the summer is almost unusable outside. So this just gives them a wind shelter that provides the solar array, provides the property privacy between the two yards. Lambs, good job, Lambs. |
| 00:54:49.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just so you know, you've got about three and a half minutes left, and if you want to reserve any, just be aware. |
| 00:54:54.47 | David Grabham | Sure. This is a site map of the non-conforming projects just in the immediate neighborhood. We stopped right here and didn't go in here. But these are all over square footage or over lot coverage or over all that. Jakes is one of two properties that actually is conforming. |
| 00:55:02.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:55:02.96 | Unknown | IN THE CITY. |
| 00:55:03.03 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:55:16.20 | David Grabham | There's so much more to say for how we, go to the next slide, Lim, for how we design this thing. This is the views out the windows again. Go to the next slide, because I want to show that. Skip the son's study, they can leave that themselves. um Go to the last slide now. |
| 00:55:42.99 | David Grabham | Slide number. Okay. Anyway, I really appreciate you considering your time. That went really fast. This shows that we set the property down. It's only 24 feet off of 428 Pine Street to the height. We did a steep route to soften the pitch on this side and actually create. But our top floor is only 7 feet plate to plate, and we dropped down 2 feet in order to minimize and maximize the light over here, but minimize the impact of the wall structure on this side. I'm not sure. or a window that shows the privacy screen. And I'm gonna save the rest of my two minutes if I can to answer questions. |
| 00:56:25.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That would be fine. Thank you for your presentation. Stay at the podium. We'll take questions from commissioners at this time. I just want to, you made a comment at the beginning. You've been working with the applicant for a year in the design, correct? But this is the first time it has been brought to the commission. It wasn't ready the last hearing. So we have not seen this before. Is that correct? |
| 00:56:33.24 | Andrew Junius | I know. |
| 00:56:52.04 | David Grabham | we worked with several different planners and were not given correct information on several things on the project and designed kind of in a few circles, unfortunately. And I can't really blame the planning department for that. Some of that was just misunderstanding the intent of the code and then wasn't quite translated to us the way that we thought a few times. So and then for six months or seven months, we spent in neighborhood outreach trying to work with neighbors, create story polls, and really did our due diligence in the beginning of this property or this project, trying to bring something really nicely designed to the to the commission. |
| 00:57:33.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. So the design evolved, but this is the first time we've seen it. That's right. Okay. Thank you. I'll hold my questions until the other commissioners have a chance. Commissioner Seth. |
| 00:57:38.29 | David Grabham | That's right. |
| 00:57:47.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. Can I ask, have you explored what happens if that tree between 428 and 426 does not exist? Because from a screening perspective, it just seemed that there was a lot of reliance on it. Has that Anything been considered there in case something happens to the tree, gets taken out, it's |
| 00:58:05.83 | David Grabham | Anything big? |
| 00:58:10.10 | David Grabham | Yeah, we got an arborist report that said that you could prune the tree and how to prune the tree and that it would be totally fine. But the thing that would really happen is that you would get a lot more light into 428, 424 and 104 Benita if that tree was not there. So everybody would kind of benefit from that tree not being there, I think. And like I said, above that fence, so that's a six foot tall fence. So you're talking about 18 feet above the fence is the wall structure. |
| 00:58:42.20 | Nastassya Saad | So just from your design and from where you were trying to explain for the window placement then, so that... specific tree is is not what you're necessarily relying on you're you're relying more on where you've placed your windows and your heights |
| 00:58:59.21 | David Grabham | Absolutely. Offsetting the windows was definitely the strategy going in and dropping the first floor down for sure. But also putting the bedrooms on that side and then trying to put the living area in the back connected to the backyard. And that's kind of between the two structures. So the end of this structure actually stops. Then the deck and the deck is aligned with Bonita, not the structure. So the story polls may show a little different. You'd really have to pay attention to them. structure actually stops, then the deck and the deck is aligned with Bonita, not the structure. So the story polls may show a little different. You'd really have to pay attention to the plan, but the house stops and then Bonita starts. So like I said, you'd have to look, you'd have to step up to the window and then look over like this. |
| 00:58:59.26 | Nastassya Saad | I'm not sure. from the offsetting the window. |
| 00:59:39.02 | David Grabham | And we have that as the TV wall where furniture is going to be to provide. So no one's going to step up to that window lookout. But, you know, if it really came down to it, I'm sure that, you know, that's also the only sunlight they're getting is because the tree is blocking the sun. Finally, it gets past the tree and they get a little stream of sunlight into that room right there. And then it goes to right here. And now Benita is blocking their sun. So, I would imagine that Jake would be willing to screen that window to get some sunlight still. If he had to lose the window, that would be the way we would love to proceed with that. You know, that's how we designed it, so. |
| 01:00:18.28 | Nastassya Saad | And just as a point of clarification, the ADU is out of our purview. So that's not what I'm touching necessarily. But can we go back to one of those slides that it showed, I think, the interior plan with all the floors? Yeah. I thought it said bedroom. two and three, and I just want to make sure, is the ADU considered bedroom One, can you just explain the bedrooms to me? Because I see bedroom three. I just don't see bedroom two. |
| 01:00:40.14 | David Grabham | Speaking girl of... Thank you. We can go to the floor plan if you want. I mean, this is a very modestly designed houses. Jake has three kids. The bedrooms are 10 by 10, which is, I would say a small bedroom in Marin for most of the house designed. It's only 2,100 square feet. So there is one bedroom. It's not really a bedroom, but it's like a studio in the ADU right there. I guess you could consider it a bedroom because it'll be a bedroom, but go to the second floor plan, William. Thank you. So these are the three bedrooms right here. And they're 10 by 10 or even smaller than 10 by 10. They're like nine foot by nine foot eight or something like that. So two bathrooms for the three bedrooms. And then this is more for the kids hangout area. Okay. More than things like that. |
| 01:01:29.97 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Sure. Yeah. I was just trying to follow what I was seeing. So the bedroom one is first floor, ADU bedroom to second floor, master bed, top floor. Thank you. |
| 01:01:40.48 | David Grabham | Thank you. You're better to talk forward. |
| 01:01:41.87 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Okay. Thanks. I just want to make sure I'm following. Those are all the questions I have at the moment. Thank you. |
| 01:01:47.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Wait a minute, I'm confused. The ADU is not part of the bedroom town, right? No. |
| 01:01:53.48 | David Grabham | Iggy is on the bottom. |
| 01:01:54.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Donnie, are you on the bottom floor? There's no other bedroom. Three bedrooms on this floor and then the master bedroom on the other floor? |
| 01:01:55.75 | David Grabham | forward. |
| 01:02:00.97 | David Grabham | The goal was to get a yard connected level. So right now, Jake's three feet off the deck and on several decks, you have to go down and stairs to get to the yard, which in California living, you're trying to get a yard connection also. So putting, creating the living space in the back on the first floor gives them the yard connection. |
| 01:02:20.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So on the first floor, wait, the first floor, |
| 01:02:25.32 | David Grabham | Go to the first floor, Lam. |
| 01:02:26.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the first floor goes out to the, how do you go out to the earth? |
| 01:02:29.18 | David Grabham | I'm not sure. This is the yard right here. Right there. So we tore this illegal nonconforming addition off to create a backyard right here. So before the yard was basically this big. |
| 01:02:31.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right there. |
| 01:02:38.09 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 01:02:42.80 | Andrew Junius | I see. I understand. |
| 01:02:42.84 | David Grabham | I'm not sure. I understand. We have a big backyard, which is finding number two. That was the thing about, heightened finding number two is getting a yard, right? And that's what we did is create yards throughout the whole thing. |
| 01:02:57.40 | Andrew Junius | Okay, thank you. Commissioner Sot, other questions? No. |
| 01:03:01.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to. |
| 01:03:02.26 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 01:03:02.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:03:02.34 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. Uh... Mitch McGrath. |
| 01:03:08.38 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:03:09.73 | Richard Graef | Sorry, to clarify. On the front elevation of the of the house. there's this shape. |
| 01:03:22.04 | David Grabham | front elevation. |
| 01:03:22.80 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:03:22.83 | David Grabham | Thank you. |
| 01:03:22.90 | Richard Graef | you |
| 01:03:23.22 | David Grabham | you |
| 01:03:23.66 | Richard Graef | of. Yeah, that's just trim, that's not really... |
| 01:03:30.36 | David Grabham | Sorry, I'm sorry. |
| 01:03:30.59 | Richard Graef | Okay. I mean, it looks like it's just decorative trim. Is that correct? Yes. |
| 01:03:36.97 | David Grabham | Yes, it's a beam that matches this shape here and tries to bring some interest to the front. |
| 01:03:43.08 | Richard Graef | But there's no change in elevation there, it's just an applied system. |
| 01:03:49.83 | David Grabham | It sticks out three and a half inches. It's a four by six basically. Four by six seater to break the front boring wall, and give it some architectural interest and mimic shape as you go up. Yeah, that's what I thought. The shape is an architectural |
| 01:03:52.12 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 01:03:52.85 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:03:53.57 | Richard Graef | and something |
| 01:03:54.11 | Unknown | 4x16. |
| 01:03:54.99 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:03:55.11 | Unknown | to be able to get the |
| 01:03:59.30 | Richard Graef | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:04:04.31 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 01:04:05.10 | Unknown | That's all. |
| 01:04:08.90 | David Grabham | design. |
| 01:04:09.22 | Richard Graef | In the stairwell, I don't know if it's a glitch in the drawings, but if you could go to a section, one of your sections, let's see. Would you like to see that? |
| 01:04:23.53 | David Grabham | Would you like to see this elevation from this side? |
| 01:04:26.53 | Richard Graef | No, let's see if I can. |
| 01:04:28.49 | David Grabham | I can actually pull a model and look at that. |
| 01:04:30.97 | Richard Graef | Um, I'm sorry. How many drawings? |
| 01:04:40.61 | Richard Graef | Um, |
| 01:04:41.36 | David Grabham | I can have them set a model if you want, depending on what direction you want. |
| 01:04:45.72 | Richard Graef | No, A4.1 would be a good one to look at. 4.1. |
| 01:04:57.67 | Richard Graef | Yeah, so all of these vertical lines with the stuff hanging off of them, what is, is that a, is that an error or is that real? |
| 01:05:05.77 | David Grabham | Is that a... It's supposed to be vines hanging out from the ceiling. Yeah. So you're supposed to break up the three-story stairwell and, again, give it some architectural interest. |
| 01:05:10.37 | Richard Graef | A vine. |
| 01:05:20.80 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 01:05:21.05 | David Grabham | There's a planter at the very bottom also. You know, this whole staircase was designed on this side because of trying to create privacy on the other side. |
| 01:05:29.61 | Richard Graef | No, I get it. I just was not sure what all those funny little shapes meant. They look like maybe a computer error or something. So I'm sorry. Okay, so it's a living. |
| 01:05:35.99 | David Grabham | in the lab. |
| 01:05:41.56 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 01:05:41.80 | Unknown | Sorry. |
| 01:05:42.07 | David Grabham | I'm not sure. |
| 01:05:42.11 | Unknown | All right. |
| 01:05:42.35 | David Grabham | on purpose. |
| 01:05:47.62 | Richard Graef | Is it like a cable that a vine would grow up or? |
| 01:05:50.49 | David Grabham | or craft cable and then that binds grow up. That's the idea. There's a planter at the very bottom right here. |
| 01:05:57.37 | Richard Graef | Uh-huh. Oh, okay. |
| 01:05:57.84 | David Grabham | Bye. Thank you. There you go. |
| 01:06:02.59 | Richard Graef | Oh, okay. Yeah. |
| 01:06:05.13 | David Grabham | So you walk by, lots of ambient light coming from the side that the privacy issues aren't coming from to get light into the middle of the house, instead of on the other side where we put the bedrooms to create the privacy. So this gives us not direct sunlight, but ambient light. |
| 01:06:16.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:16.96 | Richard Graef | there's, |
| 01:06:17.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:21.77 | David Grabham | Thank you. |
| 01:06:21.79 | Richard Graef | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 01:06:23.07 | David Grabham | And then we did vines growing up in a plantar bed. |
| 01:06:26.23 | Richard Graef | Okay. uh, Mm-hmm. |
| 01:06:35.81 | David Grabham | You're alright. |
| 01:06:36.25 | Richard Graef | Well, I don't have any other questions for clarification. So that's it. |
| 01:06:42.14 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Fellows. |
| 01:06:47.45 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentation. I do have a number of questions, and I guess I'll sort of start high level and then go into some of the detail on some of the drawings. um, When you had a look at the staff report that was written for this, Do you have some ideas about the findings that staff was thinking, might not be able to be made. |
| 01:07:14.51 | David Grabham | Yeah, I was a little surprised at all three findings. Unfortunately, I didn't have enough time to dig into those, but I actually referenced all three of those findings and tried to show strategy of how we designed this and why. Again, they're focused on the complaint of 428, but if I had designed the house the other way, then 424 would be losing all their sun, all their light because they're right on the property line. So I was trying to create that space equally on both sides. And then I was trying to, design in a conscious way that allowed sun to reach them in the front as much as possible. So we lined up the front with their with their projects so that they have the morning sun until it goes behind and then in the back the same thing so. I don't know if I answered your question, |
| 01:08:04.93 | Kristina Feller | No, no, no. I mean, I appreciate the commentary on it. You know, I would say When I looked at some of the findings and when this gets kicked into heightened design review, I mean, there's obviously more scrutiny. There's 20 findings that we have to make. |
| 01:08:20.27 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:08:20.72 | Kristina Feller | here. Um, And there are protected views that are defined in the code. And so I'm actually concerned about finding heightened review number three |
| 01:08:32.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:33.36 | Kristina Feller | and some of the comments from the neighbors. I did walk around these properties. I did not go in any of them as I did not disclose that. And I did not do that, but I did walk around. And so I am very curious about some of those concerns because this is a very dense part of town. Um, you're it's, it's harder to maintain those view quarters because you're on flatter land than you are on the hill. but there are protections in place in our code for better or for worse, that's what's there. And that is what we apply to every applicant that comes before us without any prejudice at all. So I want to get to the bottom of some of that because I think those are legitimate concerns to be brought forward to the Planning Commission. Um, |
| 01:09:27.62 | David Grabham | right. respond to that. you |
| 01:09:29.66 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 01:09:29.68 | David Grabham | Thank you. |
| 01:09:29.69 | Kristina Feller | Oh, absolutely. |
| 01:09:30.65 | David Grabham | Number three, the new concerns. |
| 01:09:31.87 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:09:34.33 | David Grabham | We had reached out to all the neighbors several times, like I said. Specifically, we were able to meet with a neighbor up on the hill across the street, go into his third story, sit down in his desk corner, look at his view out of his desk, and that's where we were trying to adjust our view corridor to. If you stand up in his house, then you can look right up and there's no obstruction at all. Literally, our picture shows our story poles go right along the hedge and right along the other roof. To me, it's like took all that work of Jake standing out there and setting up the temporary story poles to adjust the hip back to get that. We had another neighbor on the other side say they had views the other way, which we never saw pictures. They wouldn't meet with wouldn't let us in their house we couldn't make any adjustments that was 19 bonita that came in at the last minute and said they have some obstructions because they just cut their whole entire tree that was covering all their view for who knows how long for the last 10 years they cut the whole tree apart to try to capture those views so um i you know we did our due diligence on finding number three there's minimal impact in any of the primary views in my opinion the house up on the hill literally has a 180 degree view of the whole entire bay and both the yacht harbors and the yacht harbor across the bay. So, you know, there was just, there was only so much you could do, but strategically we designed the house to be in the middle of the big house next door. |
| 01:10:58.69 | Kristina Feller | Sure. |
| 01:11:08.68 | Kristina Feller | No, I see the work you're doing, but you know, it's not, the question is not the intent thing. The question is, is having to make those findings. |
| 01:11:19.73 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:11:20.21 | Kristina Feller | Um, and this commission advocates for every applicant that comes in front of us within those parameters. And we apply them the same no matter what. Um, so that's why I'm asking, asking the question. Um, and I probably should have asked Kristen this, but I'll, I'll ask you and we can always come back, but were those story polls certified? Cause I didn't find that in here. Were they certified? |
| 01:11:45.48 | David Grabham | They were preliminary story polls trying to make adjustments with the neighbors. So it's like where you go in and you try to adjust your design before you even get to the design, right? And so that you actually have a chance of instead of finishing and completing the design. But I think the reason they didn't call out number three is because of the work that we did preliminarily and with the planner before this planner. And that's why I think they didn't call out number three. I don't know, I'm just speculating, |
| 01:11:56.89 | Unknown | you know. |
| 01:11:56.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:11:56.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:15.05 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:12:16.03 | David Grabham | Thank you. |
| 01:12:16.08 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:12:17.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You have to certify the poll. |
| 01:12:22.24 | David Grabham | Oh, yeah, the ones we have now are, yes. |
| 01:12:24.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I got the idea from that. So did Commissioner Feller. These polls have not been certified. |
| 01:12:26.47 | David Grabham | Yeah. |
| 01:12:30.51 | David Grabham | Thank you. I'm not sure if you're a fan of the story. I'm not sure if you're a fan of the story. Yeah. |
| 01:12:36.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We understand that, but the ones currently have been certified. That was the question, Commissioner Feller. Okay. |
| 01:12:40.55 | David Grabham | Okay. |
| 01:12:40.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to go. |
| 01:12:41.04 | Kristina Feller | Sorry, I misunderstood. No, no, no. |
| 01:12:42.56 | Jake (Applicant) | Am I allowed to respond as well or no? Absolutely. The applicant? |
| 01:12:43.79 | Kristina Feller | That's absolutely correct. Sure. Sure. |
| 01:12:46.20 | Jake (Applicant) | So I don't know if we want to bring up attachment number four that was provided to the commission that's in the, um, that's in the packet. But in terms of views, I think this may address what we're talking about here. um, So again, we spent 120 hours working with the surrounding neighbors. And if you scroll down, Liam, you'll see, keep scrolling. Yeah. So stop here. So you see this is a view from 19 Bonita. And, uh, |
| 01:13:25.32 | David Grabham | This is our story. |
| 01:13:25.74 | Jake (Applicant) | This is the view corridor. And this particular gentleman, these are secondary views of a third story office. And for 95% of that office, there's no blockage. And what we call out above, and I won't make you read the whole paragraph here, is it is possible to create a unique vantage point, an awkward vantage point. And you'll notice in the photos in 19 been provided, there's no frame, there's no window frame, right? He's got a telescopic lens that he zoomed in and you see a couple inches of blockage. But this is what he sees in that. |
| 01:13:56.76 | David Grabham | And that nice big fat line that goes above this. I mean, this to me was incredible. And I thought we had won this one because at one point he had said, this is good enough. If we get this tree trim, which you can see that this literally comes right down right here, straight across. |
| 01:13:59.25 | Jake (Applicant) | Yeah. |
| 01:14:17.55 | David Grabham | So, |
| 01:14:17.87 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:14:18.76 | Jake (Applicant) | And I'll just note that, you know, during the durations process, this palm tree was significantly trimmed, this was trimmed. So there was an effort to trim the surrounding trees that hadn't been trimmed in maybe a decade. as we were trying to design this project would add added a lot more difficulty. |
| 01:14:38.22 | Kristina Feller | So I wanted to move to sheet A3.1, which is the proposed north elevation against... what is it for 424 and this is, yeah, this is where this is sort of the flat elevation. I know commissioner graph was looking at the actual stairwell, but, um, |
| 01:14:51.30 | David Grabham | Yeah, 3.5. |
| 01:14:51.97 | Unknown | And then, |
| 01:14:52.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:15:00.56 | Andrew Junius | Mmm. |
| 01:15:02.36 | Kristina Feller | you know, I sort of felt that, let's see if we can go to the right drawing. |
| 01:15:16.20 | Kristina Feller | I'm looking at Karen Hollweg, As a stairwell yeah there you go um I. Karen Hollweg, I sort of felt that the punch openings that you have here was not necessarily very sensitive to the neighboring property. Karen Hollweg, Because these are almost Florida ceiling. |
| 01:15:18.35 | Unknown | It's just a stairwell. |
| 01:15:36.62 | Kristina Feller | floor over floor glazing. And I wanted to know from the architect if there's any fritted glass in there at all or fritted glass. What does that mean? Fritted is sort of like a frosted or a pixelated glass. |
| 01:15:47.25 | Unknown | What is that? |
| 01:15:47.66 | David Grabham | Thank you. |
| 01:15:52.94 | David Grabham | We met with the neighbor at 424 several times. They saw this plan and had no problem with the design. This is again, trying to get light into the heart of the house on all three floors through the stairwell, which is why I designed that way. But they didn't seem to have an issue with the way that this was designed. So we're trying to catch a little teeny bit of sun right here, six in the morning. |
| 01:16:18.05 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about that. Yeah. Yeah. That side. |
| 01:16:23.79 | David Grabham | Yeah. That side. And that was the whole, I mean, even with the skylights right here, it's just trying to bring a light well down... |
| 01:16:31.21 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I don't have a problem with the skylights. I don't have a problem with the windows that are facing towards your driveway. I'm asking about the nine windows that are directly... parallel and across from the neighbor. Because it looks like it's looking straight into their house. |
| 01:16:53.10 | David Grabham | Lance, can you go back to that? |
| 01:16:57.05 | Jake (Applicant) | For what it's worth, I believe they're on this call to pledge their support. |
| 01:17:02.31 | Kristina Feller | But I wanna just ask you, |
| 01:17:02.75 | David Grabham | you |
| 01:17:02.89 | Jake (Applicant) | Yeah. |
| 01:17:04.39 | David Grabham | Thank you. So when we did neighborhood outreach, somebody not them had said, it looks like there's too many windows and it's a glass house. And we actually removed this whole entire set of windows right here to reduce the amount of windows coming back to that neighbor. But we're still trying to catch that light coming in between the buildings from the front, which is why the windows are cornered like that. And so we thought, okay, well, that's our best light trying to get ambient light in. Let's remove these windows. So we reduced this whole entire set when we had originally submitted. This was four or five windows deep. |
| 01:17:25.33 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:17:45.61 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean... |
| 01:17:45.65 | David Grabham | Yeah, I mean, that reduction, but. |
| 01:17:48.26 | Kristina Feller | I know it's narrow there, but I also think about You know, your stairwell is one part of your house. It's always lit at night. And that can be really, really bright. And so I'm just asking... I'm not. Against anything, I'm asking for some clarification and what your thought was behind it, because, you know, these are the kinds of things we want to consider for a neighborhood. |
| 01:18:12.90 | David Grabham | Sure, totally. And we also, this post right here was here also. I can't remember. I don't know what. |
| 01:18:21.14 | Kristina Feller | I don't know what that, so I don't know what that means. |
| 01:18:22.59 | David Grabham | I don't know what that means. So this wall was not two feet thick. It was six inches thick. And so we did reduce this. We removed this whole entire panel. And then we reduced this by three times, three times, and added more wall there. So the windows actually did look like they went floor to ceiling and just had like beams dividing them. And when we got the feedback from the neighbor, we thought, well, this is enhancing this in a very modern way. The idea is that this is not a super modern house. It's just a modern, you know, using modern materials that are relevant today and the way people design homes, right? So we reduced this as well and shrink the windows. And I think it was over 150 square feet of glass reduction on that side. |
| 01:18:39.18 | Unknown | window. |
| 01:19:02.97 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:19:15.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is the 3D model that you were showing a minute ago, if it's rotated, can you see what windows are on your budding house? |
| 01:19:22.98 | David Grabham | around the other house. I don't know that we have the, we could try. Lam, why don't you go to the model? All their windows over there are satin glass, right? |
| 01:19:33.77 | Jake (Applicant) | Well, except for one, which directly you can, when we're doing our dishes, we can see directly into their master bedroom. |
| 01:19:39.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so those are the windows, and you're saying some of them are frosted in some way? |
| 01:19:44.77 | Jake (Applicant) | Yeah. |
| 01:19:45.04 | David Grabham | I think is from |
| 01:19:45.97 | Jake (Applicant) | That one's, yeah, I can. Yeah. This is frosted and these are frosted. This is their master bedroom, which we can currently make eye to eye contact. When we're doing, you think you saw this, we do our dishes and we can look in their master bedroom. That eye to eye connection is being eliminated with this design. We'll give them more privacy and us more privacy. And I just add that the vines are meant to be a lot denser than that. And the stairwell is going to have like the underlit stair lighting and not going to have huge lighting inside there. So it's not going to be a lot of lighting inside that stairwell with a very dense vine growing up. |
| 01:19:46.15 | David Grabham | That one. Yeah. This. |
| 01:20:25.51 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. Commissioner, a vice chair general. |
| 01:20:26.92 | Jake (Applicant) | TODAY. |
| 01:20:26.97 | Andrew Junius | Just to follow along there and just to confirm 424 Bonita is on the property line. Thank you. I did. |
| 01:20:33.08 | David Grabham | I think it's within a foot or six inches or something like that. Essentially on the property line, right? Essentially, yeah. |
| 01:20:35.60 | Andrew Junius | or something like that. Essentially on the property line, right? Essentially, yeah. And they support your project, right? Yeah. As far as you know. They're on the call, right? Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Understood. Thank you. |
| 01:20:41.27 | David Grabham | As far as you know. They're on the call. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. You can see their fence right here. |
| 01:20:51.00 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask a question about those vines? Is the intention then for those to be, because if that's a living plant again, |
| 01:20:51.90 | David Grabham | ask a question about |
| 01:21:01.97 | Nastassya Saad | Is that is the intention, as you're mentioning, the under lighting and the vines to help offset that light? Because what if those vines don't continue? That's something you have to maintain versus your stairs are built and they're good to go. that those vines are not a permanent solution. So I'm just wondering what the intent there is. for screening and light just for architectural. Okay. |
| 01:21:21.36 | David Grabham | light just for just for architectural okay walking through you know in order to make the main living level on the bottom you have to walk through the house |
| 01:21:30.35 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. So you're not, you're not relying on them for offsetting any of your potential light pollution. Okay. Okay. |
| 01:21:37.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Those would not be lit at all times? You're not going to light that stairway 24 hours a day or something? It's... |
| 01:21:45.56 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:21:46.64 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:21:46.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:21:46.76 | Kristina Feller | I don't think you need to. |
| 01:21:46.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I don't think- No, I mean, you don't need that. You're not lighting the plants so they'll grow with special grow lights, right? No, okay. I just want to make sure that- That's not what they're growing in there. That's a different kind of plant. It's going to have to be planted. |
| 01:21:56.06 | David Grabham | as well. Thank you. |
| 01:21:57.09 | Jake (Applicant) | That's not what they're growing in there. That's a different kind of planet. |
| 01:21:59.09 | Unknown | It's going to have to be planned. Yeah. |
| 01:22:04.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:22:04.06 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:22:04.83 | Unknown | you |
| 01:22:05.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Pellar, other questions? |
| 01:22:06.22 | Kristina Feller | questions. |
| 01:22:06.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:22:08.78 | Kristina Feller | Um, Yeah. Well, can you just walk me? Maybe you need a plan. Tell me how you get from the street or the sidewalk or entryway into your ADU. |
| 01:22:24.74 | David Grabham | Right here on this path on the other side, there's a door over here. So you just basically walk down this path and then you're right into the ADU with the door on the side. |
| 01:22:35.09 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:22:35.66 | David Grabham | And it goes right in. There's an elevation change on this garage. So the garage has to hit the street and we tried to drop the house down. It was super complicated to just try to get it those levels connected, but the garage, I'm sorry, not garage parking pad is two steps up from the actual floor level. That's the two feet that we dropped the house down to try to reduce the mass on this side and keep this wall only 18, 17 to 18 feet above the fence. |
| 01:22:51.85 | Unknown | from the |
| 01:23:04.70 | David Grabham | Lam, never mind, sorry. |
| 01:23:06.43 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Okay. And again, just back to sort of the same question on the on the findings that the planning commission here has to make if you had any further thoughts about the scale of the structure and sort of the architectural style as it relates to the neighborhood. What are your thoughts about, are you taking cues from any vernacular? |
| 01:23:31.64 | David Grabham | Vernacular? This is the smallest house in the neighborhood besides one other one. And so to me, the scale is... Thank you. you know, as good as it can be in the neighborhood, the house right next door is so far over every legal nonconformity has no backyard setback, not correct side yard setback. Like I said, if you mask this house, if you put this house with this house, it's overshadows the whole entire house and yard. And that's exactly what it does right now. This second story house overshadows their whole backyard. This is the sun coming right here. So in order to try to get some sun, There needs to be the front deck. There is no sun. There needs to be the back deck because that gets them elevated enough to actually see the sun because it's a two-story house right here. Higher up on the hill blocks it in this house in the giant tree block the rest. |
| 01:24:28.82 | Kristina Feller | No, I understand that. I mean, that's why they're legal non-conforming. Yeah. These current codes or the findings we have to make didn't apply to them when they were built. |
| 01:24:31.85 | David Grabham | Yeah. |
| 01:24:32.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:39.09 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:24:39.42 | Kristina Feller | You're a new building, demolished a new building. So we're talking about what we have to work with today, not 80, 100 years ago. |
| 01:24:47.22 | David Grabham | 80, 100%. In this structure is, like I said, one of two. Here's the other one. There's a little tiny house here that is actually legal conforming to current code. So we didn't ask for any variances. We strategically designed the house not to ask for any variances. We tried to show the views. We stepped it back. We tried to accommodate light equally on both sides. But when you're talking about your 40 foot wall length that we're allowed right here, and then trying to fit the, the living space, the ADU, the bedroom in the primary, you're and not block anyone's views. We're trying to go right in the middle of this house right here. so that we have view corridors coming this way and view corridors coming that way. And there is no way to make everybody happy. They say, if everybody is, you know, okay, then you've done a really good job. And so our goal was to try to make everybody happy. And we went down this road of redesign for months and months and months. And we finally said, okay, let's go in front of the commission and see what they have to say. |
| 01:25:54.47 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:25:57.27 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:25:58.58 | David Grabham | But you heard from the planners, this is scaled in the property. Understood. |
| 01:26:03.06 | Kristina Feller | No, understood. I'm just trying to get a little bit more explanation from you. There's only so much anyone, whether it's us or the public, can read on paper. So the insight is important. So thank you. |
| 01:26:05.92 | David Grabham | Yeah. Can I ask? |
| 01:26:16.00 | David Grabham | And the 20 foot back or 20 foot front we need for parking, right? Yeah. So that set the house back 20 feet. That's why it undercuts is because we need 20 feet of parking. And then the backyard setback is 20 feet. |
| 01:26:20.86 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:26:30.38 | David Grabham | because we're now legal conforming, there's a very small box for us to fit in with the parking in the front in the, |
| 01:26:33.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:33.14 | Kristina Feller | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:26:38.91 | David Grabham | backyard setbacks. |
| 01:26:40.70 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:26:40.75 | David Grabham | Thank you. So, and then we're like squished in there. And the reason it looks big is because we're trying to create the side yard set back here, which usually we wouldn't have to do. We would just go five feet here and that drops everything down. We have a lot more work. Yeah. |
| 01:26:41.65 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:26:55.59 | Kristina Feller | So I just, I have one more question for you. And that is because we got these revised shadow studies kind of late. And although I looked at them, I did not look at them at the same level of detail I did the original ones. So can you just confirm that the shadow studies were reconfirming what we had or what |
| 01:27:15.40 | David Grabham | Absolutely. They're absolutely accurate. So that was all we did was, like I said, some people had some questions about their accuracy. We actually do this in a modeling program. It's impossible to not do a correction. But what we did was, Lam, can you throw out the shady study was we went into our program and just added more information that shows the sundial, right? You see all the pictures and you see the shadow and it says a timestamp. There's no way for us to change that. Lam, are you there? |
| 01:27:46.47 | Kristina Feller | I just wanted to ask you that for avoidance of any doubt and for clarification. |
| 01:27:46.82 | David Grabham | I just wanted to- |
| 01:27:50.58 | David Grabham | Oh yeah. We added in this sun dial so you could actually see the sun direction right here. |
| 01:27:57.18 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:27:57.30 | David Grabham | So before we just had this, |
| 01:27:57.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:27:59.49 | David Grabham | We didn't change any of that. and only in, There's only two months out of the year in the morning where there's a little bit of sun blocked on this bedroom window. That's the whole thing. Right. And that theoretically could be from the tree, from the, you know, it's, it's so small. So we created this sheet, Jake went out and took a picture. He had the sheet, the sun right here. We timestamped it at 935. we double checked everything at 935. It's the exact same. This is our new structure. There's no impact. It's 935. There's no impact here. This is the existing no change. |
| 01:28:42.62 | Kristina Feller | Great. Thank you. |
| 01:28:43.76 | David Grabham | Yeah, so we were just trying to show that |
| 01:28:44.09 | Kristina Feller | So we were just trying to show |
| 01:28:45.86 | David Grabham | you |
| 01:28:45.97 | Kristina Feller | you |
| 01:28:45.98 | David Grabham | the sun direction. I said, we should show them the sun direction because When you look at the sundial, you see that super early in the morning. they get a little bit of sun through the quarter right here. |
| 01:28:56.51 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 01:28:57.63 | David Grabham | And this also is not taking into account the hills back there. We just, I just. |
| 01:29:01.49 | Kristina Feller | I just wanted to confirm the resubmission of them and what that was for avoidance of any doubt. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. |
| 01:29:10.03 | David Grabham | question. |
| 01:29:10.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Okay, I have some technical questions as well. First of all, just as an aside, your CAD drawings, because you put so many of these things in here, are virtually impossible. I have a fairly fast computer to load. So if there's ever a resubmission, and I say this for the record for any other architects out there, divide up the elevations and the architecturals in the separate packages because literally every time i went to any of the elevations it would freeze and then it would skip a drawing and it the files are just too large i'm sorry or there's a way to i know you compress them but even with that and there may be a way to flatten them but that's just an fyi um first of all you you're indicating that i want to understand how you're going to lift this floor given that you're demolishing almost every wall inside the building and how are you going to lift this floor and then make it structurally sound and isn't the cost to do that much more than just building a new floor |
| 01:29:10.39 | David Grabham | Thank you. |
| 01:29:10.42 | Kristina Feller | I'm not. |
| 01:29:10.54 | David Grabham | Thank you. |
| 01:29:10.65 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:29:45.32 | Unknown | Oh, man. So, |
| 01:29:47.46 | Andrew Junius | Sure. |
| 01:29:47.78 | Stuart Rabinowich | Right. |
| 01:30:16.85 | David Grabham | No, because it has a floor and it has walls and it has a ceiling and we're keeping all those things. So we lift, you know, our company lifts, probably lifted 25 houses in Marin over the last 15, 20 years. So we do that all the time. And because we're reducing the shell and stripping it down, it's even easier to lift. And right now it's already. three feet four feet off the three and a half feet off the ground so we just put the shoring beams under and then we're just plumbing everything down it actually helps us with our forms because we can plumb everything down off the walls set our forms and then build our our footings off of that so it's a pretty simple lift but yeah the idea was that there's also some features in that house that they like so |
| 01:31:03.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are the floors level in that house currently? |
| 01:31:05.71 | David Grabham | Thank you. They will be by the time we lift it and level it out. So that's part of it. |
| 01:31:08.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So that's part of it. Aren't you racking the frame? And by the time you're done, |
| 01:31:13.08 | David Grabham | Thank you. I mean, I, |
| 01:31:13.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | TO BE ABLE TO DO. |
| 01:31:14.03 | David Grabham | it all the time. I mean, we take houses that are 11 inches out of level, lift them up, reset, you know, before you do your, half the houses in Corte Madera are like that. And before we do their kitchen remodel and their windows that are all out of level, everything's out of level. We lift everything up, we plumb everything, and then we replace everything. So it's all level. Then if it ever sags again, you just bump it up and you're good. Everything's level. |
| 01:31:15.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We take out. |
| 01:31:38.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. You know, it's just if it isn't, the amount of labor to fix it is a lot more than the additional materials. But, you know, but if you've done it, you've done it. We can save as, you know. I believe in saving as much as you can save. But at some point, you're really, you know, creating more problems than you're solving. Sometimes you find out there's rot and there's other things you didn't see under your head. |
| 01:31:49.52 | David Grabham | We can save as, you know, No. |
| 01:31:58.60 | David Grabham | Yeah. |
| 01:31:58.61 | Kristina Feller | Sure. It's up to them. |
| 01:32:02.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand, but I just wanted to understand because it relates to how this frame and how it sits and how the upper floor sits. My second question is, I do see on figure one and street A 1.0, you understand that you cannot have a wall greater than 40 feet, and you've adjusted for that in this calculation for the second and third floors. So you have made that adjustment and you understand how that works. However, give... installation for the the second and third floors what you uh so you you have made that adjustment and you understand how that works however given these decks and they have structures going down to the ground uh on the back side uh the whole intent of this provision of the of the code is not to have a solid wall on one side of the property so my uh Mike, and now when you measure the entire wall, including the decks, which have roofs on them, so they're fairly solid, you're at 47 feet. So really in the back, you know, you really should be at six feet, not four and a half feet. So my question is, if architecturally, if we conditioned it to move those decks inward by maybe 18 inches or maybe a little bit more, there's a door that might have to be moved, but that would allow articulation in that facade. It wouldn't be as sort of this huge wall. And you might have a slightly smaller deck, but you'd still have the decks. Is that architecturally possible? |
| 01:33:31.69 | David Grabham | You're talking about move this wall in 18 inches? Yeah, move it in 18 inches. So we can keep the solar array and... |
| 01:33:34.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then... |
| 01:33:37.19 | David Grabham | And the windscreen. |
| 01:33:38.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, keep everything. Just make the deck maybe a couple feet smaller. So that wall is not one solid wall. You get to the end of the house and then the decks are set back. What that also does is it creates more privacy for the abutters. It doesn't have them seeing this thing as close to the line. Is that architecturally possible? |
| 01:33:58.24 | David Grabham | I mean, anything is architecturally possible, I would say, Mr. Luxenberg, this is the 40 feet. So we kept this whole thing within the 40 feet, which is the code. And so this deck here is outside of that 40 feet and it's open 100%. It's not open. |
| 01:34:13.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if it's not open 100%, you've got a roof over it. So it's debatable whether or not that's a structure or not, but I'm not even asking that question. I'm asking, can you make that, because it solves a number of problems, can you just make that debt smaller? |
| 01:34:21.07 | David Grabham | Yeah. |
| 01:34:27.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll do it. |
| 01:34:27.99 | Jake (Applicant) | I would just say here, you know, if we can, Liam, if you pull up the neighborhood drawing, you know, there's, We're a family of five with a 2,192 square foot house. Um, Most of the homes around us, and some you'll hear from in a little bit, they're over 3,000 square foot with two occupants. You know, so we're at the fringe of really what we can... make sense of for a family of five. So every inch, literally, like we puzzle piece this together. It wasn't just happenstance that we came upon this design. Um, and I think it maximizes our privacy as it is. And we pull that anytime we pull that wall in. |
| 01:35:11.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not talking about outside space. I'm really talking about something that might solve a problem here. And you're saying you can't pull it in a couple of things. |
| 01:35:14.58 | Jake (Applicant) | Oh, I think |
| 01:35:19.85 | Jake (Applicant) | what's it's it's what we're talking about shrinking living space which and living space because it's california it's |
| 01:35:25.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, it's a debt. |
| 01:35:26.34 | Jake (Applicant) | Yep. I would consider that 100% living space because we're a family of five. Again, our master bedroom, you can look at it as 10 by 13. You know, it's not a big, not a big area. So we're trying to make up for that with outdoor living space. |
| 01:35:39.84 | David Grabham | Yeah. |
| 01:35:43.47 | David Grabham | What could it, can I just ask you what the, what, what the reason be behind a couple feet or 18 inches? |
| 01:35:50.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There are three reasons. I'm trying to make the findings as we all are on this project. Number one, I've reviewed at length this provision of the code in the 40 feet, and I'm not sure it's debatable whether or not it applies. It may apply. Those decks look like structures. I've looked at the language of the code, and you could interpret that the 47 feet would require a six foot setback along that entire wall. I'm suggesting bring the decks back to the six feet because that would solve that particular code issue, which I'm having trouble with. Secondarily, it provides a better privacy issue and cuts out a little bit of the blocking of the neighbor's house across the way. We're only talking about 18 inches. And it would solve the privacy and light issue for the abutter. So it solves three problems. It takes off two feet. |
| 01:35:54.78 | David Grabham | Yeah, Roger. Yeah. |
| 01:36:25.44 | Unknown | you Second. |
| 01:36:33.62 | Unknown | that we're seeing. |
| 01:36:37.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:37.05 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:36:37.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:36:47.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | or in what possibly allow us to make the findings |
| 01:36:51.80 | David Grabham | Yeah. |
| 01:36:52.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that we can make and get this project approved. And so that's why I'm asking whether you can do it. If you can't do it, then, you know, I mean, this project is within certain parameters, but this wall one is questionable whether it's complying. And therefore, this project, which is right at the edge of whether we can make these findings. And I'm trying to have a path to make these findings. Can I? |
| 01:37:02.94 | Unknown | I love the group. |
| 01:37:03.34 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:37:03.49 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. |
| 01:37:17.68 | Unknown | Can I Lex and Kim? |
| 01:37:21.02 | Jake (Applicant) | Thank you. |
| 01:37:21.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What went. |
| 01:37:22.07 | Jake (Applicant) | I know I hear, I hear, I hear. I would say, so we got, I think, 23, 25 letters of support. And a lot of them, there's some families here tonight, families on the call. |
| 01:37:23.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | one. |
| 01:37:23.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:31.39 | Jake (Applicant) | I think what we're all hoping to see is an objective review. That looks at the code, follows the code, and that's entirely our intent tonight. So I don't know if the attorney's on, but if we can look at that, but we also looked at it extensively for many months, many hours with Kristen. |
| 01:37:44.04 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:37:44.06 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:37:46.15 | Jake (Applicant) | Um, Decks to my understanding are excluded. And you yourself just said that the area we're talking about is not living space because it's outdoor. So it's not living space. It has to be a deck. |
| 01:37:58.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There are a couple of provisions of the code, a couple more that I found today that mean the decks are probably included as part of this 47 feet. There's another provision of the code I found today that would imply that that deck is included, and that's after another two days of looking at this provision of the code. So there's a lot of analysis here about whether this applies or doesn't apply. I understand you're, you're, you're the, you're, you, there's a lot of analysis here about whether this applies or doesn't apply i i understand your your your the your there's a lot of support from lots of neighbors we're talking about the compliance of a building and we we we we we love you folks we want people to live in sausalito we love children we want children to be in sausalito that's not what this is about this is a wall we have a provision of the code that's intent is to provide uh not to have a huge solid wall at one plane I'm suggesting an articulation that will solve three problems that will allow possibly allow me to make these findings and and in and if you're saying it's not possible, then it's not possible. I thought it was a reasonable question to ask whether architecturally I realize there's one door that might be adjusted and you would like every square foot that you can. |
| 01:39:13.77 | David Grabham | So, Can you show the roof, Len? And again, part of the reason we have this is we've already – you saw the first model, which is a ridge just like the house next door. That's a 30-foot-long ridge that allows us a huge solar array. So if we do that, we can move up. It's just how much we can move before we start losing solar panels on our roof. So this hip right here is creating this solar panel. We move this in 18 inches, that moves this whole thing up, which works here, but then we lose this solar panel. So we haven't done our solar study and we don't know what the impact is going to be or anything like that. |
| 01:39:38.68 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:39:39.15 | Unknown | of it. |
| 01:39:41.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:53.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That solar panel is over the debt? |
| 01:39:56.36 | David Grabham | This is in and also Mr. Lexenberg. This is within our 40 feet. Both of these roofs are in our 40 feet structure. |
| 01:40:05.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm confused. This is an important element. I see a deck that's not that part is not. |
| 01:40:11.90 | David Grabham | That's part is not. Yes, this part is within the 40 feet right here and complies with the code and absolutely wouldn't be allowed to extend the roof this way because then yes, it would be a structure. |
| 01:40:25.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So that solar panel is within the 40 feet. |
| 01:40:25.62 | David Grabham | So, |
| 01:40:28.74 | David Grabham | in this group. |
| 01:40:28.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And if you were to move back, I'm sorry, just to make this easier for you. If you move back the deck portion, I'm not suggesting changing the roof structure. I'm only suggesting moving the deck. Okay. |
| 01:40:40.37 | David Grabham | Yes. |
| 01:40:40.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That, yes, just that 18 inches. That's what I'm asking. |
| 01:40:43.24 | David Grabham | That's what I'm asking. Thank you. Oh, I... I think that we could definitely figure that out, Jake. Lamb, can you look back? Can you go straight over the top, Lamb, like this? The whole reason we have these decks is to try to block this window right here. And that's what those decks are for, is basically in our model, we actually have green planting like a screen right here on that deck. |
| 01:41:13.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Blocks the debt from who? |
| 01:41:13.41 | David Grabham | THE BUSINESS. I'm sorry. Go down one. Go down one level. So here's the green screen that's supposed to block 104 Bonita. This window right here, green screen right here on the deck. Before this was actually a wall. And when we spoke with 104 Bonita, they said, this is killing our ambient light. We said, okay, let's put a glass satin window there. And then when we went through the 40 foot, we had to remove this because just like you said, it was part of the building wall and longer than 40 feet. And so we had to take that out. And then we put in the green screen. But what this does is this actually creates privacy for Bonita, because what it's doing is putting the green... |
| 01:41:17.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You... |
| 01:42:01.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not suggesting you taking that out. All I'm suggesting is you move at 18 inches. |
| 01:42:06.10 | David Grabham | Can I? |
| 01:42:06.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | asking if that's architecturally possible. |
| 01:42:09.00 | David Grabham | Is that just the top deck or is that the middle? |
| 01:42:11.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Both decks. I just wanted to understand if it's possible. |
| 01:42:14.35 | David Grabham | It is absolutely possible. |
| 01:42:16.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thanks. Next question is on the trimming of the tree. Do you need a tree permit in order to trim that tree? And do you need a permission from the neighbor to trim the tree? |
| 01:42:27.07 | David Grabham | I think it's fire code fire hazard is why we have to trim the tree for five feet. So right now the tree sticks over substantially and they just trimmed it, I think, three months ago in order to try to open up the views. And so, according to the arborist, the tree can be trimmed. When we looked at the tree, there's two limbs that are not main root limbs that would need to be trimmed on the tree. |
| 01:42:52.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm just asking what the process is. Do you need to submit for a tree permit? Because there wasn't one submitted with this. And whether you need permission to the neighbor because it's not, the tree is actually on the neighbor's property. |
| 01:43:05.98 | David Grabham | You know, I don't know either of those things. I'm sorry. Okay. |
| 01:43:09.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director Phillips, do you know if that tree needs a tree permit? |
| 01:43:14.51 | Director Phipps | I believe you would need to be permitted in order to trim. |
| 01:43:17.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:43:17.93 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 01:43:18.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:43:18.37 | Andrew Junius | So, |
| 01:43:18.88 | David Grabham | It was trimmed without a permit literally three months ago, as far as I know. |
| 01:43:23.03 | Jake (Applicant) | Yeah, the owner's right here. We can ask him too. |
| 01:43:30.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you're gonna, we'll have you ask that question. We have to have you come to the dais because the people at home can't see, but... I'm not sure. Okay. We'll get to that one later, I guess. You said there's this planting vine thing inside the house in a planter. Is there a vapor barrier under this planter? What keeps moisture out of the house from underneath the problem? |
| 01:43:57.91 | David Grabham | Yeah, it's a planter box, so it'd be concrete all the way down as part of the footing. |
| 01:44:02.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Part of the fight. |
| 01:44:02.97 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:44:02.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | because |
| 01:44:03.43 | David Grabham | you |
| 01:44:03.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:44:03.56 | David Grabham | A contained planner for sure. |
| 01:44:03.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, |
| 01:44:06.45 | David Grabham | Thank you. |
| 01:44:06.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, those are my questions at this time. At this point, are there other questions from the dais of the applicant? Okay, so we will have you sit down at this point and we will open it up for public comment. |
| 01:44:15.41 | Andrew Junius | Okay. |
| 01:44:21.74 | David Grabham | Thank you so much for your time and your questions. |
| 01:44:24.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So someone's raising their hands, but what we'd like you to do, if you haven't filled out a speaker card, you need to fill out a speaker card and give that to Community Development, and they'll call people from the cards. So I'll give you a minute or two to fill out speaker cards, and people in the Zoom application, if you raise your hand, you can do that, and you can also be called on. We'll give a one-minute pause here to let people fill out speaker cards. |
| 01:44:52.84 | Director Phipps | And we do have some speaker cards available now, Chair. Thank you. |
| 01:44:55.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You have some already. |
| 01:44:56.16 | Director Phipps | Thank you. some arrest. we do |
| 01:44:58.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If we do that, Well, let's give 30 seconds just so people can sit back down. |
| 01:45:18.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, Director Phipps, I will let you coordinate how we will call on people. People will have three minutes to come up to the dais, give your name and address for the record. And if you could, since there's a lot of people wanting to speak, if you want to confirm something somebody else said, you don't have to repeat what they said. You can just confirm what they said. I will also tell everyone we've had extensive public comments sent to us. We have all those. We all get all those to feel free to know that all of the commissioners get all of the comments ahead of what is also then posted on, not ahead of, but at the same time as they're posted on the agenda as well. With that, Director Phipps. |
| 01:46:04.67 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair, and apologies in advance if I butcher anybody's name. First speaker is Stuart Rabinowitz. Stuart Rabinowitz. Come on down, Stuart. |
| 01:46:12.96 | Stuart Rabinowich | Thank you. |
| 01:46:13.04 | Director Phipps | You will have three minutes to speak. Please state your name and address for the record. |
| 01:46:16.84 | Stuart Rabinowich | My name is Stuart Rabinowich. I live at 425 Turney Street. And my property, nobody has approached me concerning the impact on my property, my property is directly, I have one of those beautiful, the three Queen Anne Victorians that are on Turney Street and I'm directly across from the De Silva mansion. my backyard, my view from my kitchen, looks directly up There is nothing between my backyard and this structure. This structure itself would completely destroy my beautiful view that I've had for 43 years of the hillsides of Sausalito and the bell tower of the Catholic Church and the beautiful hills above. It will also look right down. I am like probably, mine is probably the only parcel in that entire pine tree. Turner Street neighborhood that actually has some green space. I have a beautiful redwood tree and that provides a lot for that neighborhood. Just having that there. And what this structure will do to my property, it will not only destroy my view of the hills that I have enjoyed for over four decades, but it would also look down onto my backyard and destroy the property of mine. And so it's interesting, my lot is not actually exactly adjacent to this property because there is a driveway on Benita between my property and there. But I would invite any and all of you to come and see how this impacts my property. It impacts my property as significantly, I believe, as anyone else's property. It will cut out light from my backyard and it will wreck the view that I have had for decades from my kitchen. And I'm really surprised that nobody actually thought that anybody on Tourney Street might be affected by this project, but mine being right directly behind it is definitely affected. And I'm also a member of the Historical Society, and I really believe in trying to protect the character |
| 01:48:39.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:39.84 | Richard Graef | I'm going to go. |
| 01:48:45.78 | Stuart Rabinowich | of the neighborhood and they just dropped an ADU right next to my place that is really out of character. So to me, having that Plus, this is a bit of a double whammy for me. So I think, again, you are, any and all of you, welcome to come and see the impact it would have on my property. Thank you. |
| 01:49:05.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you for your comments. |
| 01:49:09.00 | Director Phipps | Stuart, thank you very much for your comments. Next speaker is Jonathan Hinkle. Jonathan, come on down. Going once, going twice. Seems as though Jonathan is no longer here. Moving on to the next speaker card, Lorraine. not seeing Lorraine present. Moving on to the next speaker. |
| 01:49:33.10 | Director Phipps | Next bigger card is David Bernstein. |
| 01:49:41.13 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you, David. Next speaker, Matt Smith. |
| 01:49:46.73 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:49:50.81 | Director Phipps | Please state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:49:53.92 | Matt Smith | Absolutely. My name is Matt Smith. I live at 416 Napa Street, along with my wife, Kirsten Thomas, two kids. Jack who's age five and Dexter, who's, sorry, Jack is age nine and Jack is, Dexter is age five. Richard, good to see you again. Um, I've been here, I think a total of eight times for our own design review proceedings. And that's been... difficult and I'm feeling a little bit of a PTSD experience here because you guys on your dais the audience over here, why can't we all just be at a table and sort of discuss these things? an idea of Uh, maybe form function, maybe facilitating form, but it's It's very odd that you guys are up there like this. Last time I was up there too, I didn't need readers, but now I do. So I'm going to start. I Thank you. One of the problems we had, my family and I, was... the lack of objective design criteria, right? So we heard things like light and air, mass, et cetera. We didn't know how to design around these things. In fact, In preparation for one of my first design reviews, I attended a few hearings to see what it felt like. I heard one of the commissioners say this house needs to go on a diet. I don't know what that means. Like, what does that mean in terms of objective, quantitative, numerical assessments? And that's one of the big things that I have with this whole criteria that are set up and the findings, right? So I could ask 10 different people what one plus one equaled and be fairly certain I'd get a consistent answer. If I asked the same 10 people what they thought of the buyer's proposed project specifically for funding seven. The design and location of buildings provide adequate light and air for the project site adjacent properties in general public. I'm fairly certain I would not get a consistent answer. From the staff report for this project, the discussion section states, when viewing the story polls from the yard of 428 Pine and bedrooms of 104 Bonita Street, it appeared. that the unrelieved three-story wall plane would reduce access to light and air and noticeably impact privacy of these areas. Finding seven is so squishy and subjective that even city staff cannot definitively express when the finding is met or not met for a given project. You don't see a word like appeared, feels, seems like, and answers to objective questions or criteria. But you see them all the time in design review, and that needs to stop. |
| 01:52:26.52 | Matt Smith | In an environment where planning commission decisions are swayed by individual perspectives and subjective opinions, it should be paramount that there exists a representative voice on the dais that echoes the concerns of parents with young children in this city. in its unyielding stance fails to provide these parents in which to expand their homes with clear objective and predictable design criteria delineating precisely what is permissible for construction. It inadvertently expresses them. exposes them to financial ruin. It is a glaring injustice that families like Jake and Georgia are forced to instigate a media campaign simply to garner attention and support for their proposed design. |
| 01:53:01.01 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Matt, thank you for your comments. Moving on to the next speaker, Conrad Gann. Come on down. You will have three minutes to speak. Please state your name and address for the record. |
| 01:53:11.22 | Conrad Gantt | Uh, I'm Conrad Gantt, my name and address. Okay. I live in Larkspur at 26 Cedar Avenue. I'm the most impacted and I request not to be cut off after three minutes if that's possible. Um, so I bought these properties back in late 2004. At the time I was living at 1709 Bridgeway, which is the old schoolhouse in Sausalito, a fantastic Victorian schoolhouse. I love that architecture. And I saw these two beautiful cottages next to each other that had lived peacefully next to each other for a hundred years. And I bought the one on the corner. The 104 Bonita property was helpful in paying the mortgage. I moved in with two little kids and raised them there with Shauna. We were four people living in a thousand square feet very, very happily. Um, Then this project comes along and I, in our first Zoom call, I'm told everybody loves this design and up pops this huge structure next to my house. Both homes. And I'm told it's kind of a done deal because there's just so many people behind it. And I was in shock and I didn't understand what to do. So I hired Michael Rex and he did a fantastic job of helping me understand the process. Thank you. He also made quick work on some issues that I think we all know about. So let me just try to make sure I convey what I want from the commission and what I don't want to see it happen here. what I want. is to protect the sunlight for my properties. That is the single most important thing. I also wanna protect the privacy from the bedrooms of my properties. I consider myself to be generally pro-growth and I am totally open to reasonable negotiations around the issues. and compromise, and I know I'm not going to get everything I want, Um, But... The extremities of this project haven't changed from the roof line and the third floor and the covered decks. And all of this has not changed from day one, from the very first time it was presented. |
| 01:55:19.00 | Unknown | and all of that. |
| 01:55:22.80 | Conrad Gantt | Um, It's like, why bother talking about secondary issues when you don't know what the house is going to look like? At least from my standpoint, the primary issue is the third floor, the height of it, And everything, the covering of the decks, the height of the bedroom, everything is done to maximize height against my properties from that that's kind of how it feels. So the last thing I request is that you come and visit my properties and see specifically what's come inside the 104 Bonita's come up to the master bedroom. It's a. Um, There is a really, really nice view there. I'm not going to take a bunch of time up on the screen, but there's a beautiful view of that maple tree. You can see the ridgeline of the hills beyond it. And the sun rises directly over. Do I get the extra time? |
| 01:56:14.67 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 01:56:14.98 | Conrad Gantt | Thank you. |
| 01:56:15.94 | Director Phipps | We treat public comment equally. So everybody's allocated three minutes. |
| 01:56:20.34 | Conrad Gantt | No, no, no. I talked to Kristen about this in advance, and she said I could request to the commission to have extra time. You may request, but... I'm requesting extra time. |
| 01:56:28.42 | Director Phipps | So I will turn to chair if they'd like, but that's perspective as we treat public comment equally. |
| 01:56:31.70 | Conrad Gantt | That's perspective. |
| 01:56:32.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 01:56:32.63 | Conrad Gantt | as we... |
| 01:56:32.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We need to be fair to everyone. So your three minutes is three minutes. But I will say that you're here. Is that your wife? Is your wife here? Yes, she is. Your wife also gets three minutes. So if you want to go back and give her your notes, she does also get three minutes. Can she be next? I don't I don't have an issue with that. OK, fine. I haven't finished later. Let her be next. I don't have an issue. |
| 01:56:42.08 | Thomas Young | Thank you. |
| 01:56:42.11 | Conrad Gantt | Yes, yes. |
| 01:56:51.39 | Conrad Gantt | No? OK, fine. I remember I finished it. |
| 01:56:55.88 | Director Phipps | I'm going to grant that request. |
| 01:57:01.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, she needs to present. Okay. |
| 01:57:04.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:09.50 | Unknown | So to pick up where my husband left off our main, the thing that we don't want is the third floor. The third floor is problematic for light and for view and for privacy. And as my husband said, the extremities of the project haven't changed since we first saw the plans. And that's a problem for us in terms of compromising. We totally would love to give them the square footage they want. And we can absolutely, we are homeowners, we've owned many homes together. We can absolutely see that they could have the square footage they want very quickly. perhaps without a third floor, perhaps we need some variances, but it just seems like we could give them what they need and we're totally willing to work with them. but, um, We would need to. get your recommendations as a commission for how to work together because I have to say until this point. We haven't felt any ability Nothing has changed in terms of our suggestions and the extremities of the project. |
| 01:58:05.00 | Conrad Gantt | To get data on the sun, you can... |
| 01:58:09.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Again, your wife has the three minutes, not yourself. |
| 01:58:12.95 | Conrad Gantt | Thank you. |
| 01:58:12.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can't wait. |
| 01:58:13.02 | Conrad Gantt | Thank you. |
| 01:58:13.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:58:13.05 | Conrad Gantt | Thank you. |
| 01:58:13.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:58:13.15 | Conrad Gantt | I got it. I thought you said we were going to share it. |
| 01:58:13.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I got it. No, no, no. I said your wife has to do, I said, give your cards to your wife. Let her do your presentation. |
| 01:58:14.97 | Matt Smith | I don't know. |
| 01:58:18.20 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So that is what we don't want. And we are willing to work with a lot of different possibilities, but we would need to feel some actual collaboration and changes in the extremities of the project. And in terms of light, I'm just, I would actually like to get an independent sun study if that's possible. I don't know what your protocol is, but that is something that we would prefer. And would really help us know the impact of the light and the sun. So I think that's it. |
| 01:58:54.04 | Conrad Gantt | Thank you. |
| 01:58:54.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:58:54.07 | Conrad Gantt | Thank you. Thank you. So I'm not allowed to use the last minute. |
| 01:58:59.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 01:58:59.49 | Conrad Gantt | No. |
| 01:59:01.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:59:01.16 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments. |
| 01:59:01.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm kind of out of your wishes and trying to be fair to everybody else in the room. I'm sorry. So I understand. So thank you. Thank you very much for your comments. The director of next person who likes to make comments. |
| 01:59:14.39 | Director Phipps | Thank you both for your comments. Thank you, Chair. Next speaker is Michael Nguyen. Come on down, Michael. You will have three minutes to speak. Please state your address for the record. |
| 01:59:28.67 | Unknown | Commissioners, thanks for the time. My address is 115 Santa Rosa. I've lived in Solstito for the last year and a half. Loved living here. Loved the community. And I too have kids ages two and four. I've just come from the South Seed nursery school quarterly meeting with parents meeting. I think this is a really interesting project. Just as one thing we're doing right now is we're renting our place. And we have rents for the last year and a half. We've started looking at houses in South Seed. A lot of them are old. The house that I live in is old. Our next door houses are old. In fact, our next door house is old and dilapidated. It can't be renovated. Um, we are looking at this as a bellwether of what's possible. And one of the challenges we face is exactly what are these rules? What can be done? What is fair air and light? And what compromises what a view? And so I think that's one of the things that the whole community is going to be watching, specifically on this case. It's not just what's allowed, but how do we take this opportunity to actually bed down what is going to be possible as we look at these houses and we think about how people's views compromised? What is air and light? What are these sections? How do we represent the needs of the future stakeholders that are part of this community, as well as those stakeholders that have benefits from living here for 40 years? How do we represent all the people, not just the homeowners? So thank you for the time. |
| 02:00:54.59 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Nguyen. Next speaker is Alice Merrill. Come on down, Alice. Alice, you know the drill. Three minutes to speak. Please state your address for the record. |
| 02:01:12.53 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. My name is Alice Merrill, 117 Caledonia Street. I must say that three minutes is sounding huge amount of time because it's usually two. This is a wonderful family, and we need to support our families in this town. All of the subjects between, I mean, what they did with people up the hill and look to see where they would fit and how they could see. My experience is the thing that's protected is your primary view. That's protected. Secondary views. are at risk. with helping from each other. These guys have worked so long and so hard to make this work. They're gonna have something that's really pretty. They're gonna have green stuff all over. They're gonna send their children to the Sausalito Public Schools. Do you think that's what that means? Um, they're, I lived here a long time. I know I'm not very articulate, but I just want this town to be for people. And as the fellow just before said, It's going to show. Who are we? Are we going to help? the young families coming in? Are we gonna make it harder and harder? Buying a house in Sausalito is almost impossible unless you're a billionaire. And so then you can buy whatever you want. You can do what you did to the Valhalla down there, which, in my opinion, you know, wasn't. They changed a bus stop from being a bus stop with a chair and a thing that people could sit in. to a little tiny bench that you have to crawl through the grass. And that thought through, how did that get through? Um, and that, Anyway. I just really want you to approve this. I want you to find that they have worked really hard to make this work. They've changed the floor level, for heaven's sakes, to change the windows so they aren't looking. The other houses around, they're big. They're really big, and that way big white building is... is huge and would never be allowed here now. And so to use it as a, I don't know. Um, I want this town to be open hearted and, um, to include people who can't afford everything. And I'm not saying they can't afford because this is a lot that they're doing. but they need it. They're gonna raise their kids here. They're not gonna leave. |
| 02:04:13.04 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:04:13.75 | Alice Merrill | These guys aren't going to leave, I believe. Thank you. |
| 02:04:17.89 | Director Phipps | Ellis, thank you for your comments. That does it for speaker cards in connection with this item. I will turn to the Zoom application looking for raised hands. in the Zoom application. First speaker is Vicki Nichols. Vicki, please state your address for the record, and you will have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:04:36.21 | Vicki Nichols | I will. My name is Vicki Nichols and I'm also at 117. Alice being my newest neighbor. I want to bring up a couple of things that I haven't heard talked about tonight, and I am sympathetic about the comments made about the families. and what needs to be done about this or that. But as a former planning commissioner, I'd like to reiterate that the goal of the commission is to treat everyone in the same way. The codes are written out with numbers. They're not that subjective. So just to say that, that was bothering me a little bit. This lot is currently in a substandard lot because it's less than 50 feet that I heard in the staff report. But that's not unlike any of this neighborhood, Turney Valley, the way it was developed. So you're constantly going to run into these problems where people trying to put a certain program, it may not fit well in these smaller lots. So I am sympathetic and I've heard that this applicant has really tried to fit what their needs are into this space. they're running up against some I'm not sure. defined. conditions. My question is if the, if the lots less than the 50 feet, we know it's substandard. How is the calculations done for these setbacks, et cetera. I'm wondering, I haven't heard one word about cultural resources, but I heard that two feet will be excavated. This location is a known burial site and less than a block from a noted site that requires an architectural, no, archaeologists to be on site. Has that been looked at? The light on the street from these windows is going to be unprecedented in terms of what will be leaking out on this front. I may be misunderstanding the way this is articulated it was hard to follow the the plans with the modeling and I admit I did not read the staff report as I would have if I were a planning commissioner. Lastly, the project duration Now that the street has been blocked at Caledonia, you can't proceed through pine and go to Johnson to turn any longer. So what happens is people turn up Turney and then they come around on Benita. and go down. pine to get across to go to the intersection. How long is this project going to go and what is the considerations for circulation in the neighborhood. And I wish you all the best for everyone. This is a tough one. Thanks. Good evening. |
| 02:07:18.48 | Jake (Applicant) | Vicki, thank you for your comment, but just for the record, Vicki Nichols was on the Historic Preservation Commission when she voted into this project. |
| 02:07:25.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You can't come in it now. You'll have an opportunity to, if you have minutes left, which I believe you do, to respond to whatever you want to respond to. You have one minute and 50 seconds remaining. You can't come up on a podium like that. |
| 02:07:33.97 | Director Phipps | You have one minute and 50 seconds remaining, but that will have to follow public comment. Thank you. So my understanding is that one party is having some technical difficulties staying in the meeting. So I'd like to just read one of their comments into the record. Jeff and Joyce Porter are appreciative of your concern for the impact on 424 Pine. We walked the property line with Jake and do not anticipate a problem with the windows. We are sure any issues can be resolved. |
| 02:07:59.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you, who, the name again and the address? |
| 02:08:02.59 | Director Phipps | Jeff and Joyce Porter, 424 Pine. |
| 02:08:07.10 | Andrew Junius | 424-5. |
| 02:08:09.73 | Director Phipps | Looking for other raised hands in the Zoom application? Going once, going twice, seeing none. Back to you, chair. |
| 02:08:18.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. With that, we'll close public hearing and we'll bring it up to the dais. of, Oh, I'm sorry. That's correct. You have, thank you so much, Commissioner Peller. You have one minute and 55 seconds left. |
| 02:08:37.31 | Jake (Applicant) | All right, I'll get to it. Lam, if you can go ahead and share that slide seven. Just wanted to make one quick comment that Vicki Nichols was also on the Historic Preservation Commission during this project, so I'm not sure if there's a conflict that should have been stated before she made her comment. |
| 02:08:51.28 | David Grabham | And she's aware that this is not a burial site because that was brought up actually in the historic preservation meeting. So this is actually not a burial site. So she should know that in the fall. She was there. |
| 02:08:57.73 | Jake (Applicant) | So. |
| 02:09:02.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:09:02.64 | Jake (Applicant) | I'm going to, |
| 02:09:02.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You could just stick to the facts that you want to give and don't give personal comments. |
| 02:09:08.44 | Jake (Applicant) | Next slide, Lam. Lam. So we talked about privacy. Um, The photo to the left is our master bedroom, if you sit in that chair, you stare directly into Conrad. Actually, Conrad hasn't lived in any of these houses in 10 years. So these are his rental properties. But You stare into his master bedroom window. Next slide. So there's current eye to eye contact from one master bedroom to the other master bedroom, which will not be possible. |
| 02:09:32.88 | David Grabham | Additionally, both of Conrad's projects are in sun all day. So the sun goes right past his house, both projects in sun. |
| 02:09:40.47 | Jake (Applicant) | This is our kid's bedroom. If you're standing in there, you see directly into Conrad's bedroom. This is again, not possible in the proposed design. It is possible in the current design. This is what you see today. And the photo to the left, the middle is the Conrad's master bedroom. And the photo to the right is what you'd see in the proposed design. Next line. |
| 02:10:00.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:10:01.39 | Jake (Applicant) | Same thing, second floor proposed view looking out the second floor bedrooms and then next slide. This is the view that Conrad has spoke about. The one on the left is what we were provided from his property management company. As you'll notice, the one he provided to the planning commission has a vantage point that is out and above whether or not this is taken with a selfie stick or on the roof TBD. But I don't think any of the commissioners visited this site, so it's hard to tell. We weren't able to actually find a view. |
| 02:10:34.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. Thank you all. At this point, I'm going to bring it back to the dais. And I apologize, Director Phipps, but I would like you to repeat the 424 Pine comment because I was having trouble focusing on what they said. The one that you said came in because they couldn't get online. |
| 02:10:56.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It was something about windows, I think. |
| 02:10:59.70 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:11:00.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I know where the property is. I just wanted to comment again, |
| 02:11:04.32 | Director Phipps | Jeff and Joyce Porter are appreciative of your concern for the impact on 424 Pine, 424 Pine. We walked the property line with Jake and do not anticipate a problem with the windows. No problem with the windows. We are sure any issues can be resolved. |
| 02:11:17.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. I had to focus on where it was, and then I forgot exactly what they said. Thank you, Director Phipps. With that, I'll start. I don't know, to my left. Vice Joe Julius, do you have any thoughts? |
| 02:11:34.06 | Andrew Junius | I sure do. um, Well, let me get it out of the way. I don't think anybody's going to be surprised that you know, I'm going to support a code-compliant project. No issues at all with this project. I think I actually feel pretty bad for what the applicant has had to go through to get here. And I'll talk a little bit more about that later. It's just too hard, too complicated, takes too long, too expensive to do something like this. in Sausalito and in other cities as well. Um... The high points, Privacy, I don't see there's any privacy issues whatsoever. I think the architect has done what they can and have been very clear that Privacy has been taken into account and, um, mitigated as best as possible with the design. You know, again, keeping in mind that this is a, you know, this is a compromised lot. This is a, you know, they're doing the best they can to get a 2100 square foot house on this lot. The fact that the supporters that we just heard of at 424 Pine are supportive, I thank God they are. They're on the property line. They actually almost have essentially an easement over the applicant's property here, forcing a setback. in a lot of other communities, or I wouldn't say a lot, but in San Francisco, for example, you just build right up to the property and block their windows. So the folks in 424 buying should feel happy they live in Sausalito. Um, |
| 02:13:06.94 | Andrew Junius | You know, I'm going to end. The real problem I have here is with the process. And I really do appreciate some of the commenters focusing on the findings issues and the conflict we have and the incredibly difficult position the city staff and commissioners at this dais are put into. When we're told that a project complies with the black letter of the code. So this is a zoning compliant project. Without question. And yet, We are going to be talking all night about whether we can make the findings that the code requires. And I'm, I've been doing this a very, very long time, almost too long. And, you know, when I started as a land use lawyer in the city, you know, a gazillion years ago, one of the things that almost immediately struck me was, you know, how much discretion and power that, that these rules, that the findings rules give to the staff and to the planning commission. in San Francisco and every community in the Bay area and every community in California. Um, The process can be a little bit different, but in the end, it really comes down to the same situation. You can do everything you can to try to thread the needle, design the project to code, interpret the, read the tea leaves of the findings, come up with something, go back and forth, you know, try to negotiate against yourself, just endless, as we're seeing here. and still be caught in this trap and have a hearing like this tonight, which is really unfortunate and sad. Just, I wish there was a better way. You know, Thank you. In Sausalito, it's almost like you sneeze and you're going to be required to be in front of this commission on design review. There's 21 different triggers in the code that require... anything to come to the Planning Commission for this kind of review and this kind of |
| 02:14:56.47 | Unknown | come to the end. |
| 02:15:00.39 | Andrew Junius | analysis. Um, But on the findings part, you know, let's just... Let's just kind of cut to the chase. Again, I really do appreciate the speakers that have really identified the elephant in the room. These finding requirements, they're, they're a hundred percent subjective. everybody in this room is going to have a different way of applying every one of these, these findings. How are we supposed to come up with a rational, decision here when we're supposed to apply words like consistent, with the general plan. maintain prevailing character. general scale of structures, minimize obstructions, appropriate visual relief, adequate light and air, appropriately designed, reasonable level of privacy, appropriate level of traffic safety, reasonable extent, You know, do not crowd and overwhelm structures, you know, it just goes on and on. It's, it's, it's just the way it's been forever. And it's just not right. I mean, it's just especially in this context. And frankly, one of the things that we're going to be seeing in the coming years is Um, you know, this, the conversation we're having here is not going to happen anymore with respect to multifamily housing. two unit projects and above. The state because of what happens in in Commission hearings like this and this this type of really, really difficult confusing. hard to pin down process has really caused enormous problems around the state, so the state has taken away that power from commissions and cities for larger projects, unfortunately I don't think this project is. protected by the housing accountability act so here we are, you know single family homeland and. I'm just, I mean, I'm going to, I'll have more to say. I think, um, Yeah. I don't, I don't think any changes are necessary to this project. I can make every one of these findings. because they're so subjective. Um, you know, with all due respect to the chair, with respect to the 18 inches on the back, Thank you. I mean, who really benefits from that? Come on, this is a small house on a small lot. that has really, really, I think, tried to account for a lot. It's a little bit, in some respects, it's a little bit like the fair landing discussion we had a month ago. There's not going to be a perfect solution here. People are going to be impacted. You live in a city. If you don't want to live in a city and you don't want things to change, you need to figure that out yourself. But, you know, there's also, you know, and I'll just finish with, you know, there's kind of a property rights issue here. I don't think the fact that just because you've been here longer means that you have. you're asking the commission to essentially grant easement rights and suppress development on lots. Like this. They're not asking for variances. They're smaller than most of the houses around. They're complying with the code and still we're being asked. And commissioners are questioning the ability to approve this without further changes because of these 20 frankly, ridiculous findings that we have to make. So I'm just going to leave it at that. Thanks. |
| 02:18:02.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice-Chair Genius, Commissioner Assad. |
| 02:18:08.86 | Nastassya Saad | With all due respect to Vice Chair Junius, I disagree in concepts because we're on this commission. We've been on this commission together. And yes, things are going to change. And that might be for better or for worse. But we are tasked with these findings. We have been tasked with these findings. And I think it's an important discussion. I would like to just address a lot of the public comment that makes it sound that the commission could potentially be against families or new people in town and that's not at all what our intent is. That's not what we're here to do. We're here to commission our fellow's Erika Endrijonas, Ph.D.: eloquently said, I mean we have to be fair and equitable to everyone that comes before this Commission and it's not our place to discriminate against a young family or protect someone who's been here for 40 years that's not what we're here to do, so I think in looking at this. objectively Yes, I agree. Vice Chair genius it's it's I think code compliant I would love to get into the discussion a little bit more about the 40 feet because I do have a question there I to read those provisions and I I want clarification that's my only outstanding. issue potentially on the code. But it is a we're not in San Francisco. So we are in a town and we do have findings to make. And I think character and design are important. I think getting people their projects are important and letting people build and they have the right to build is all very important. So I'd love to, I'd love to explore that 40 feet because it's just an outstanding question. The design, I don't think necessarily but I'm not going to be objective enough to say yes or no to the design. I think it's eloquently designed in the constraints that it is within. So would I choose that look and feel? No. Do I think they've done a great job in terms of trying to make something work? Yes. I do have some concerns around the windows with the lighting. It is unprecedented amount of lighting as well in that area. And knowing from other places in town and from my own impacts of what has happened in design review and the amount of light, that noise pollution, light pollution, not noise, excuse me, it's impactful. And you can't tell someone you can't keep their lights on. And we're not here to enforce that. So what we can enforce is design. And I think that is critical, even with the support of the neighbors. There is a lot of glass. And I have a little bit of concerns around that just from the impact in the neighborhood. But I'm a little on the fence. But I would like to just say that I just disagree in concept with my vice chair. But that's fine. We always find our ways through these things. But I'd be curious to know what the what the other commissioners feel. And just for the record too, as a point earlier, this is the first time we're seeing this project. We did not see this, it was postponed. We read the staff reports, because I think we all thought we were going to be viewing this, but this planning commission has never seen this project. So it's a heightened design review. There are a lot of findings. Like it or not, we need to make them. And, you know, we just need to be careful about how we're moving forward here. |
| 02:21:30.92 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Saad, Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:21:36.16 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:21:36.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:21:36.20 | Richard Graef | Thank you. Thank you, Chair Luxeberg. Excuse me. you Yeah, I'd like to comment on the objective, subjective subject. And indeed, we are asked to be objective in these situations, but we have to be subjective because a lot of it is interpretive. And as has been pointed out, somebody's view of what's appropriate or scale-wise or architectural style-wise, all of those things, are very subjective. And so I think we do exercise our judgments, you know, our some of our personal preferences and things like that come into this. And I think that's positive because we've had some very good effects on projects that really needed some subjective input. That being said, you I have very little quarrel with the design. There are some details about it that I'm not in love with. However, I think in terms of scale of the neighborhood, there are other structures that are bigger on as many levels. So I don't have a problem with that. Architecturally, I don't think a sort of slavish design approach to design to match the neighborhood is necessarily called for. If that's what they wanted to do, they could have done it and it might've been great. Um, I'm not thrilled with this design, but I can't find much wrong with it. I think it's quite a good solution to this family's needs. There are some very interesting parts of it that I think that I do like a lot. In any event, I think I had some I think I had some thoughts about the setbacks. I kind of agree with Chair Luxembourg about the kind of straight line along the left side of the building. But there's quite a bit of space between |
| 02:24:14.80 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:24:29.16 | Richard Graef | structure and the neighbor's structure. On the right-hand side, the neighbor structure is sitting on the property line. So there is no setback there. So all the setbacks have to happen on this property. And I think they've tried to do, they've tried to articulate that side of the building. And I think they've done a pretty good job there. I could see a little opportunity for a little bit more without too much compromise, which, you know, I think it would be basically reducing the size of the living room a bit so that there's another setback after the stairwell. I just felt, excuse me, and looking from the street on the right-hand side, because of the fact that the adjacent property is right on the line that it was still kind of a cramped space. And if you go down the street, the spaces between the various properties are pretty fairly generous. And on the right-hand side of this structure, between it and the one that's on the property line, it's still kind of tight. So that's, I kind of felt that. So those are my subjective comments. I think I'm pretty close to being able to make the findings, but somehow I don't know that we're quite there yet. |
| 02:26:12.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff, Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:26:17.38 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. You know, I appreciate everyone's thoughts and comments here. At the end of the day, though, we have a duty of care to... our ordinances, our findings, and our building codes. We might not like them and we might have been asked, you know, we've been asking for some time to update them or look at more objective standards as vice chair genius. And I have worked on with CDD, but we don't have those today. And so we do have a duty of care to the current existing building codes, ordinances, municipal codes, et cetera. So that's what I'm looking at when we're looking at this. And I'm trying to be as objective as I can, whether I like the design or not is, Not necessarily the point. It's not here. It's not my house. It's not for me. And I'm not saying whether I like it or not, but that is not really what I'm looking at. The reason I asked at the beginning to staff if there were any variances being asked is because I wanted to understand. if this is within the sandbox, let's say, of, um, of what's acceptable within our current building code. And I believe for the most part it is. That doesn't necessarily mean I can make all the findings, but I believe that that sandbox is certainly legit and no think that's a good question, and I think that's a good question, and I think that's a good question. Our code also says this, no one... is Karen Hollweg, subjected to a completely unobstructed view that no one has that right here in Sausalito, so I don't think that's what we're trying to achieve either. Karen Hollweg, I have a little bit of concern that some of the. Sarah Silver, neighbors closer neighborhood neighbors have have some comments about that about some of the impacts or that they haven't been engaged certainly we've gotten a lot of letters. Sarah Silver, Many of them are not neighbors, but many of them are maybe friends or colleagues in in in the area but i'm most interested in the neighborhood. And I believe that that's what we're here to really look at. So, I'm still not convinced on a couple of these findings, particularly those about the obstruction of use and really understanding exactly what those might be. And then in terms of the heightened design review, which is a whole nother trigger point that I don't think we can just gloss over here. It is there for a reason. you know, we've certainly there's certainly precedent precedent on other projects, whether this sitting commissioner or others prior about different public vantage points. And certainly the adequate setbacks, yards, all that kind of stuff. There, this does raise a couple other questions that I might want to get a little bit more clarification on we did not talk about COB, Elaine McLaughlin, landscape plans at all, and I maybe want to understand that so that I can feel a little bit better about this I don't know what your thoughts might be. COB, Elaine McLaughlin, But. Um, scale is not just square footage. I want to be clear about that too. Scale is also how you articulate facades and how, and I think that that's the issue. chair Luxembourg you were trying to get at is the monolithic nature of that 40 plus side. I believe that's what you're looking at. So you were looking at articulation, not taking away square footage, just bumping areas back to achieve some articulation. I believe that's what you were looking for. I'm not getting heartburn over that, but I certainly we've had to deal with that section of the code before where it's been much more impactful. And so, again, in the effort to try to apply these things equally and fairly, I want to make sure that you feel comfortable with that as well. But I'd like to try to figure out a way to move this forward tonight. |
| 02:30:48.81 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:30:48.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Now, let me make some comments and then you'll have an opportunity to respond to my comments. So, with all due respect, Vice Chair Junius, I disagree with you on the code compliant part. So, I've spent the last two days looking at a whole bunch and talking to the city attorney about this provision of the 40 feet. So, it is a little bit confusing, but there are different areas of the code that come into play. And so the applicant has agreed that they're over the 40 feet, and for the three and three-quarters inches, they've adjusted the side foot setback. But these decks cause an additional seven feet, causing a question that the setback should really be six feet in analyzing the code i am looking at a new provision that i had after i talked to the city attorney today that i believe the decks are structures they do they do they are part of this you have a roof over it uh but if it were counted that the setback should be six feet but rather than than have the entire building move back to six feet, because I know you're trying to maximize the interior square footage, I thought a reasonable compromise that would also address privacy would be to move the decks 18 inches off the wall, which would give articulation to that facade, number one. Number two, it provides more privacy. We're not taking out the privacy screens. You're losing exterior square footage, so you're not losing your interior square footage, which I thought might be more important to you, but I heard that might not be the case, that this exterior square footage was important to you. And therefore that would possibly, and it's still questionable, but bring it into code compliancy. And so that was my first concern. But without that, I don't think that it's code compliant. So yeah. |
| 02:32:48.34 | Kristina Feller | Can I ask you a question about that? Since this is deliberation, really, is I want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. And if you're looking for the area in the back, the decks, which extends that 40 feet, another seven feet, if it's just an issue of articulation of that where they can move the entire deck towards... |
| 02:32:50.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 02:33:12.15 | Kristina Feller | I guess that would be north, then you don't have that issue. So they're not actually losing square footage. Is that correct? |
| 02:33:18.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I didn't ask the question of the architect. No, but I'm asking you. |
| 02:33:21.06 | Kristina Feller | No, but I'm asking you like that. |
| 02:33:22.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm looking to get it 18 inches off. the what they're calling the south sideline. I'm not worried about losing the square footage, but I don't know what the design on the other side is. Yeah, we'll ask them in a minute. |
| 02:33:29.21 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:33:35.74 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, we'll ask them in a minute, but I'm just in deliberation here with us. |
| 02:33:39.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | My concern is to articulate the facade and move it away from the houses on Bonita and a pine next door. If there's room to move it the other way, that's fine. I was just trying to do a simple solution there. My second comment is related, this is a small lot. It is in our code allows for a small lot to have shorter setbacks. Abutting properties are on the property line. There are a lot of buildings in the new town part of Sausalito that are over the property lines or don't have setbacks or have all of these issues. Therefore, I don't think it's fair. From an equity point of view, if you're going to build, you need to be able to build. So given that you need to set it back from the street because you need the parking and they're adding parking to be code compliant. And given that it's a small lot, there is a sort of a box. And I think the architect indicated this, that there's only there's a box of which it can be built into. And they're asking for square footage. They are at the absolute maximum for one of the units, not counting the ADU. So they've maximized that. They're under the height limit. If they're able to solve this code compliant problem by moving these decks, the box is the box. So can we change really and be fair we can change the slope of the roof but they've already done that a couple times uh we can move the decks which i've got resistance on but if that could be resolved we can reduce the size of the windows because there is thing about light pollutions but other than that i mean it to take off the second floor which was suggested they're not going to be able to build the square footage that they need and uh i'm sorry the third floor uh well it's the question of whether the adu is on the ground floor this is whether it's europe or not uh first and second but |
| 02:35:49.35 | Kristina Feller | But they're within the envelope that they have a right to build in. |
| 02:35:53.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. That's what I'm saying. They're within this envelope if they solve this deck problem and can move it, which is why I asked the question earlier. With that, to go to finding number two, this is a unique architecture. I think it's distinctive and a creative solution. There are a bunch of different architecture in the new town. If they're not going to keep the cottage, raising the cottage up and making it a three-story cottage doesn't make any architectural sense. Thank you. architecture in the new town uh if they're not going to keep the cottage raising the cottage up and making it a three-story cottage doesn't make any architectural sense so i don't have an issue with finding two myself uh if uh if the decks are set back i think the light problem has helped and so therefore given the small lot sizes i think i can make finding seven if they can move the decks if they can't then i can't on the privacy concern again i think the the back part is the closest to the house on bonita so i think if you move the decks that helps with the the privacy issue as does the plants that they're putting on the decks and whatever. And then to number 13, I think with the additional articulation, I don't think it crowds and overwhelms. I mean, it's crowded. There's lots are small. This is the reality of the new town. And so again, I'm looking for solutions. I think the deck is one of them. And if we can do that, and maybe we can do something about the windows. I mean, I hear what Commissioner Graff is saying about giving room on the other side. But that neighbor doesn't seem to have an issue with it. And that neighbor is on the line. So I'm a little less sensitive to that because they're already using their sites up. |
| 02:37:38.23 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Are you a little concerned? I just wanted to address some of the light issues, though. I mean, not daylighting. but in the evening. And the one question that I didn't, get clarified that I probably should have is this very large deck on the front of the house. I want to make sure they're not like a lot of can lights, you know, that as you're driving up and down the street, it's a lot of glare and a lot of, it could be obnoxious. Maybe we can get that clarified at some point. |
| 02:38:06.85 | Andrew Junius | I think that could be a condition. |
| 02:38:08.89 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I mean. |
| 02:38:10.24 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:38:12.20 | Kristina Feller | you know, I get that you're trying to define a pathway forward and a solution this evening And it sounds like there's a possibility that that could be done. without losing square footage inside or outside? And that's probably a clarifying question that we could ask as well. And again, I just wanna know that scale is not square footage. Scale is also how you articulate the facades. I'm not sure that the front is very welcoming, but again, I'm not gonna sit here and try to design something from the dais. That is not our role. Um, But |
| 02:38:50.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I think if I could ask the commission, if I can allow the architect to come up and ask- |
| 02:38:56.75 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. if I clarify that. |
| 02:38:58.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'd like to ask this question first so we have more discussion about it. I asked the question, could you move 18 inches, take 18 inches off the deck. My next question that we're now asking is, can we shift the thing 18 inches to improve the articulation of that facade? |
| 02:39:18.66 | David Grabham | Yeah, absolutely. We're totally fine with that. And we misunderstood what you were saying the first time. I apologize. So we'd be definitely willing to do that. Okay. |
| 02:39:29.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, you can have a seat. |
| 02:39:30.96 | David Grabham | Thank you. |
| 02:39:31.02 | Andrew Junius | So you can slide the deck over. You would just reduce it 18 inches and lose 18 inches. Yeah. Okay. |
| 02:39:33.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THAT MAKES IT. |
| 02:39:33.94 | David Grabham | You would just reduce it 18. THE END OF THE END OF THE change. |
| 02:39:36.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:39:36.27 | David Grabham | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:39:36.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and lose 18. |
| 02:39:36.97 | David Grabham | AND I THINK IT'S A |
| 02:39:37.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:39:37.05 | David Grabham | to the future. |
| 02:39:37.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:39:37.64 | David Grabham | Thank you. you know. Yeah, that's what they're talking about. |
| 02:39:42.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, let's clarify that. You would take the AT&T. |
| 02:39:44.69 | David Grabham | Anything past 40 feet, right? Anything past 40 feet is what you want. |
| 02:39:46.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Anything past 40 feet and three and three quarters inches. Yes. We want to slide backwards a minimum of 18 inches. And you can do that either, but I sort of want to know the answer, whether you can move it by either making the deck smaller or shifting it. |
| 02:39:53.00 | David Grabham | Yes. |
| 02:40:07.73 | David Grabham | Correct. |
| 02:40:08.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you shift it or you would just make it smaller? |
| 02:40:13.15 | David Grabham | I would have to look at the plan. I think if we needed to do either one, it's not the end of the world. We would rather keep the deck space impossible, but if we have to shift it and reduce it, then it's 18 inches and you know, to go through this again for 18 inches is not worth |
| 02:40:30.46 | Kristina Feller | I would shift it or reduce it, and I think it's fine to leave that to your discretion as long as it's done. |
| 02:40:35.88 | David Grabham | Great. That sounds great. |
| 02:40:37.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you for your comment. Vice Chair Junius, you had an additional... Yeah, thank you. |
| 02:40:42.12 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, thank you. So yeah, let's talk about these findings for a second. Thank you. Just because I don't like him doesn't mean I don't have to deal with him. But I also really want to |
| 02:40:49.41 | Kristina Feller | Um, but Amen. |
| 02:40:52.02 | Andrew Junius | This discussion that we just had, I think, points out exactly the point I was trying to make. So the only evidence that I saw on the record with respect to finding seven and finding nine, so finding seven is adequate light and error, adequate light and error, no other guidance, no numbers, no definitions in the code, no interpretations, nothing that gives the commission or the community any guidance as to what adequate light and error really means. And the same thing with respect to reasonable level of privacy. Now, the architect went through painstaking details to describe how they designed the house. to address both of those issues specifically. And we could go through those again and again and again, the lining up of the windows, the lowering of the house, everything. was directed at that. That's the evidence in front of this commission. And now all of a sudden, 18 inches makes a difference. And I disagree on the code issue. The staff has said it was code compliant. I'm believing it's code compliant. I'm sticking with the staff's decision. I don't understand how 18 inches on a side yard that nobody's ever going to see makes any difference whatsoever. And all it does is it harms the project. Now, admittedly, they'll do it. They'll do it. No question about they want to get out of this thing tonight. They'll do it without a question. THE BEST OF THE BEST OF THE Why do we make them do that? And how can 18 inches 18 inches make any difference with respect to these words, adequate, appropriate, reasonable. I'm just, I'm really just lost. I really am. |
| 02:42:16.91 | Kristina Feller | So can I ask another clarifying question to the architect chair. |
| 02:42:20.89 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:42:21.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | us. |
| 02:42:22.10 | Kristina Feller | Sir, do you mind? I don't know. |
| 02:42:24.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:42:24.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:42:24.89 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. But just back to my question, because I should have asked you this before, and I apologize, I did not. On the front deck area, how is that lit? |
| 02:42:37.04 | David Grabham | The |
| 02:42:37.48 | Kristina Feller | The one facing your carport. |
| 02:42:39.26 | David Grabham | I mean, I think there's a rule about shaded canopy and everything like that. So I don't think that. |
| 02:42:44.14 | Kristina Feller | Everything. |
| 02:42:46.69 | David Grabham | If that was a condition of approval, no can lighting, then you know, we can figure out another way to get lower surface lights and still light the deck. |
| 02:42:56.87 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, because privacy isn't just being able to look in people's windows. Just be mindful that, I mean, this is a neighborhood. And, you know, this is a, you know, a much larger structure that will sit over other lower structures. So we just want to be sensitive to the neighborhood. |
| 02:43:04.54 | David Grabham | Thank you. |
| 02:43:04.97 | Unknown | you know, |
| 02:43:15.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:43:15.56 | David Grabham | Absolutely. |
| 02:43:16.48 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Yeah. Thank you. |
| 02:43:20.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, back to the dais. So I think that, first of all, the Vice Chair Junius, I think there's a question about the code compliancy. And there's another section I found today that relates to DEX that, and so this may or may not be code compliant. And our code is so complicated that despite the staff bringing this forward, that there are complexities given the lots in the city are all different and whatever. But for me, that's a code issue. And I think the simple solution is to move it 18 inches because at that point, it articulates the facade, whether that would call into question whether the whole side has to be moved. I'm not suggesting we move the whole side. The ADU is allowed to be at four feet. So this was a simple solution that I think can be interpreted from this section of the code to be code compliant. Without this, I believe it can't be and can't support it because of that. So it's not about the 18 inches. it's about the code in my sense. We should, I encourage the staff long-term to look at this provision of the code and look at clarifying it long-term because it is confusing. I went back to another project and looked out how it was previously interpreted. And in light of that, which I did just before I came in today, I think there is a code compliancy issue. I think this 18 inches solves it, and therefore we can just move on. We could wait and postpone this. Chair, they. |
| 02:44:54.11 | Kristina Feller | Chair, they've agreed to it, though. |
| 02:44:56.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I understand. But I wanted to address Vice Chair Junius that it's not about the 18 inches to me. It's about code compliancy. And we might disagree about the code. And the only way to solve the code issue would be to continue this and then have that fully analyzed. What I'm suggesting instead, because they've agreed to shift this or reduce it, that we just go ahead with that. |
| 02:44:56.66 | Kristina Feller | Why are we talking about this? |
| 02:45:21.26 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, of course, of course. I'm just pointing out the 18 inches seems to me. Okay, if you're hanging your entire hat on a code discussion that you had with the city attorney, great. But so, you know, I think irrespective of that, if the code wasn't a problem, I would really be, again, objecting to the fact that there's no evidence in the record that moving this back 18 inches does anything to increase the ability to make these findings. The only record we have says these findings can absolutely, any reasonable. But that's a reason that's a subjective word reasonable. I don't know who's reasonable, but who's not. But it seems to me like we have evidence here that each of these findings and the view finding as well can be made because there's no evidence that I've really seen that there's any significant view issues at all. So. |
| 02:45:29.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:46:05.07 | Andrew Junius | I just think we should have approved this. And if they're willing to take the 18 inches off, let's do it. |
| 02:46:08.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think the 18 inches off, let's do it. We're heading in that direction, but you're genius. So let's not belabor it because we'll end up going down a different road. So I just wanted to be clear that it's a finding and a code issue for me, or I wouldn't be worried about it. Let's do it. |
| 02:46:10.10 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Great. Let's do it. |
| 02:46:26.23 | Kristina Feller | Let's just go forward, please. |
| 02:46:27.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But having said that, I'm going to suggest the following. Let's see if I can get some concurrence in looking for somebody to make a motion. I think we would like to move forward with this project. I think that a condition will be that the decks are shifted a minimum of 18 inches or reduced by 18 inches so that the facade in that line is 40 inches and three quarter, no more than 40 feet, three and a half inches or whatever that is. We can look that up before we get to the motion. We'll look for a condition on these lights on the front of the building. I'll look to whoever's making the motion, whether they have a concern about the windows on the side for light pollution, not because the neighbor is worried about somebody looking in uh and then i'm looking at there were any i didn't see any other uh conditions other than the standard conditions and what i'm looking for is because we can't approve this tonight what we can do is we can approve it with these conditions so that the staff can prepare the resolution to come back to the next meeting because unlike the other ones we don't have that resolution given there were so many questions tonight but then we would not rehear this at the next meeting the idea would be a motion to approve with these conditions and ask the staff to prepare the resolution and then at our next meeting on november 1 that they would they would come back and uh we would just formally vote that without a public hearing |
| 02:48:00.55 | Kristina Feller | Okay, so I'd like to put a motion on the floor, please, to approve project ID number 2023-00013 with two conditions, one being to shift the rear decks 18 inches. It is at the discretion of the architect if you reduce them or shift them, but they need to be off the plane of that facade. The second condition is at the front deck. to please ensure low lighting levels, lighting at the floor level and not ceiling level to protect the integrity of the neighborhood in terms of privacy and light pollution and so on. |
| 02:48:46.11 | Mary Wagner | So, and just for clarity, the chair is correct that you cannot technically approve the project tonight because there's not a resolution for approval and the city code requires that the planning commission take action by resolution that has written findings, however. The chair is correct that the appropriate motion here would be to Close the public hearing. direct staff to prepare a written resolution approving the project with the conditions of approval that were just suggested, and that would be an appropriate motion at this time. |
| 02:49:17.23 | Kristina Feller | Okay, then I'd like to make a recommendation to close the hearing and for staff to prepare a recommendation to approve this project with the following conditions, those that I just... mentioned, I can mention them again, to shift the rear decks 18 inches. It is at the discretion of the architect to either shift the entire decks over and away off that 40-foot plane, or just to reduce the size and offset them 18 inches off that facade. And the second is to incorporate low lighting levels and lighting at the floor areas of the front deck and to avoid any light pollution with overhead lighting. |
| 02:49:58.98 | Director Phipps | And Commissioner Feller, can I just ask a clarifying question on the first condition? Would you be okay with including the word minimum of 18 inches just to give the architect flexibility if they feel for aesthetic purposes greater than 18 inches would be appropriate? |
| 02:50:16.14 | Kristina Feller | I would. Thank you for that recommendation. |
| 02:50:17.83 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:50:18.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:50:18.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a city attorney a question? So I thought I had closed the public part of the public hearing already, but if we close the hearing, at the next meeting, we do not have to have another hearing. Is that correct? |
| 02:50:32.66 | Mary Wagner | That is correct. This could come back on a consent calendar. That being said, you would still have to take public comment, but you would not be taking new evidence or necessarily have to reconsider your decision. |
| 02:50:42.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, that's great. So that's the direction to direct the trips if this were to pass. |
| 02:50:45.15 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Yes. Do we need a second to that or a vote? |
| 02:50:48.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. Yes, we need a second. All right, vice chair. And when you say, we close the public, I already closed the public, and we close the public hearing before we have this conversation, don't we? Or do I have to, I just want to know the sequence. Do I need to close it before we take a vote? |
| 02:50:50.21 | Kristina Feller | All right, vice chair. |
| 02:51:08.79 | Mary Wagner | Typically, yes, you do. I just wanted to make it clear that that is what had occurred and that we will not be having a reopening of the public hearing. |
| 02:51:15.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I had done that, but I'll reiterate that the public hearing is closed. I just wanna ask a question. If we have a public hearing closed, we can ask questions of the architect, which we did, right? Do we know if a public hearing is closed or do we have to reopen it to ask those questions? |
| 02:51:32.31 | Unknown | I think they're good. |
| 02:51:33.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:51:33.85 | Director Phipps | So beyond the item that's been on the agenda. So any further discussion would not be appropriately agendized. That would be my position. |
| 02:51:33.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, |
| 02:51:33.93 | Unknown | So, |
| 02:51:34.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 02:51:41.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just want to know that I, okay. |
| 02:51:44.16 | Mary Wagner | So here's the issue with, yes, you're entitled to close public hearing before deliberation. However, if you're raising any issues for the first time, as part of deliberation, it is Due process requires that the applicant have the opportunity to respond to those. So technically you'd be. implicitly reopening the public hearing at that moment. |
| 02:52:06.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, that's what I thought. So I wanted to be sure. So I'm going to formally close public hearing at this point. With that, we have a motion and a second. And now I'm gonna ask- |
| 02:52:19.63 | Kristina Feller | I think vice chair. |
| 02:52:20.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, Richard, the commissioner, perhaps, has a question. Further comments and questions. Oh, yeah. |
| 02:52:20.76 | Kristina Feller | I'm not sure. |
| 02:52:22.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:24.90 | Richard Graef | Oh, yeah, relative to the motion. Yeah. |
| 02:52:27.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. to the next. |
| 02:52:27.97 | Richard Graef | Okay. |
| 02:52:28.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:52:29.32 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:52:29.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:52:29.55 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Right. |
| 02:52:30.92 | Richard Graef | I just wanted to ask Commissioner Fowler if the |
| 02:52:31.65 | Unknown | Absolutely. |
| 02:52:38.80 | Richard Graef | we should consider all of the decks, the lighting in all of the decks. B. appropriate. I mean, there are more than just the front decks. There are the back decks. And so I think we want to, if we're going to address lighting, which we haven't, there's not really a lighting plan. So then we probably should maybe include all decks in the lighting. issue. |
| 02:53:08.26 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I was most concerned about the front deck because it actually has a roof on it and not all the other ones do. |
| 02:53:10.41 | Richard Graef | because it |
| 02:53:16.40 | Kristina Feller | Just the second floor, one in the back, I believe. |
| 02:53:20.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think the second floor, one of the decks in the back has a roof over. |
| 02:53:25.22 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, the second floor. Part of it, yeah, it does. |
| 02:53:25.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We have concerns of the abutter on the backside with the division is seeing this out. |
| 02:53:27.94 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:53:27.97 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 02:53:28.11 | Kristina Feller | We heard that. |
| 02:53:28.34 | Richard Graef | Yeah. |
| 02:53:30.77 | Kristina Feller | you If you want to include that, I'm fine with that. |
| 02:53:36.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So we want to, the maker of the motion accepts that amendment. |
| 02:53:41.37 | Kristina Feller | I'll accept that. Yes. |
| 02:53:43.08 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I'll accept that as well. |
| 02:53:44.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:53:44.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:53:45.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so Commissioner Graff, any other comments on the motion? |
| 02:53:50.37 | Andrew Junius | No. |
| 02:53:50.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | . |
| 02:53:50.49 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:53:50.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 02:53:50.69 | Andrew Junius | Bye. Thank you. |
| 02:53:51.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 02:53:51.51 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:53:51.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair Juniors, any other comments? |
| 02:53:53.42 | Andrew Junius | No comments. |
| 02:53:54.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:53:54.67 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:53:54.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Saad, no. Commissioner Feller, no. Okay, with that, Director Phipps, can you take the role? |
| 02:54:02.01 | Director Phipps | Would be happy to share. Thank you, Commissioner Saad. Yes. Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:54:04.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:04.54 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 02:54:06.35 | Director Phipps | Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yep. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:54:06.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 02:54:15.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, next item on the agenda. is uh six uh 207 woodward avenue this is a design review permit with heightened review and encroachment agreement a non-conformity uh permit to facilitate the substantial remodeling and additions to a two-story duplex and catherine spalding uh from the planning department is going to give the presentation uh thank you very much catherine |
| 02:54:44.06 | Katherine Spaulding | Good evening, everyone. I'm Katherine Spaulding, Associate Planner with the City. Thank you for taking your time this evening to hear out this project, which as you mentioned, is 207 Woodward. Maria is working on pulling up the presentation. In for a design review. |
| 02:54:59.45 | Kristina Feller | I apologize for interrupting you, but we can't hear you. |
| 02:55:03.03 | Katherine Spaulding | You can't hear me? Is that better? That's better. Thank you very much. I'm known to be soft-spoken anyway. |
| 02:55:04.92 | Kristina Feller | That's better. Thank you very much. |
| 02:55:09.75 | Katherine Spaulding | So this is, as was mentioned, the application is for the substantial remodel of the home that you see on the left of 207 Woodward Avenue. to what you see on the right, which is a three-story home in the same location, in the same existing footprint, going up one third story, creating a third story. It's in for a design review with a heightened review, a non-conformity, and an encroachment agreement, which I'll go through. So, This is just an aerial view to give you an idea of where it sits in the district, which is an R2-2.52 family. just up from Bridgeway. It's not on the clip, but it's over kind of the bay model as you go over to Richardson's Bay. And upslope. The home in question, the subject property, sits downslope on its lot, and it has two frontages, one on Woodward Avenue, which is the primary view, and the second is on Rodeo Avenue, where the driveway and parking are, which is what I'll discuss with the encroachment agreement later on. To give an idea of the home on the street, we're looking westward just to get an idea of the front facade of the home itself as it currently stands. And the second image is looking north. A southern image was difficult to get because of the home on the other side. Next slide. And here it is looking front with the neighbor to its north. And you can slightly see on the lower one, the neighbor to the south. So two different style homes on both sides of this Queen Victorian style subject property. Next slide. And this is what I could get of just the vicinity of both the adjacent properties under one snapshot. You can see that there's breathability between a lot to the south and a little bit more snug on the right. To 11 Woodward. Two things we'll be discussing today, along with the design review and heightened review, are the encroachment at the driveway in the back. I'm sorry. Yes, the encroachment at the driveway at the back and primarily as well. the nonconformity of the northern facade of the existing structure, which is proposed to be kept in that nonconformity location for the substantial redesign. The site plan shows lots of line work here. The dark dashed line along the northern portion is the setback line. And the lighter dashed line is the line of the building facade, which from the front to the back ends up swinging out just about nine inches into the setback. And the next slide, please. These are diagrams of, this is a duplex, if I didn't mention that, pardon me. This is the lower unit of the duplex. There's no changes proposed here. Next slide. This is the first floor of the upper unit of the duplex. The changes here are slight in that they're removing one of the bay windows to the south of the building and sliding over the balcony. All new construction. And next slide. This is the introduced third story. Currently, there's an attic loft, and the applicant is proposing a quite a substantial third floor up there, which is creating the third story and the mass of the project itself. And it is, one more back, Maria, thanks. The third story is set back on all sides from the existing two walls below. And so it is held back at the setback where the nonconformity exists two levels below. So that will not be no variance or anything is sought after at that point. Next slide. And this is the roof plan also showing that the third story is set back, giving some articulation as well as with the balconies below. The bay window is set lower than the ridge of the home and at the First story of the second level, there's also that lower level roofline, as you can see. Next slide. As I mentioned earlier, this is the existing and the proposed elevations. The existing home did have to come up against CEQA, and we got a historic elevation or evaluation done for it because it was built in 1899. so our historic consultant did a review of it and her evaluation was that even though it is a Queen Anne style which was very popular in that turn of the century era, the home has been altered so many times that it's fairly difficult to tell what is existing now, replicated, and we don't have any pictures of the original home. you know, professional assessment was that while it does have some qualities of a Queen Anne Victorian still. that it's been altered enough that it doesn't qualify as a historical resource in our city. Um, and therefore. The applicants have chosen a completely different style architecture than the Victorian, which is a Mediterranean-style home. With the barrel tile roofs, it's very typical of a Mediterranean-style home. I think it's well-designed and an upgrade to the neighborhood. Staff does have some concerns about the massing, granted the third story. And a little bit of the articulation could as well to the facade. Although the balconies that are introduced, also consistent with Mediterranean design, are recessed and are set back from the front facade, providing articulation there. The bay window, as you can see on the right-hand side, the top story bay window is set back. That's the one that you saw on the site plan that is now respecting the setback line. The two stories below are encroaching. And one other thing to note as far as the nonconformity goes is on the upper right-hand existing elevation, you'll see a slight shed roof structure that looks like it was stuck there, and indeed it was. It's not permitted. And the applicants, instead of seeking a variance, are proposing to remove it completely. And it's built all the way out to the setback, and so they're removing that as part of their proposal. Next slide, please. |
| 03:02:06.80 | Katherine Spaulding | Or not. |
| 03:02:08.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:02:13.14 | Katherine Spaulding | Well, Oh, okay. Thank you, Maria. This would be the alternate. This is the rear and the alternate elevation, also showing some articulation in the roof lines. The third story, again, is about 5 and 1 half feet taller than the existing structure, but still below the 32 feet height limit. That's what's showing in this one most predominantly. And next slide. This is site sections, building sections of the proposal as well as what is existing now. And this mostly tells the story about what's happening At the third floor, which is really the major interior expression, which is very well expressed on the exterior of the building. You can see the articulation on the both sides, the front and the back of the structure, how it mimics a bit what is happening with the existing. However, going up a third story and consuming quite a bit of that available roof space on the third floor. next slide. So to the conversation of the existing nonconformity, this is just a blow up of the site plan. in that corner area showing where the, again, the light dash line, the small dash lines, that's the building. wall and the darkest dash line is the setback. So although slight, it is apparent. And again, on the top left, there's the removal of that laundry room, which was actually over into the adjacent property line. And we are proposing to keep that conformity as it is, although with a new plaiting. which is... again, part of the nonconformity, because that would be a change to that facade. We wouldn't be keeping the shingle on that side. Not we, the applicant. Next slide. And as to the encroachment in the back, so this lot does have two frontages, as I mentioned, and in consistency with those double frontage homes along Woodward, most of their driveways are on the Rodeo Avenue side. And this being a duplex has some required parking that the existing driveway was not providing. an unpermitted move, the driveway that red dash line that you see in the in the image to the right, is what the existing what the original homes driveway was and an unpermitted move. It was expanded to what you see now. And it still doesn't fit two cars side by side with the 19 by 9 parking. And so at this juncture, the applicant would like to legalize that initial encroachment and swing that retaining wall out just a little bit more, I believe, by 7 to 9 inches so that they can adequately get two cars within their parking and make that area of parking in and out and swinging in and out. It's on a very windy section of Rodeo, make it much more safer for themselves and for circulation and traffic pedestrian as well. Next slide. This is just a quick series of images to show in 2011 what the driveway looked like, which is representative of when the home was built. Very, very narrow and woodsy, fitting one car just about. The second image is from 2021, where you can see two cars, if you look really hard, parked tandem with one another. And again, this is a multifamily, two unit home. So to provide for both in an unpermitted situation. Next slide, please. the driveway on the right, on the left, was created, but still not wide enough. And I provided the aerial image again so that you can see the consistency of the double frontages with driveways in the back of this property. And this is our final slide, again, just to put the image in your head of what the proposed home is with the third story fronting on Woodward Avenue. It would be the only third story home, three story home on this lot. Given that it is a 2-2.5 district, there is a variation of homes and styles and sizes. However, this would be the only third story one on the lot. And, you know, there are considerations for lowering the plate height at the top level, or perhaps introducing some more articulation to the facade itself. However, staff has found that it does meet all the findings. And part of those are heightened review with the amount of square footage that's being added. And we feel all of those have been met. |
| 03:07:30.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Ms. Smaldinger, for your report. With this point, we'll have questions of staff. Any questions? Vice Chair Junior. |
| 03:07:30.68 | Katherine Spaulding | Thank you. |
| 03:07:39.96 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Interesting project. So the house is the existing house was only built in 2011. it. |
| 03:07:47.59 | Katherine Spaulding | No. |
| 03:07:47.75 | Andrew Junius | No, no, I'm sorry, 1890, but you said there was a... |
| 03:07:49.44 | Katherine Spaulding | 1899s. |
| 03:07:50.24 | Andrew Junius | So the changes that I'm really kind of curious about, why there's so much unpermitted work here. There's a, there's a driveway that was built without permit. There was maybe, I guess the, the owner will maybe explain some of that when that happened or if they were even involved. But, um, But yeah, that's kind of interesting. |
| 03:08:07.15 | Katherine Spaulding | It is interesting and it's also noted in the historical resource evaluation that the consultant was not able to find permits for a lot of this work. Most of it was to windows and exterior cladding, the balconies, changes in the balustrades, you know, things like this. Nothing and the introduction of the dormer window to that, to the roof line. |
| 03:08:30.33 | Andrew Junius | Great. Thank you. |
| 03:08:31.14 | Katherine Spaulding | Thank you. |
| 03:08:31.16 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:08:31.17 | Katherine Spaulding | You're welcome. |
| 03:08:31.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Commissioner Saad, any questions? |
| 03:08:37.77 | Andrew Junius | Thank you Commissioner Gref, Commissioner Phillips. |
| 03:08:41.40 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, thank you. Thank you for your presentation report. I just wanted to get a clarification from you. You've been referring to a historic preservation consultant, but has this gone to the Historic Preservation Commission? |
| 03:08:58.31 | Katherine Spaulding | No, it did not. And the reason for that was it's not on our inventory, but given the year that it was built and that it has a Victorian appeal and style to it, we thought as staff, it would be a good idea to bring in our historic consultant, was what I meant to say, if I had named that wrong before. And so she came and did her professional review and it was her assessment that it does not qualify to be on the inventory as it's lost so many of its original qualities. And so in terms of it going to HPC, no, that might be a next step. I'm not sure what that process is. from here. |
| 03:09:35.70 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, I would have thought this would have gone to HPC before it came to us. If I may clarify. |
| 03:09:41.32 | Director Phipps | if i may clarify commissioner uh so the applicability of the historic preservation section is is really only in connection with projects excuse me properties that are on the historic register |
| 03:09:50.30 | Unknown | Excuse me. |
| 03:09:53.41 | Director Phipps | or on our noteworthy structures list. |
| 03:09:55.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:09:55.33 | Miller Darterberry | Thank you. |
| 03:09:55.95 | Director Phipps | As Ms. Belding has specified, this property is not on that list. In those instances, we render an internal departmental determination. Catherine is formerly an architect, and she is an expert in assessing this kind of quality. But just to be abundantly sure, we bring on an additional historic consultant, Jerry Hallon, who we've worked with for months now. And we also appreciate her perspective. With both of those combined expertise together, we're fairly confident in our position. And we do not think that this project ought to go before the Historic Preservation Commission for those reasons. Thank you. |
| 03:10:35.16 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I appreciate that a lot and appreciate the explanation and have all the confidence in the world in CDD. So thank you. Thank you for that. I think other than that, do you have calculations on what the flow area ratio or built up |
| 03:10:54.04 | Katherine Spaulding | area are. We do. And brought to my attention is that because of the restrictions of two-family homes in this district, there are heightened restrictions of floor area along with heightened review and design review. So it brought us to another level. And this homes is a 1,919 square foot structure with both units. The applicants proposing it to be 2,419. They are adding, the third floor will be 771 square feet. So there's a five, it sounds like there's a 500 square foot difference, but that's because they're demoing completely the existing attic space and replacing it with a third floor that will be 771 square feet, making that above the... it exceeds the 80% maximum for the allowable on the lot, bringing it very close to the maximum. And this will remain multifamily. The lower unit will remain a lower unit of the duplex and the upper two would remain a two-story portion of the upper unit. Great, thank you. Thank you for that. |
| 03:12:11.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Thank you for your presentation. I will have a presentation by the applicant. |
| 03:12:18.77 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, may I ask one question? I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. Yes. There was one public comment on a record that I saw. I don't know if we had late mail. I didn't check. Did you hear anything from any other of the surrounding neighbors? |
| 03:12:20.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, I'm sorry. |
| 03:12:31.59 | Katherine Spaulding | Just the two. We had one public comment in support and one public comment that has a question about potential. I think the applicant, the person is here, so I'll let them speak to their comment. Okay, great. Okay, thank you. Just one. One was a late male and one was not, if that was your question. Okay, thank you. Yeah. |
| 03:12:41.25 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, great. Thank you. |
| 03:12:46.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so at this point is Mr. Arterbury on behalf of Tejo Jahal. Are you who's going to do the presentation? Thank you, Millard. You have 15 minutes to do your presentation. I believe you have an actual presentation that you put up on the screen. |
| 03:13:05.17 | Miller Darterberry | I do. Yes. And hopefully I'll have some help from Maria. |
| 03:13:05.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I do. |
| 03:13:10.27 | Director Phipps | We've got you, Mr. Arterbury. |
| 03:13:11.94 | Miller Darterberry | Thank you very much. CDD Phipps. We don't want Super. Try to rely on my notes here |
| 03:13:36.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We'll have 15 minutes if you want to reserve time for a response to you should shorten and allow some extra time if you want to respond to any public comments. Okay, thank you, Chair. |
| 03:13:46.40 | Miller Darterberry | Thank you. Well, good evening, everyone. My name is Miller Darterberry. I'm the designer and the applicant, and I'm also a resident of Sausalito, and I work here as well. So good evening, commissioners. Thank you very much for allowing us to present our project. We'd also like to thank our planner, Catherine Spaulding, for helping us get to this point. Next slide, please. Our remodel plan is based on the vision of our owner, Tindji Joe Hall. Ted, you wanted to create something special, even though the units are rentals, he wanted to create a home that would be that he would be happy to live in. Aesthetically, we settled on a clean Mediterranean style. And it's drawing inspiration from the homes in San Francisco's Marina District and early modern architect Irving Gill. Next slide, please. Our project will be adding 500 square feet of floor area, mostly on the existing third floor. We will also be adding 80 square feet of new deck space a new entry gate, and a replacement in kind of the existing front deck of the lower unit. Finally, we will be remodeling the exterior. I'm going to go over the project in greater detail now. I'm going to, and I kind of broke it down into themes just to, try to organize the various findings. The first theme is just gonna be the homework or the background info. Next is gonna be context, then view. and then massing and privacy landscape parking in egress and finally some additional considerations. So each theme will have one or more of the 20 design review and heightened review findings that have to be met associated with it. you Next slide, please. |
| 03:15:47.29 | Miller Darterberry | All right. So here are project notes that pertain to finding one. As part of our normal project research, our office obtained a survey for the property and documented as-built conditions. Additionally, planning staff determined that even though the home was built in 1899, was it? It is not historically significant. Our design does not seek any variance. Our design is consistent with the stated goals of the city of Sausalito General Plan housing element, particularly the H1 policies and policy H-2.1. And therefore, we feel a project meets the requirements of finding one. Next slide, please. So our next theme is context. In order to understand the neighborhood, we undertook a general property info survey of the 31 homes in the neighborhood. So on the right, is a numbered map of the properties we looked at. The properties include houses on both sides of the street in the 200 block of Woodward and the downhill homes in the zero to 100 block of Rodeo. Next slide, please. So these are homes near our property at the beginning of this block of Woodward, like our lot there on the uphill side of the street. Please note the third level dormer on our next door neighbor at 211. That's the one on the right upper. 203 Woodward is under construction for a third story. 215 and 243 have street level garages plus two living levels. Next slide, please. So these are also on the uphill side of the street. Please note that 247 and 259 Woodward, which have stucco finishes and some styling elements in common with our design. Also note 247, 257, and 261 all have street-level garages with two stories above, resulting in three-story structures. Next slide, please. These homes are across the street from 207 Woodward on the downhill side. Not much to say about them, to be honest. Next slide. |
| 03:18:09.21 | Miller Darterberry | The three top picks here are of the last three homes on the east side of the block. And the bottom three are the first on the north end of this block of Rodeo, I think it's near the intersection of Rodeo and Nevada. Next slide. |
| 03:18:29.82 | Miller Darterberry | These are six more homes on Rodeo. I actually worked on one of them, 60 Rodeo. Next slide, please. And these are the last two on the south end of this block. Next slide, please. So the data we compiled is tabulated on the right. The floor areas are from the county assessor records. So out of the 31 residential buildings, 14 were duplexes. While the designs were eclectic, most were clad with wood siding or shingles. There were three dwellings that you stuck Odo. our square foot total of 2,419 square feet would make us the fourth largest duplex in the neighborhood. I know Commissioner Feller mentioned that floor area isn't everything, and I happen to agree with that, but I think it's a good starting baseline. Next slide, please. |
| 03:19:29.72 | Miller Darterberry | So while our proposed Mediterranean style is an outlier in the neighborhood, it's not without precedent, certainly not in the region. Our design avoided maxing out our allowable FAR. And I have a question or clarification regarding that. that maybe we could discuss if it comes up later. While we would be among the larger duplexes, we would be far from the largest. Based on our survey, we are confident that our design is consistent with findings two and three. The next thing we'll discuss is Vue. The primary view from the homes in our neighborhood, particularly on the uphill side, are Richardson Bay. This is especially true on the upper floors. Next slide, please. Below on the left is a map perspective of our view. On the right is a picture showing Rodeo Drive running behind our lot. Our neighbor behind us is a large apartment complex set back from Rodeo by a tall embankment. As you can see, our project will not block the primary views of any of our neighbors. |
| 03:20:37.66 | Miller Darterberry | Our design also has no effect on any potential view of pedestrians on Rodeo Drive. The proposed addition stops below the backyard tree line. Below are a couple of views of the rear of the property from Rodeo. And based on the story poll location, I drew in the existing and proposed roof lines. both are below the existing tree line. Oh, I'm sorry. That's on the next slide, please. Now, I believe I labeled them wrong, but the lower red line is the existing and the upper green is the new. Next slide, please. So based on the photographic and story poll evidence, our proposed design meets the findings four, five, and the heightened review finding number three. |
| 03:21:31.17 | Miller Darterberry | So our next theme is massing and privacy. Our proposed design provides step back and articulation on all four sides. On the front, we varied the deck depth to step back the mass. So on the south side, we brought the third level wall in 3 and 1 1 feet. The rear elevation already has a pop-out from a previous edition. We tie this into the new design with the new sloped roof and trellis. On the north, where we have that slight encroachment into the setback, we brought the wall in about one foot and we articulated the transition with the batter trim elements. So we have no proposed exterior mechanical equipment or chimneys. and the existing unpermitted laundry room as our planner mentioned, and our setback is being removed. Next slide, please. So here are the views of the house with the story pulls up from all four sides. I believe you can make out the Eve lines. And the two story poles in the middle represent the new ridge line. |
| 03:22:45.57 | Miller Darterberry | Next slide, please. |
| 03:22:49.47 | Miller Darterberry | When we reached out to our northern neighbor at 211 Woodward, he expressed concern about the potential additional shadows of the new design being cast on his house. to better understand the shadow potential We ran a sun study for the equinoxes and solstices. We modeled for existing and proposed conditions. There is limited shadow change at the winter solstice on the roof. There was none at the other dates. There is change to the amount of shadow being cast on the south wall of the neighbor. But there are some existing shadows as well. We made the full sun study videos available online. Some stills of the study are on the following four slides. Next slide, please. |
| 03:23:37.28 | Miller Darterberry | So here are the autumn views. with the roof views on top and the wall views on the bottom. There is no shadow change in the roof, some in the wall. Please note the time and date stamp at the bottom of the pics and all the times are mid-morning, which is a worst case scenario, to be honest. Next slide, please. |
| 03:24:01.38 | Miller Darterberry | Here are the winter views with some shadow change on the roof and wall. So given the prevalence of shadows already present on the side and the space between the buildings remaining, a reasonable 12 feet. We feel this sidewall maintains adequate sun and light. We also feel the effect on potential solar panels on our neighbors' booth roof would be negligible. Next slide, please. Here are the spring views with some shadow change on the wall. |
| 03:24:35.36 | Miller Darterberry | Next slide, please. These are the summer views with no change. And apparently that is the one season in which the shadows don't change from existing to new. Next slide. As previously noted, there are several other three-story structures in the neighborhood. Additionally, we also noted there are several other comparably sized duplexes. Based on massing considerations and our attention to privacy, we feel we have met findings 7, 8, 9, and 13. Next slide, please. Our next theme is landscaping. Our project proposes no landscaping in the yards and no tree removal. We do, however, propose built-in planner boxes of both new front decks for screening and softening of the elevation. Based on these factors, we feel our project meets finding 6, 11, 1 of heightened review, Thank you. in seven of heightened review. Thank you. Next slide, please. Our next consideration was parking in egress. A decorative security gate with columns and lantern lights on either side is proposed at the Woodward frontage. We are also seeking an encroachment agreement for the widening of the driveway at the rodeo frontage, along with the the associated wood retaining wall. This work is already constructed. This will bring the total number of legal parking spots available to Tune. Our new internal circulation, we feel is efficient. As such, we feel our design meets findings 10 and 6 of heightened review. Next slide, please. With regard to additional considerations, our design proposes no new encroachment into any required yards. and is done on a pre-existing lot. As part of the building review and construction process, we will provide all the necessary plans and procedures as required to ensure slope stability and safe installation of new utilities. This includes an erosion control plan, a grading and drainage plan, and a staging plan. Our construction team headed by a licensed contractor will work with the Public Works Department to schedule our work which may affect the right of way. Our grading will be limited to work associated with any necessary foundation enhancements for the expanded third floor. The cut is estimated to be about five to 10 cubic yards. Based on our arguments, we feel our project is consistent with the guidelines for heightened review finding, Findings two, four, five, and finding number 12. Next slide, please. So we were very gratified to receive a letter of support from our neighbor to the south at 203 Woodward. It is recognition recognition of months of hard work on the part of our office and the city staff. On behalf of our owner, Teji Johal, whose vision we have done our humble best to fulfill. We would like to again thank the commission for the opportunity to present the project and we welcome the feedback. Thank you. |
| 03:27:33.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for your presentation. We'll now do questions of the commission. |
| 03:27:40.28 | Andrew Junius | So, Thank you. |
| 03:27:41.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so I have two technical questions that I want to clarify before we go further. So you asked the question about the FAR. There is a limit of 0.557 on the FAR because the size is between 3,000 and 6,000. So you're allowed a maximum of 2444 for the primary unit. And my understanding is you're coming in at 1885 for the primary unit, not counting the other units that correct. |
| 03:28:14.92 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 03:28:15.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | see that's what's on the drawing yeah it's why you to confer what you have on your own |
| 03:28:15.36 | Andrew Junius | Thanks. That's what's on the drawing. Yeah. coming your own Yeah. |
| 03:28:20.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, and then the remaining square footage, you can have a total of 0.65 for the entire property. So you have 20, which is 2852, but the total square footage for the property is only 2419. So you're under substantially, you could have more square footage, but you're not asking for that is what I'm trying to verify. Okay. |
| 03:28:49.03 | Miller Darterberry | COMPANY. |
| 03:28:49.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Greg? |
| 03:28:49.40 | Miller Darterberry | Thank you. |
| 03:28:49.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Thank you. |
| 03:28:50.61 | Miller Darterberry | Yes, so it was my for for most of my dealings with with the planning department. And it was my understanding that that point six five was the was the overall maximum for FAR and that the the overall, not the overall maximum, the maximum for an individual unit was that calculation on, you know, in that particular snippet of code, you know, 10.44.3, I can't remember, but that's my understanding. |
| 03:29:19.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's my understanding as well. And I just wanted to get on the record that you're substantially under for the primary unit and you're substantially under for both units together. My second technical question is on the front corner, I'll call it the right facade, which is probably the north facade. The current setback of the existing house is four feet three inches on the third floor calculating it from your drawing but i couldn't find the the calculations in the drawing i could just have the dimensions there's about four it's four foot two on your site plan and then it appears you have another four foot three inches from the second floor to the third floor so that the third floor if I understand it is eight foot five inches off the property line where the setback requirement is five. I just want to make sure that I'm getting that correctly. Is that how you designed it? An additional four feet, three inches from the third floor. The third floor is set back from the second floor by four feet, three inches. That's what I tried to scale off your drawings, but you designed it, so I'm asking for sure. |
| 03:30:32.81 | Nastassya Saad | Did we pull up the drawings? Would that be helpful? |
| 03:30:35.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, would you like your drawings brought up? |
| 03:30:35.36 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 03:30:40.06 | Director Phipps | Just give us a moment, please. |
| 03:30:46.09 | Miller Darterberry | If you're talking about the north side, the side where the bay window is, That third floor wall is only set back 11 inches. |
| 03:30:57.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Okay, so if you could clarify the drawing for me, because I misread your drawing. |
| 03:31:04.23 | Director Phipps | And do we know which sheet you'd like me to |
| 03:31:07.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know what the number is, but not that one. Keep going. |
| 03:31:07.23 | Director Phipps | Bye. Focus. |
| 03:31:16.83 | Director Phipps | First floor, second floor. |
| 03:31:17.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second floor. |
| 03:31:20.77 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:31:20.80 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:31:20.83 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:31:20.85 | Director Phipps | for a while. |
| 03:31:20.97 | Andrew Junius | floor |
| 03:31:21.51 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:31:21.53 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:31:22.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. So zoom in on the third floor on the right side. There's a dimension. If you, |
| 03:31:34.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm sorry, that'll be the top. It's the top. Yes, thank you, Kathy. So it says 30 inches tall. |
| 03:31:43.72 | Unknown | 30 inches excuse me |
| 03:31:44.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:31:44.66 | Director Phipps | 30 inches. I'm sorry. Excuse me. |
| 03:31:46.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. It's, I was correct the first time. It's the one on the right, the number on the far right. |
| 03:31:56.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you zoom in more, it's that dimension on the far right go down, down. to the one in the center. keep going down farther. No, no, no, don't know. |
| 03:32:06.72 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:32:06.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:32:06.87 | Kristina Feller | I'm telling them wrong. |
| 03:32:07.71 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:32:08.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, the overall number on the far right. |
| 03:32:13.30 | Kristina Feller | go down. |
| 03:32:13.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | go down there's 31 feet 11 inches and if you go to the next plan uh i think that's no um the other way i guess i don't know uh |
| 03:32:13.91 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 03:32:30.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If you go to the other floor, the second floor. |
| 03:32:35.39 | Director Phipps | This is the second floor. Thank you. |
| 03:32:36.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:32:36.97 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:32:36.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | is the second floor. So that was 31. Go to the first floor. I'm sorry. Thank you. |
| 03:32:47.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | not a dimension on the, oh yeah, there it is, 36 3 3 quarters. So it appears that your top floor is 4 feet 3 inches smaller than your second floor. I'm trying to ascertain the dimensions change on the side yard. They're four foot two in the front, according to your site plan, and it's four foot eight on the back. But where the shortest part, which is four foot two, you've added four feet, three inches on the top floor, meaning it's eight and a half feet from that sideline, which is more than the setback requires. And I just want to confirm that information, but they're your drawings. So. |
| 03:33:14.45 | Unknown | But |
| 03:33:32.78 | Miller Darterberry | So it's... |
| 03:33:33.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:33:33.98 | Miller Darterberry | It sounds like a discrepancy of five feet or so, or a total delta of like five feet. And 11 inches of it is on the upper, on the upper wall and three and a half feet is on the lower wall actually. So of the third floor. So both sides come in. On the south side of the third floor, comes in three and a half feet and that three and a half feet is roofed. And it, |
| 03:34:06.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So what is the south side? Is that the one on the top? On the bottom. On the bottom. I'm asking the one on the top. |
| 03:34:14.85 | Miller Darterberry | The one on the top is just an 11 inch and it was, um, It was actually an inset of necessity because of the nonconformity, you know, the existing encroachment. So we had to come up with something. So we stepped it back. |
| 03:34:27.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. What I'm trying to ascertain, and I thought that's what I'll ask it differently. Currently, you're four feet two off the side yard setback. I want to know how far is the third floor from the property line on whatever that side is on the top. |
| 03:34:44.21 | Miller Darterberry | It varies, but it's just a little over five feet. |
| 03:34:47.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So your third floor is not set back four feet from the other floor because it appears that when I looked at those dimensions. So it's only set back 11 inches while you're saying. |
| 03:34:57.80 | Miller Darterberry | credit. |
| 03:34:58.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but it exceeds five feet. |
| 03:35:01.25 | Miller Darterberry | Correct. |
| 03:35:01.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | or exceeds five feet or it is five. |
| 03:35:05.27 | Miller Darterberry | it exceeds it by just a little bit. |
| 03:35:07.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. That was my question. Other questions? |
| 03:35:10.03 | Andrew Junius | Commissioner Felt. |
| 03:35:11.89 | Kristina Feller | I have just two clarifying questions just to make sure I heard correctly. what you were saying, can you confirm the number of parking spaces |
| 03:35:22.55 | Miller Darterberry | proposed two. |
| 03:35:25.25 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And you mentioned that the impact to your neighbors' solar panels is negligible. So is there an impact to them? Because there are some state regulations regarding that. And I just want to make sure that we're clear what negligible really means. |
| 03:35:47.04 | Miller Darterberry | What I saw in our sun studies was that the neighbor has a slope portion of his roof, or his or her roof, and a flat portion. The slope portion isn't affected by the shadows, but the flat portion on that side, you know, adjacent to our property is in one of the Yes, one of the seasons, yeah. Winter, I believe. |
| 03:36:18.59 | Kristina Feller | Have you looked at a way to solve that? Because I don't believe you can block their solar panel generation unless you, you know, there's an, an, an option to relocate some of their panels elsewhere at your cost or something, but I think we need to address that. Cause that, that is a state state issue. |
| 03:36:41.26 | Miller Darterberry | Is the law or the code regarding that, is that 100% load generation, 50% load generation? I mean, it was only a small portion of the roof that was affected. And so if we could have a solar panel representative come out and calc out, that max load could be achieved without using that portion of the roof. Would that be acceptable? |
| 03:37:10.37 | Kristina Feller | Again, I mean, it's not necessarily governed by this body. It's a state issue. And I would defer to our city attorney. to maybe weigh in on that a little bit further. You know, we have to uphold what those state mandates are as well. So it's not really discretionary at our, you know, from our point of view. And I see our city attorney there is come on camera. So I don't know, Sergio, if you could weigh in any further on that. |
| 03:37:38.36 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I mean, I'm aware of requirements in the state building code that for new construction, you have to have solar panels on residential buildings that essentially offset the anticipated energy consumption. But those requirements are not retroactive. I am curious as to whether or not the present neighbor has solar. presently has solar. |
| 03:38:00.97 | Kristina Feller | It sounds like they do. Is that correct, Ms. Chatterberry? No. |
| 03:38:06.00 | Miller Darterberry | This is just for potential. |
| 03:38:07.79 | Kristina Feller | Oh, I thought you were saying they had solar panels and you were blocking it. |
| 03:38:11.71 | Miller Darterberry | In the... |
| 03:38:11.93 | Kristina Feller | That's what I was trying to clarify. |
| 03:38:14.66 | Miller Darterberry | I'm sorry for the, uh, yeah, for the, um, many misinformation, but yeah, uh, It came up in the discussions as a possibility, you know, if if the neighbor so chose to add solar panels. That's why I included it in the conversation. |
| 03:38:32.61 | Kristina Feller | Oh, then I'm, then I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that they had them and you were potentially blocking them. Okay. Okay. Sorry, Sergio, I guess I don't need the clarification. OK, great. |
| 03:38:43.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, great. Other questions, Mr. Feller? |
| 03:38:45.83 | Kristina Feller | question. |
| 03:38:48.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:48.70 | Kristina Feller | So, |
| 03:38:48.75 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 03:38:48.80 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:38:49.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:49.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:38:49.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:49.19 | Kristina Feller | No, thank you. |
| 03:38:49.54 | Unknown | with. |
| 03:38:49.78 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:38:49.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:38:49.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Exactly. |
| 03:38:50.25 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 03:38:50.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, Commissioner of Science. |
| 03:38:50.45 | Nastassya Saad | THE END OF |
| 03:38:53.54 | Nastassya Saad | I just want to be a little I just wanted to clarify on the parking. from what you're trying to widen just from an same ingress egress is it has it been reviewed I don't know if it's just an acceptable width to be able to make sure you can get those two spaces and of course just from a safety because woodward I'm sure you're aware is a very tight tight street. |
| 03:39:18.28 | Miller Darterberry | Mm-hmm. That limited planted strip there would get pretty narrow, but there is sufficient room there. The height of the wall would remain about the same. And yeah, we just wanted, you know, two legal spots. I think it's eight, nine by 18. It was wanted, wanted to be fully, fully compliant. |
| 03:39:44.57 | Nastassya Saad | Is it still tandem parking then? Mm-mm. Okay. |
| 03:39:48.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just a question on that. Have you talked to Public Works about the configuration? Because this is all in the right of way. |
| 03:39:56.11 | Miller Darterberry | the configuration of the |
| 03:39:59.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You have an existing retaining wall. They are legally permitted, not permitted. They widened it so two cars fit, but they're not legal. You're going to widen it farther by moving the retaining wall. And this is all in the right of way, and you need an encroachment permit. You're here tonight for that. Has public works weighed in on the design of this retaining wall? |
| 03:40:02.12 | Miller Darterberry | Bye. |
| 03:40:20.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 03:40:20.78 | Miller Darterberry | No. |
| 03:40:21.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 03:40:22.57 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:40:22.59 | Miller Darterberry | Okay. |
| 03:40:22.79 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:40:24.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Catherine, could you come to the podium if you're going to? |
| 03:40:31.85 | Katherine Spaulding | Pardon me from speaking from the corner. Yes, they have. Public Works has looked at it. They feel that the shift is negligible so long as their main concern was that it supports the wheel load from the street above because it is a downslope lot. So as long as we provide the appropriate structural atmosphere with details to show that the wheel load from the lot above and any soil is retained, they're fine with it. |
| 03:40:56.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and that's, I haven't looked at that particular, that's part of the conditions that they added to this project. |
| 03:41:02.23 | Katherine Spaulding | I would have to double check that, but it's certainly a conversation that I had. |
| 03:41:03.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Okay, thank you so much. |
| 03:41:06.92 | Katherine Spaulding | Thank you so much. |
| 03:41:08.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh... you Vice Chair, Commissioner Assad, any other questions? No. Vice Bureau of Juniors. Thank you, Chair. |
| 03:41:16.03 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:41:16.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:41:16.72 | Andrew Junius | Um, |
| 03:41:17.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:41:17.40 | Andrew Junius | How long has your client owned the property? Approximately a year. |
| 03:41:22.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | every Thank you. |
| 03:41:23.47 | Andrew Junius | Great. Thank you. That's that's that's good. |
| 03:41:25.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | They're going to talk you after coming to the phone. |
| 03:41:27.17 | Andrew Junius | No, no, that's fine. That's all I needed. It's fine. |
| 03:41:29.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:41:29.72 | Director Phipps | record February of last year. |
| 03:41:29.95 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Great. And you really and I know it's it's always unfortunate when a property comes to the commission with a bunch of unpermitted work done. Right. And you kind of bought that. Okay. Are the units vacant? |
| 03:41:48.15 | Miller Darterberry | No. |
| 03:41:48.65 | Andrew Junius | Okay. And actually, I wouldn't mind you coming up with respect to the existing tenants. I assume there's a plan to relocate them and you've talked to them and they understand what's going on. That's really any of our business, but just curious. That is correct. |
| 03:41:59.35 | Stuart Rabinowich | and I'm not sure. |
| 03:41:59.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:41:59.43 | Andrew Junius | That's correct. |
| 03:42:00.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:42:00.21 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:42:00.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | in the beginning. |
| 03:42:00.45 | Andrew Junius | our business, but just |
| 03:42:01.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:42:01.41 | Andrew Junius | That is correct. |
| 03:42:02.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. |
| 03:42:04.36 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:42:04.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius, Commissioner Greer. Commissioner Feller, anything else? At this point, we will close your part of the presentation. I don't know. Was there any time left? Yes. One minute and 12 seconds. You'll have one minute and 12 seconds to respond to any comments. So have a seat. And at this point, we're going to take public comment on the project. |
| 03:42:35.95 | Director Phipps | And commissioners, if I may, just want to confirm that there are public works conditions of approvals included in the resolution, as Ms. Spalding mentioned, in connection with details that demonstrate that the relocated retaining wall along the driveway and parking will be constructed to support the wheel load. And then there are conditions associated with drainage so that it is diverted away from the driveway and the parking area. And, of course, the condition that an encouragement agreement is required. |
| 03:42:36.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, |
| 03:42:36.10 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:43:06.06 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:43:06.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. That's helpful. So at this point, I'm not seeing anybody on Zoom. Do we have any speaker cards? |
| 03:43:14.38 | Director Phipps | I do have speaker card And I will call for the second time, David Bernstein. David, thank you for your patience. Please state your address for That's it. For the record, you three. to be... Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:43:31.30 | David Berenson | you you Before I start. |
| 03:43:34.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think we saw that as part of the the record, but we can put it up on the screen if that's out. |
| 03:43:42.41 | David Berenson | if you can, or I have two copies I could share with you next. |
| 03:43:44.82 | Director Phipps | Is this the late mail or attachment |
| 03:43:50.62 | Director Phipps | Great. Great. The late mail. Yeah. |
| 03:43:54.08 | David Berenson | Thank you. |
| 03:43:57.59 | David Berenson | Shall we? My name is David Berenson. I've been part of the Sausalito community for over 20 years. I own the property just to the north of 207 Woodward, referred to as 211 Woodward, one that the sunshade study was done on. Um, Our properties are separated by approximately 12 feet. The south side of my property, um, has nine windows that have direct sunlight all day long. and the sunlight provides primary living space, light for the main entrance, the kitchen, dining room, living room. And the sunlight is what makes the top floor my whole property. Right. Proposed development will have a major negative impact on our property. by blocking our right to natural light. It will impact seven of the nine windows on our south-facing side. The proposed development will build a third story wall, which I estimate about 31 feet wide and about nine feet tall, plus the pitch roof. Um, It will increase the property, the shadow line on my south facing wall by nine feet, as we'll see in some images, blocking about 75% of the light that my whole upper floor receives. And I've presented some images that if you have time to bring up, but the first image, which for those of you who have, there you go. So that's an image of the 211 property on the right with a proposed storyboards. Can I step over here? Do I have a laser thing or something? So anyway, let's stop right there. I can take the mic. |
| 03:45:43.15 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 03:45:48.58 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:45:48.60 | Miller Darterberry | There's not enough room to pay |
| 03:45:50.37 | David Berenson | That's fine. So if you look at B, you'll see that is the top of the news story poll. A on the bottom is the current |
| 03:45:50.39 | Miller Darterberry | That's, |
| 03:45:50.60 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:46:00.31 | David Berenson | shadow line, thank you very much. And this was done about a week ago at about 10, 20 in the afternoon. So that's a nine foot span between A and B. And if you draw a line between B and C, you quickly. B and C. Sure. So B and C, this line will be projected across here, cutting out light to all these windows over here. All right. And if you go to the next slide, |
| 03:46:36.29 | David Berenson | This is the kitchen window. This is where the new shadow line is going to be at 1023 in the afternoon or the morning, I should say. And then the next slide. |
| 03:46:47.93 | David Berenson | This is the window I just showed you is here. This is B. And so the shade in the morning is going to cover all of these windows up. My whole top floor is going to be in darkness in the morning and the afternoon. And that's what makes my property. So I have problems with the sun stage. Thank you for your comments, sir. |
| 03:47:05.82 | Director Phipps | I'm sorry, your three minutes are up. |
| 03:47:07.94 | David Berenson | Got it. I just don't think the sunshade studies are accurate. And I'm asking for more time to work with Teji, who I've met once. |
| 03:47:15.01 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments, sir. |
| 03:47:16.04 | David Berenson | Thank you. to review this. Thank you. |
| 03:47:19.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are there other comments? Any more speaker cards? |
| 03:47:23.98 | Director Phipps | No speaker cards, Chair, and looking to the Zoom application, no raised hands. Back to you. |
| 03:47:29.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing unless we ask for further comments from the architect, and we can reopen the public hearing. At this point, I'm going to bring it up to the dais, people's thoughts, Commissioner Saad. |
| 03:47:45.88 | Kristina Feller | Chair, I'm sorry to interject and forgive me. |
| 03:47:48.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Fowler, yes. |
| 03:47:50.22 | Kristina Feller | But the applicant had a minute and 12 seconds left to respond to the public comment. |
| 03:47:55.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | They did. I apologize. Thank you for reminding me. Would you like to come up and you have a minute and 12 seconds if there is any response that you would like to make? I will reopen the public hearing. |
| 03:48:12.68 | Miller Darterberry | Thank you. The one thing I'd like to say is that I do believe our sun study is accurate and our stills, but you have to keep in mind, the stills just represent one instance in time, one instance within a year. And that's why we did, you know, full videos. And I do happen to agree that there is, there will be some, there will be some shadow effect. But depending on the season, it'll be, it'll go from, uh, uh, non-existent to some pretty decent shadow effect in the morning. In the afternoon, not so much because the sun is past a certain point. |
| 03:48:55.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. We've got 24 more seconds. Any other final comments? Teji, do you want any comments? No. Thank you. Okay. With that, again, close the public hearing. I'll bring it up to the dais. Who would the... |
| 03:49:10.54 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:49:13.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Saad. |
| 03:49:14.42 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you, thank you. So I love the design. I actually think it's a fabulous design, even though it's not necessarily fitting with the entire neighborhood. But what we just did at the last project sort of against that, I do have some concerns with the height. But I think, you know, as far as I can tell, There is compliance among the... the math of the setbacks and the floor aspect for the four area ratio. I'm not entirely certain I'm 100% comfortable. just yet because I'd like to go through some deliberations. I think my one of my bigger concerns was just Woodward is a tight street. And so I was concerned about the parking and I think there's a good solution there. So I won't belabor anything here. I just I'm not ready yet for too many more comments, but I just want to throw out that I do. I do like the design. I am just unsure if it's if it's mass and scale is a little bit too intrusive on the neighbor. |
| 03:50:22.50 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Commissioner Saag, Commissioner Graff. |
| 03:50:28.06 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 03:50:34.29 | Richard Graef | Well, it seems to be compliant pretty much. I am concerned about the shadow issue that was just brought up. Um, It's not my favorite kind of architecture, but... We can't be subjective, right? So I don't have too much to say about it. |
| 03:50:58.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Grass, Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:51:02.59 | Kristina Feller | I don't have too many comments on this one. You know, this is sort of the price you pay for progress and evolution here in Sausalito. It makes me sad that we lose, you know, some of these wonderful old pieces of architecture, but considering there was so much unpermitted work, I'm not sure we're losing that much. But, you know, they're also not really asking for any variances. I mean, this is they are within the envelope that that our municipal code allows them to build in. um, I do think there should be some sensitivity to the neighbor and the shadow. But this is the time of year where you know, it's getting darker earlier. And so it's always gonna be one of the darkest times anyway when you're doing a shadow study. So I think it's a very valid point, and I'm glad the neighbor has spoken up about this, but his property will not be in pure dark all the time. We're going into a darker time of the year, but I believe there's some validity to what he's saying about reasonable enjoyment of his property as well, which he has a right in our municipal code as well. So that's really the only issue I would have that I think needs a little bit further work. Thank you. |
| 03:52:27.76 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Commissioner Federick. |
| 03:52:28.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | junior. |
| 03:52:31.81 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Yeah, I mean, it's certainly a code-compliant project. I'm not going to make any comments on the architecture. The shadow issue is an issue. I probably can make the finding. You know, there is a relatively decent gap between the homes. unlike the last case where things were really jammed in, there's some, you know, there's some breathability here. So, um, It is unfortunate, but again, I'm from everything we saw, I think this building probably could even be bigger. So, you know, and still stay within the code. So, um, Yeah, I'm going to be fine with this, I think. Thanks. |
| 03:53:16.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. Yes, I have concerns about the shadow as well. However, as I was establishing earlier, this building can be bigger according to the code. I think the design is distinctive for Sausalito. So even though it's different than it is today there are a whole bunch of different uh types of um architecture on on Woodward and Rodeo uh there is a large apartment complex on Rodeo across the street from where this parking is which clearly the heights are much higher and it's up on the hills so I think the height of this is is is is reasonable it's within the code uh it is unfortunate that that height then causes the shadow impact but it does change from season to season and um it's the reality of the size of our lots and uh that i do like the fact that the setback of the top floor is set back more than the second floor because that allows more light in. I thought it was set back eight feet. I was misreading the drawings. That was what I was trying to clarify. So, but it is compliance. So it is what it is. At this point, I think we're looking for what's the pleasure of the commission. |
| 03:54:48.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Anybody want to make a motion? |
| 03:54:51.47 | Andrew Junius | I'll move to approve. |
| 03:54:57.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm looking for a second, dude. |
| 03:55:03.70 | Nastassya Saad | I'm not going to second. I think this project, I do love the architecture. I have concerns about the shadow. I just think it, you know, I'm not the designer. I'm not an architect. But it is a massive building. And I agree with that. The neighbor is having some shadow concerns. I'm just not comfortable yet. |
| 03:55:05.14 | Unknown | I, I, I. project. Thank you. |
| 03:55:30.13 | Kristina Feller | I'm just... |
| 03:55:31.88 | Nastassya Saad | So if we can talk about it. or |
| 03:55:34.70 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:55:35.10 | Nastassya Saad | Nice. |
| 03:55:35.53 | Unknown | $1. |
| 03:55:36.77 | Kristina Feller | I would love to get this project approved. But we do have language currently in our municipal code that The impacts from one neighbor cannot cause the inability to enjoy another neighbor's property. And this is where I think we have a little bit more work to do. And that is also going to require compromise. You do have a right to build on your site. And you are within the envelope. But reasonable enjoyment of your neighbor's property is something that he is protected to to as well. And so I would just like to see a little bit more work. done with the neighbor to see if a compromise can be made your property will very likely shade part of his property. but maybe we can mitigate a little bit of that and come up with a compromise. But, you know, otherwise you are, you have a design that works within the envelope that you're allowed to build in. But I think maybe just a little bit more work there would go a long way. And it is for that reason that I would put a motion on the floor to continue this, |
| 03:57:04.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We have a motion on the floor. I'm going to withdraw my motion. |
| 03:57:06.52 | Kristina Feller | but we're like, |
| 03:57:06.94 | Andrew Junius | I'm going to withdraw my motion. |
| 03:57:08.29 | Kristina Feller | We're allowed to put another motion on the floor too. |
| 03:57:08.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh. |
| 03:57:08.46 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:57:08.51 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:57:12.24 | Kristina Feller | But I would put a motion on the floor to continue it for the sole purpose, in my view, and my fellow commissioners will weigh in on this as well. to perhaps work a little bit on a compromise with the neighbor with some of the impacts to the shade on his property so he has reasonable enjoyment of his property as well. That doesn't mean... Thank you. We're suggesting that you lop off a floor of your building or anything like that. We're not suggesting that. I'm certainly not suggesting that. But where you can work out some sort of compromise would be most appreciated. |
| 03:57:50.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh, |
| 03:57:52.03 | Richard Graef | Second that. |
| 03:57:54.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm a little torn on this one because I feel like if we lower the roof on this project or we set it back, I thought it was set back three more feet. I don't think that if you put this third floor on that, whether it's moved back a foot or two feet, it's going to change the shadow impact significantly. there is going to be a shadow impact uh so we're going to be back here talking about the line from b to c is you know two inches different i mean it was with the third floor unless you completely change the architecture and completely flatten out the roof i don't think the shadow studies given them what i in the shadow studies, that we're going to be able to improve it much. And therefore, we're, you know, we're going to be back here approving this proposal, I think. So I, I, |
| 03:58:52.32 | Kristina Feller | What are you suggesting to approve Vice Chair Junius? |
| 03:58:55.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was about to second Vice Chair Junius. I'm going to agree. |
| 03:58:58.58 | Andrew Junius | I'm going to put the motion back on the table. I moved to approve the project, but I would like to make a comment before you move on. Yeah, this is a really difficult one. |
| 03:59:03.80 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:59:08.02 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. I mean, I also think given the symmetry of the project, you know, the problem is you start pushing on one side, it's not going to look right. Right? I mean, I'm not an architect, but I And if you turn it into too much of a wedding cake and you get an unusable room on the top, you know, to try to help out the neighbors. So I do think it's a difficult one. Um, And so, yeah, I'm moving to approve it. I do think, you know, wintertime, there are shade in their shadows and, you know, the sun, you know, the, the, the, anyway, I would move to approve. |
| 03:59:39.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'd second that. So further conversation about this. I think I'm just... |
| 03:59:45.26 | Nastassya Saad | I think I'm just being sensitive to the fact that there are a significant amount of windows. I think if there were fewer windows on a butters, I mean, the natural light that's coming into those windows is... I'm not comfortable. I'm going to, well, you got, you have a second. You have a second. I'm going to go ahead and go ahead. |
| 04:00:09.34 | Kristina Feller | You have, you have two motions on the floor with two seconds. Yeah. We could just, |
| 04:00:11.75 | Nastassya Saad | on the floor with two seconds. |
| 04:00:15.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I'm gonna, as chair, I'm gonna go back to the original motion that Andrew made with the second, and we can vote on that, but let's continue to have some conversation here because I think it's important. I read the SUN study that it doesn't block all nine windows. The way, if I'm understanding This line is this thing here, it's going backwards. That's the way it was explained to me. And so I, we can ask the architects his opinion on the study of which windows by I got the impression these were still not going to be blocked so |
| 04:01:02.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:02.73 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:01:02.82 | Unknown | for here. |
| 04:01:03.76 | Kristina Feller | Oh, no, no, no, no. We're in deliberations. |
| 04:01:04.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right. |
| 04:01:04.81 | Andrew Junius | THE END OF THE END OF THE No, no, no. and we're going to have a |
| 04:01:08.44 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I mean, I think that's the point. The corner windows, you know, are going to be less affected by the shadow. I mean, that's and there are plenty of windows also on the front of the home. So, you know, And again, it's a pretty large, the approximate distance between, you know, the homes, 12 feet, you know, that's, that's a pretty decent side yard. I'm not sure where the property line is, but definitely some gaps there and it's, I'm, I'm ready to move forward. |
| 04:01:38.15 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:01:38.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:01:38.29 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:01:38.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:01:38.74 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:01:41.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You can call the question. Why don't you call the question? |
| 04:01:43.69 | Kristina Feller | Well, I think, you know, are we going to We have two motions on the floor. |
| 04:01:48.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I took off the one to continue and was going to go with the original motions. The original motions back on the |
| 04:01:49.24 | Kristina Feller | In two seconds. |
| 04:01:55.65 | Kristina Feller | I'm not going to be able to do that. |
| 04:01:58.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, |
| 04:01:58.86 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:02:00.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, we had a motion. I think under the rules that we work with, you can't put a second motion until we dismiss the first motion. So we didn't, so. |
| 04:02:10.25 | Kristina Feller | All right. |
| 04:02:11.03 | Andrew Junius | Oh, |
| 04:02:13.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:02:13.49 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:02:13.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | of the |
| 04:02:13.83 | Andrew Junius | I'm- |
| 04:02:14.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But I would like clarity from with regard to whether because I think those windows in the front are our block. And if that's the case, then I don't think that whatever design we're going to give instructions are coming back and do all this design work and end up exactly where we are. And I don't think that's appropriate. So we can either ask for clarification now. or we could, |
| 04:02:35.36 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:02:35.38 | Unknown | or |
| 04:02:35.85 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:02:36.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:36.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:02:36.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:36.29 | Andrew Junius | We could also continue it and just look at the shadow studies ourselves a little bit more closely and just see, you know, if, I mean, I'm never comfortable when somebody says there's something wrong with the shadow study. I mean, shadow studies are math and computer programs and I'm pretty comfortable. It's probably accurate. So I'm happy to continue it a week. |
| 04:02:36.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:36.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | was there? |
| 04:02:36.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:02:41.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and just... |
| 04:02:55.37 | Andrew Junius | And, and I just, you know, |
| 04:02:56.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'd like an answer this evening whether those corner windows are blocked. So that's what I want to get. |
| 04:02:58.06 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, good. |
| 04:03:02.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm gonna open the public here and allow the architect to give us his opinion on the shadow of the corner windows. Cause you said there would be a shadow impact. Do the corner windows get impact? |
| 04:03:14.39 | Miller Darterberry | Yes, they do, but significantly less. The shadow moves from back to front as the day progresses, and it tends to kind of angle down. |
| 04:03:25.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can we bring up those photographs? |
| 04:03:32.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:03:32.77 | Director Phipps | photographs chair. |
| 04:03:34.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:03:34.66 | Andrew Junius | The shadow studies. The shadow studies. Very good. Thank you. |
| 04:03:37.34 | Director Phipps | Very good. Yeah. The shadows, the shadow study images. Yep. These guys. |
| 04:03:38.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, the shadow study. Yep, got it. He had a present in his house. |
| 04:03:45.05 | Director Phipps | Oh, I recall. I just don't believe there were photos. |
| 04:03:48.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The whole presentation. |
| 04:03:52.09 | Miller Darterberry | So there's a. |
| 04:03:53.20 | Andrew Junius | you want to see the old |
| 04:03:54.88 | Kristina Feller | No, we're now in the |
| 04:03:56.70 | Miller Darterberry | There's four slides for the four seasons, and the bottom images are the wall images. Show the wall. |
| 04:04:07.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Say that again. |
| 04:04:09.76 | Miller Darterberry | There's four slides for the four seasons, and the bottom images represent what happens along the wall. |
| 04:04:18.89 | Andrew Junius | Right, so let's go to the winter one. Just slide down real quick here. Yeah. I mean, so the front, you're right, the entire side at 1020 is in shadow. |
| 04:04:22.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:04:29.98 | Andrew Junius | that lower right one so that is but the front with the front window isn't but you |
| 04:04:33.49 | Kristina Feller | But it kind of is now too. |
| 04:04:36.74 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:04:36.77 | Andrew Junius | Not at all. |
| 04:04:38.95 | Kristina Feller | Vice Chair Junius, if you |
| 04:04:40.13 | Andrew Junius | If you look at... Yeah, yeah, existing and... |
| 04:04:43.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | 10-22, yes. Later, the other one is not so much. |
| 04:04:48.74 | Andrew Junius | I think there's a lot of shadow existing. So I mean, I... |
| 04:04:52.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Currently. |
| 04:04:52.89 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Sir, this is not |
| 04:04:56.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're just going to ask you questions. So let us, can you scroll down to the one in the spring? So, um... Thank you. |
| 04:05:05.14 | Andrew Junius | No, back there, yeah. |
| 04:05:06.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | right there so um |
| 04:05:06.26 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. there's more on |
| 04:05:11.18 | Kristina Feller | I mean, there's definitely more. There's definitely more. |
| 04:05:12.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There's definitely more. But if you look at that picture, this is my point. If they cut back the top floor, that shadow is going to still be there if he has a second floor. Even if we cut it back five feet, I'm sorry, third floor, I apologize. If you cut back the third floor five feet or something, it's not going to affect that. So if he takes off the third floor, then yes, we solved the problem. And I think that's the the only way to solve the problem and therefore i don't want to go through this whole gyration and end up back here and in the seattle study isn't any better to speak of that's my concern |
| 04:05:16.38 | Kristina Feller | that pivot. |
| 04:05:50.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but I mean, I'll ask that. Commissioner Grapp understands the because Seattle studies better than I do. What is your opinion? |
| 04:05:51.04 | David Berenson | So, |
| 04:05:51.06 | Richard Graef | it. |
| 04:05:51.09 | David Berenson | and the |
| 04:05:51.26 | Richard Graef | Thank you. to Commissioner Brown. |
| 04:05:57.64 | Richard Graef | I wouldn't say that I understand them better, but I do see shadows. But looking at the The building design, as you said, it would take some radical a change, I think, to affect their shadows. Um, It's a quonder. I love it. |
| 04:06:18.73 | Andrew Junius | We have to move along here. I'm going to call the question on the motion I put forward. |
| 04:06:20.02 | Richard Graef | Move along here. |
| 04:06:21.03 | Andrew Junius | you |
| 04:06:21.11 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:06:21.16 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 04:06:21.18 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:06:21.20 | Kristina Feller | Bye. |
| 04:06:23.19 | Kristina Feller | So |
| 04:06:23.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | withdraw my motion. Continuous. OK, so we have a motion in a second. There were no additional conditions. |
| 04:06:28.50 | Andrew Junius | So just, yes. |
| 04:06:30.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Please call the roll Director Phipps. |
| 04:06:32.01 | Andrew Junius | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:06:33.89 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Saad. |
| 04:06:35.34 | Kristina Feller | I know. |
| 04:06:35.98 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Graff. No. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. |
| 04:06:36.99 | Kristina Feller | No. Yes. |
| 04:06:38.70 | Miller Darterberry | Thank you. |
| 04:06:41.21 | Director Phipps | Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. |
| 04:06:44.60 | Miller Darterberry | Thank you very much. Uh, |
| 04:06:47.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item is adjournment. you |
| 04:06:49.50 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:06:49.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:06:49.57 | Andrew Junius | This is correct. |
| 04:06:51.89 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. |
| 04:06:58.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:07:00.48 | Andrew Junius | I understand. |
| 04:07:00.95 | Richard Graef | Happy trails where you're going. |
| 04:07:03.40 | Unknown | Everywhere. Thank you. |
| 04:07:04.09 | Richard Graef | Thank you. |
| 04:07:04.13 | Unknown | it. |
Matt Smith — In Favor: Resident of 416 Napa Street. Criticized the subjectivity of design review findings, noting terms like 'adequate light and air' lack objective criteria. Argued for clearer standards to prevent financial burden on families. ▶ 📄
Conrad Gantt — Against: Owner of 104 Bonita and 428 Pine. Expressed concerns about the third floor impacting sunlight and privacy for his properties. Noted the extremities of the project remained unchanged despite negotiations, and requested a site visit. ▶ 📄
Shauna Gantt — Against: Conrad Gantt's wife. Emphasized the third floor as problematic for light, view, and privacy. Open to collaborating on a solution without a third floor or with variances, and requested an independent sun study. ▶ 📄
Michael Nguyen — Neutral: Resident of 115 Santa Rosa. Viewed the project as a bellwether for how Sausalito balances views, light, and air between existing and future residents. Asked for fair consideration for all stakeholders. ▶ 📄
Alice Merrill — In Favor: Resident of 117 Caledonia Street. Supported the family, stating the town should be for people and young families. Commended the applicant's hard work and urged approval. ▶ 📄
Vicki Nichols — Against: Resident of 117 (same as Alice). Raised concerns about the substandard lot, potential cultural resources (burial site), excessive light from windows, and traffic circulation during construction. ▶ 📄
Jeff and Joyce Porter — In Favor: Residents of 424 Pine (adjacent). Did not anticipate problems with windows after walking the property with Jake, and were confident any issues could be resolved. ▶ 📄