| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:09.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The Sausalito Planning Commission meeting of March 27th. We're going to do call to order. Before we do that, I just want to welcome our new commissioner, Commissioner David Merlatt. Director Fitz. |
| 00:00:22.64 | Director Phipps | Thank you and good evening, Chair Luxenberg, Vice Chair Saad, commissioners, staff, members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. Before I call roll, echoing Jeffrey's welcome, I'd like to welcome the city's most recently appointed planning commissioner, David Merlot. David, welcome. I, as well as the rest of the community and economic development department staff, look forward to collaborating with you, and thank you for your commitment of service to this beautiful city. I'll just say for the record that Commissioner Merlot has an impressive resume, which is too impressive to summarize at the start of a meeting like this. So I'll just highlight that Commissioner Merlot is an active and practicing architect with a Sausalito-based practice as both founder and president of DNM Architecture. As an architect, Commissioner Merlot will provide a unique perspective on this commission, and we look forward to hearing it. Commissioner Merlot, welcome again. With that, I will move to call roll. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:01:35.49 | Jane Hook | here. |
| 00:01:36.13 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Junius. Here. Commissioner Merlot. Vice Chair Saad. Here. Chair Luxenberg. |
| 00:01:40.88 | Jane Hook | here. |
| 00:01:42.28 | Director Phipps | Here. we have achieved the quorum. |
| 00:01:45.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you very much. At this point, I'm gonna look for a motion to approve the agenda. |
| 00:01:49.60 | Jane Hook | So moved. One second. |
| 00:01:52.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director Phipps, if you could take roll, please. |
| 00:01:55.37 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you. Commissioner Feller? Yes. Commissioner Junius? Yes. Commissioner Merlot? |
| 00:01:57.31 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 00:01:57.38 | Jane Hook | Yeah. |
| 00:02:01.21 | Director Phipps | Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. |
| 00:02:03.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:02:03.69 | Director Phipps | Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:02:06.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Next item is public comments for items not on this agenda. Director Phipps, if you could give instructions, please. |
| 00:02:13.80 | Director Phipps | With pleasure. 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 Commission may refer matters. not on the agenda to staff or direct the subject to be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues. To my right, Matthew Mandich and Maria Hernandez, we've already received a few. Much appreciated. If you'd 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 and to raise your hand from the phone Press star 9 each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. Thank you, and I will just look to the speaker cards briefly anyone submit a speaker card or This section of the agenda public comments on items not on the agenda Okay. Seeing none, I will move to review Raised hands in the Zoom application. Also seeing none. Chair, back to you. |
| 00:03:27.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | thank you very much next item is the planning commission minutes for february 14 2024 i look for a motion |
| 00:03:36.10 | Kristina Feller | Motion to approve. |
| 00:03:37.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. Are there any discussion of the minutes? Just commissioner |
| 00:03:41.94 | Kristina Feller | I'll see you next time. |
| 00:03:41.97 | Nastassya Saad | just |
| 00:03:43.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, by sure, so. |
| 00:03:45.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I actually. Give me half a second to pull them back up. I believe the... minutes are reflective of the January 10th, just for a point of clarification, they're reflective of the January 10th meeting. Is that correct? |
| 00:04:08.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:04:08.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's a good question. They were supposed to be the 14. |
| 00:04:11.01 | Kristina Feller | The February 14th. |
| 00:04:12.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you know, |
| 00:04:12.97 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. When pulling them up, let me just give me a second. I'm so sorry. I had this up earlier. So thank you. Thank you for clarifying. So for the 14th, January 14th minutes, it was just a note that that was my first meeting as vice chair. So I don't know if it's noting vice chair Junius and Commissioner Saab, but I'm not sure if that was in relation to for a of the draft minutes from January 10th. So I just don't know if there's a clerical error there or not, but I don't think. |
| 00:04:49.69 | Kristina Feller | I believe that is just reflecting the draft minutes from January 10th. Thank you. That's what I think. We're approving those minutes at that time. But as of February 14th, that's when you're. Thank you. |
| 00:04:54.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. That's what I think. |
| 00:05:01.42 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you. That was my confusion. Thank you. |
| 00:05:05.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, wait, I'm, I'm disagreeing with that. The, the minutes are incorrect because they're, they're, that's at the, at the top of the minutes. That's when they called the order. So at that point, Vice Chair Junius was not Vice Chair, and Commissioner Saad was Vice Chair. So that needs to be correct. |
| 00:05:27.04 | Kristina Feller | Well, I believe that these are correct, but I will ask Director Phipps to clarify. to clarify that. |
| 00:05:36.06 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I would recommend that commission give staff that direction, but perhaps approve the minutes pending staff's confirmation of that direction. |
| 00:05:48.21 | Kristina Feller | I will modify my motion to reflect Director Phipps' recommendation to provisionally approve these pending CDD's confirmation. |
| 00:05:57.97 | Andrew Junius | And I'll second that as well. |
| 00:06:00.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, so we are amending them or we're not amending them? |
| 00:06:02.93 | Kristina Feller | I'm not amending them. We'll leave it with. I believe they're correct. |
| 00:06:09.20 | Director Phipps | We will look into it, Chair. And if there is an edit that needs to be made, we will reflect it. And if there is not, we will not. |
| 00:06:19.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. I believe there's another to be made. |
| 00:06:21.96 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. on the floor. |
| 00:06:23.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, director Fitz, please take roll. |
| 00:06:23.30 | Kristina Feller | or. |
| 00:06:26.98 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:06:27.35 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:06:28.38 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Merlin. |
| 00:06:31.40 | David Marlatt | I'll abstain. |
| 00:06:32.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:06:32.98 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Saad? Yes. Chair Luxenberg? Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:06:35.75 | David Marlatt | Oh. |
| 00:06:39.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Next item on the agenda is new business. At this time, I'd like, commissioners, if you have any declarations regarding public contacts or any other items regarding this evening, if you could do that at this time. |
| 00:06:54.89 | Andrew Junius | With respect to the outward matter on calendar for tonight, I did meet with both the applicant and the adjacent neighbors. |
| 00:07:02.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, Vice Chair. |
| 00:07:06.16 | Nastassya Saad | I visited the property on my own. I did not speak with any of the neighbors. |
| 00:07:11.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Merler. |
| 00:07:14.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:07:14.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:07:14.34 | David Marlatt | With respect to Atwood, I visited the property, I did not enter the property, and I did not speak with any of the neighbors. |
| 00:07:21.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Phillips. |
| 00:07:22.21 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:07:22.83 | Kristina Feller | I did visit 21 Atwood. I did not speak to anybody. I received a late email to a personal email with an invitation to visit the neighbor's property, but I got it too late. And so I did not do that, but I do see their photograph on the record. And for the avoidance of any doubt, I also regarding item 5a i want to confirm that related to cip none of those projects are within my conflict map either the 500 or a thousand foot conflict map |
| 00:08:03.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | thank you commissioner fellow uh uh for 21 atwood i am within 500 feet of 21 atwood so i will refuse myself and leave go into the back room and come out at the end of that item with regard to the cip review there are two items that with who are within 500 feet that are actual projects as opposed to repairs or other maintenance uh so if we do segment at that time, I will further say that again. So Commissioner Martell. |
| 00:08:37.76 | David Marlatt | Yes, I should also add that on the CIP items, there's one item, a remodel ADU for Johnson Street. And we are the project architects for that project. It's in building permitting, so it's well advanced. But I'll be recusing myself for that item. Thank you. |
| 00:08:56.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Any other conflicts related to CIP? |
| 00:09:02.16 | Nastassya Saad | I believe I'm going to have one conflict for City Hall for the solar panel project, but that should be my only potential conflict. |
| 00:09:12.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Saad. With that, we'll go on to Item 5A, which is a review of the FY 2425 Capital Improvement Program in our role this evening is to get a consistency with the proposed program with the general plan. And we have Public Works Director, Mr. McGowan, to give a presentation. So I look forward to that. |
| 00:09:39.11 | Director Phipps | Thanks very much, Chair. And before I give the floor to Director McGowan, I just wanted to briefly introduce this item and also allow City Attorney, or excuse me, Attorney Ann Branham to provide some additional detail to commissioners on the potential need to segment the commission's decision. And I just want to thank commissioners in advance for having prepared and having an understanding of their proximity to some of the projects in the CIP. So staff is appreciative. With that said, item 5A before the commission this evening is related to the commission's review of the fiscal year 24-25 capital improvement program for consistency with the general plan. This is a state requirement as detailed in government code section 65103 subsection C and gives the Commission an opportunity to weigh in on the CIP's general plan consistency prior to it being presented to the City Council for final approval and as noted in the staff report The Public Works Department has approximately 27 active projects, which have been summarized in Attachment 1. Staff's recommendation to the City Council is that the commission, well, we have provided a resolution, but in discussions with the attorney, I think making a motion would be fine, finding that the draft capital improvement program is consistent with the Sausalito General Plan and has, as been mentioned by a few of our commissioners, there is some additional complexity related to proximity to some of those projects that may require a segmenting of decision. And I'll just give the floor to Anne briefly to talk about some of the details associated with that. |
| 00:11:18.25 | Mary Wagner | Thanks, Brandon. Good evening, Commissioner. So you all did a good job of sort of giving me a preview of which items we may have to pull and segment out. Can I ask, Commissioner Ingenius, did you have any, I just, you were the only one I didn't hear from for sure on the CIP project. So I just wanted to ask you first. |
| 00:11:34.59 | Andrew Junius | So I've been found out here. I'm pretty confident I'm not going to be making any comments on anything that would be within the, is it a 500 or a thousand or is it both? |
| 00:11:43.99 | Mary Wagner | It's up to a thousand, but between 500 and a thousand, it's a little more wobbly if you don't feel like it's directly going to impact any financial. |
| 00:11:52.21 | Andrew Junius | Some of these are pretty obvious and some of them are not obvious where they're located. So it's, I mean, I live up in, up on Toyon, so I'm pretty confident I'm okay. |
| 00:11:55.87 | Mary Wagner | Perfect. |
| 00:12:03.39 | Mary Wagner | Okay, and then what I will say too, so we've sort of separated the projects out. The ones that are pertaining to repair, maintenance, replacement of existing street water, sewer, similar facilities, those are accepted altogether out of the conflict rules, so none of you will have a conflict for those. So we already did the work of taking those out of that bucket. the items that are remaining in the bucket that might have to be segmented out all have to do with new structures, so they don't fit within that exception. If you're within 1,000 feet or as the other commissioner mentioned, he has one where he's the project architect, so that would be one where he clearly is receiving a source of income. So we'll have him segment out of that one. Um, Chair Luxenberg, do you happen to know off the top which are the two projects in the CIP list that you are within some distance |
| 00:12:49.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's the Thank you. It's. to 2025A011 and 2025A024. |
| 00:13:09.04 | Mary Wagner | Okay, great. So what I will say for those is if they're within either 500 or 1000 feet and you feel like they will have some impact on you that's not the same as the impact that will be on the public generally i'm not sure if those are the two bikeway or pedestrian pathway projects but Brandon and I did discuss those. And, you know, unless you feel there's going to be some potential impact to your property, either in terms of views or resale value, something like that, then those are the types of projects that generally affect the public in a broader sense, right? And so, You don't necessarily have to conflict out, but it's up to you. If you feel like you're within such a distance that there will be some impact to your property for those two projects, we can certainly segment them. Um, but up to you based on that parameter. |
| 00:13:52.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | My understanding, one is a safety issue, and the other one is a, we'll get more clarity on that, and the other one is a broad thing that affects the whole city. So I don't think it personally affects me any different than it affects everybody else in the city. So I don't feel conflict on those. And then there are some other projects, the North Street Steps repairs, which I will ask a question about, which is maintenance. So that doesn't apply as well. So I don't feel I have a conflict, but if we want to segment, I feel free to do that as well. |
| 00:14:05.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:05.62 | Aaron Roller | Thank you. |
| 00:14:05.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:05.87 | Aaron Roller | Thank you. |
| 00:14:18.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:18.29 | Mary Wagner | I don't feel like |
| 00:14:23.14 | Mary Wagner | Perfect, no problem. That's all I needed. So it sounds like what we'll do then just for clarity for all parties before we get in, we'll have the presentation. You can all stay for the staff presentation. And then what I'll do at that point is take the City Hall solar project out. If we could have Vice Chair Saad leave. and just discuss that one first and then have her come back in after we've sort of reached a determination on that one. We'll take a separate motion on that one. Then we'll have Commissioner Monalot leave for the Johnson Street item. everyone else can discuss that one, take a motion on that one. Then we'll have everyone come back in and do the remainder of the list. Does that sound like it will work okay for everyone? |
| 00:15:01.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:15:02.86 | Mary Wagner | Okay, wonderful. So with that, why don't we have staff start with the presentation, which you can all stay for. |
| 00:15:11.87 | Director Phipps | And thank you very much, Kevin. The floor is yours. |
| 00:15:14.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Before we do that, I just want for the audience's sake, Mr. McGowan will give a presentation. We will ask questions of that. We will then open it up for public comment, and then we'll bring it back up to the dais. So I wanted people to know when they could speak on this item. Thank you, Mr. McGowan. |
| 00:15:32.51 | Kevin McGowan | Good evening, Chair Luxembourg and members of the Planning Commission. I'm Kevin McGowan, Public Works Director for the City of Sausalito. Item 5A before you this evening relates to the development of the City's annual budget and the inclusion of the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 24-25. Next slide. The Capital Improvement Program, or CIP, is a planning document. The CIP is utilized to address improvements to our public infrastructure. Similar to other cities in the country, we have a need for many improvements to our roads, buildings, and public spaces, but we have limited amount of funding to facilitate those types of repairs and improvements. The CIP is utilized to develop a list of possible improvement projects and establish an approximate amount of funding needed to support those projects. The CIP also prioritizes the improvements with the intent of providing recommendations to the city council. to allocate funds in conjunction with the annual budget. A five-year capital improvement program is updated annually. you and is included in the annual budget. Next slide, please. Based on the California government code, the planning agency, which in this case happens to be you. Congratulations. Thank you. is required to perform an annual review of the capital improvement program for consistency with the general plan. Sausalito's latest general plan was approved in 2021 and has many policies and procedures that align with all of the projects in the capital improvement program. Next slide. |
| 00:17:14.70 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:17:15.94 | Kevin McGowan | The development of the annual CIP is needed to address and prioritize and plan for capital improvement needs. Project costs are generally rough estimates and become more refined as the projects get developed. Projects that were not funded last year remain on the list and are re-evaluated annually. With the help of various subcommittees and department directors, staff has developed a list of new projects to be evaluated and included in this year's list. Thank you. Active projects generally have multiple year funding. Let me say that again. Sorry. Active projects generally have a multiple year delivery cycle and often require additional funding as the design and the details of each project are refined. Listing the needed funds for current projects is also included in the CIP documents, which were you, which you were provided. It is staff's understanding that there is a very limited amount of local funding sources to support projects in fiscal year 24-25. This will limit the number of projects to be implemented. Continuing to seek exterior funding sources such as grants is a key factor in addressing the needs of our city. you Next slide. The documentation and the attachments provided to the Commission with the staff report provide large amount of data, which can be a little difficult to navigate. So you may have additional questions on that. Attachment one is a list of current projects, which are about 29 active projects. The list shows an approximate cost and funding source for each project. These projects are in various stages of development with several taking multiple years to complete. And as such will require a fiscal commitment in the next fiscal year to allow the project to move forward. Next slide. Thank you. Some of the more prominent projects we are working on include the reconstruction of the Marin ship courts, the Turney Street boat launch or the area up to the boat launch, and the the bridgeway slide repair below Woodward. Other projects such as the signal at Easterby is still needing grant funding in order to get to the construction phase. So. Many things affect the delivery of these projects, including funding, staffing allocations, weather, and scope creep, just to name a few things. Next slide. |
| 00:20:01.36 | Kevin McGowan | Each year, the Department of Public Works seeks input regarding new projects from several different sources, including the maintenance division department directors, as well as several subcommittees. We also welcome input from the public on these projects, and if the public has ideas of other projects we haven't identified, we welcome that as well. At this time, we are seeking approval from the Planning Commission on whether the draft CIP complies with the general plan. Following this meeting, we intend to present the draft documents, which you have in front of you, to the City Council on April 2, 2024. refining and balancing the budget for these projects is important to address with the finance division. The reason for this is that the finance division has a better, let's say, bead on how much money is available in each one of the budget centers. So the funding for each one of these can vary as the final budget for the city gets refined towards June. Next slide, please. This year we are tracking more than 60 projects on the five-year CIP. This number may be amended as projects are identified by the council and others. The CIP is broken into categories, such as drainage, streets, facilities, and other categories. Within each of these categories, specific projects are identified. In this initial phase, staff makes a preliminary estimate for the cost of each project. This is a very rough estimate, as mentioned before, because at this stage, all the details are not known. Next slide. Staff is recommending proceeding with 15 new projects shown on the screen on this list. These have not been approved by the council at this time, and they may be removed over the next several months based on the factors identified earlier, specifically funding. Sewer projects are not listed on this slide because the funding for these projects comes from a separate fund center and separate from the general fund. However, staff allocations associated with sewer projects is a factor into what we can reasonably accomplish each year. Next slide. |
| 00:22:27.16 | Kevin McGowan | Your staff report also lists a total per fund center needed to support the projects. This is just an estimate. These tables are important to our finance division, and depending upon what is available can influence what we can accomplish. It is important to note that these amounts may also change in the next few months. Next slide. So prior to this meeting, I took a look at the Sausalito general plan. All of the projects comply with at least one, if not many, of the goals and objectives stated in the general plan. Keep in mind that these are projects intended to improve the public facilities, including streets, stairs, storm drains, buildings, parks, and many others. These projects also comply with the city's strategic plan. Next slide. |
| 00:23:21.03 | Kevin McGowan | Over the last several years, we are seeing more projects come up, which are emergency in nature. whether from climate change or previous damages not addressed until now, these projects are important that we take action on them almost immediately. Examples of unexpected work include re-roofing of the city hall, Flooring repairs at the old City Hall building and many others, including items such as undergrounding, which our council was interested in us pursuing. These unforeseen projects also impact our work loading and what we can reasonably accomplish each year. Next slide. There we go. This is a very dynamic process. Our intent is to identify capital projects before they become emergencies. However, this is becoming more and more difficult with the age and the present state of our infrastructure. And that also includes climate change. Putting local funds into projects that directly improve safety aspects for residents, such as road repairs and road treatment, is recommended by staff. Initiating programs to assist residents with things such as repairing their sidewalks or repairing their sanitary laterals is an important aspect that we have to keep in mind as well. So those relate to specific programs. Pursuing projects that allow the city to be ready to receive grant funding is also a necessity. So this concludes my presentation and I welcome your input and your questions. Thank you so much. |
| 00:25:00.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director McGowan. We do appreciate you coming before us. This is the first year. Last year, unfortunately, we did not have that opportunity, so we're glad we're starting on a new process this year. I do have a couple clarifications related to the complexity of the documents before we turn it over to specific questions. So you have what are called prior year actuals in your active projects, and then you have an FY2425. So in essence, we're looking for compliance for the FY2425. And then I understand that some of the active projects, if I understand this, that are funded and have money in prior year actuals is a two-part question. Prior year actuals, you have money there and no money in prior year actuals. This is a two-part question. Prior year actuals, you have money there and no money in FY24-25. Does that money just carry over? Is that why some of these projects that don't look like they'll be done within FY23-24 and they don't have any money this year and they're still in the plan, is that because the money just carries over? How does that work? |
| 00:26:06.94 | Kevin McGowan | So the numbers that you see in those columns are budgets. |
| 00:26:11.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:26:11.55 | Kevin McGowan | They're not necessarily actual expenditures. They're budgets. |
| 00:26:15.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:26:16.02 | Kevin McGowan | So for one or two of these projects, let's just say for the sake of it, I'm looking at the Turney Street boat ramp approach, which was on your list as AO4. It has a budget of $50,000 from previous fiscal years. So we're anticipating finishing that project very soon. There should be enough money there to finish the project. The money's already been allocated. |
| 00:26:38.04 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 00:26:40.20 | Kevin McGowan | We don't anticipate needing more money to complete the project. We couldn't get to the project to this point because it's been raining. you So we want to wait until it stops raining. |
| 00:26:52.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, but let's take, there's a 2025 A24 Bridgeway Safety Improvements. In that case, there are no money in prior years, but it's an active project, and it has money in 2024-2025. So if it's an active project, How is it an active project if it has no money? I guess it's... |
| 00:27:15.72 | Kevin McGowan | So are you looking at, can you name the project? |
| 00:27:18.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, it's 221 bridgeways safety improvement. |
| 00:27:22.63 | Kevin McGowan | Okay, that's an interesting project, and one of the property owners has requested that we Take a look at this for safety improvements, and it hasn't been approved at the city council level yet. So if the city council decides to move forward with that project, they would have to allocate specific funding for that. And in this case, we're bringing it to them in the next fiscal year, suggesting that they allocate funding for it. |
| 00:27:44.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So why is that, I'm just definitional, why is that an active project rather than a future project? |
| 00:27:50.74 | Kevin McGowan | as it came up last year, we put it on our list. |
| 00:27:53.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You put it on last year, but you didn't fund it last year. Yes. You're funding it next year. Is that also true for the next one, City Hall exterior access improvements? |
| 00:28:02.08 | Kevin McGowan | We haven't had the staff available to get to that one in last fiscal year. We recently have two new project managers who we are bringing up to speed. So we didn't have enough people to accommodate that project. So I've moved that number from the previous fiscal year allocation into the next fiscal year because we really haven't started it yet. |
| 00:28:22.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And so the ones that don't have money under active projects for next year are all intending to get completed this year. |
| 00:28:35.71 | Kevin McGowan | Um, These are projects on our list. I'm not going to state in public that we intend to complete all of these. This is a planning document. And what this document is used for is to allocate budgets for projects. There are many other factors that go into whether these projects get completed. It's not just the funding, it's staff availability, and it's also the complexities of each project. So this is in the beginning stages. We're simply listing these projects, suggesting that we will try to work on them, and do our best to finish them. |
| 00:29:10.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So let me ask this question on number 22, which is the North Street step. So that has money in it and that money has been allocated. as a from prior year actuals. |
| 00:29:22.29 | Kevin McGowan | Some money has been allocated for that. That specific project has a history to it in that it, um, Let's see how to state this without getting into too much trouble. That has a history. And there has it has to do with obtaining easements from the adjacent property owner. And so we're moving forward with that. |
| 00:29:41.51 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 00:29:43.58 | Kevin McGowan | We had anticipated bringing this to council several meetings ago, but those other complexities haven't been finished yet. |
| 00:29:43.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're going to have a |
| 00:29:50.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So it has not yet been, the funding hasn't been allocated, but work has been done. |
| 00:29:54.54 | Kevin McGowan | Some funding has been allocated to it, but not the entire amount. |
| 00:29:58.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:29:58.77 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 00:29:58.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, and there was a slide on the steps, but subsequent to that, there has been a slide, two slides on the bridgeway itself into the sidewalk, and there's also damaged curb there. Are all of those things part of this one project? |
| 00:30:15.33 | Kevin McGowan | Are you still talking about North Street steps? |
| 00:30:17.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, at the bottom of the steps where it meets bridgeway, the fence at the bottom has failed two different, and there's dirt onto the sidewalk, narrowing the sidewalk. There are saw horses up for that, and then part of the curb there is also broken and not really in place anymore. So the question is, it seems to be all part of the same thing. Is that all part of what's going to get? |
| 00:30:24.84 | Kevin McGowan | that, |
| 00:30:46.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | improve there as part of this. |
| 00:30:47.79 | Kevin McGowan | No, it's not. Some of that is private property. So we are not intending to fix somebody else's problem. We will put the adjacent property owner on notice that they need to fix their retaining wall. while we do work on North Street steps as well. So as you can tell, these projects are quite complex on occasion. |
| 00:31:06.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're saying the steps are public but right to the right of the steps is private property. Those are both private property |
| 00:31:14.03 | Kevin McGowan | That's my understanding. |
| 00:31:15.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What about the curb that's broken and |
| 00:31:18.35 | Kevin McGowan | So I'd be glad to meet with you after this to go over these type of details for specific projects. But I think in this fashion this evening, we're simply asking you to take a look at kind of the general view of these projects and look at whether they comply with the general plan. |
| 00:31:23.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | for good |
| 00:31:35.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I guess the clarification I was looking for, I would like to do that afterwards, and I'd be happy to do that. for the clarification on the columns, this project had this come before us last year we would have approved this as part of that since that project looks like it'll go into fyi 2425 is that part of the resolution you're looking for this evening on a project like that that is going to probably go into the following year. |
| 00:32:09.77 | Kevin McGowan | I don't think I understand your question. What I'm asking or what the department is required to ask is whether these projects in general, comply with the general plan, and they are public improvements. |
| 00:32:23.76 | Director Phipps | And I'd just like to step in as well. Really appreciate the questions, Chair Luxenberg, and the responses, Director McGowan. Just to kind of echo Kevin's comment, the primary responsibility of the commission this evening is to advise on the CIP's consistency with the general plan. There were some questions related to scheduling, cost, staffing allocations. Those elements of the CIP are the responsibility of the city council. So I would suggest and recommend that the commission not dig too deep into those details and focus on the compliance element. Thank you. |
| 00:33:00.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I'm not looking for whether the dollar amounts themselves. I'm just trying to find out. So you're looking for an authorization for all active and future projects, regardless of whether there's a dollar amount in FY24 and FY25? You're just looking for the project itself for its compliance with the general |
| 00:33:21.41 | Kevin McGowan | In general, yes, but keep in mind that the active projects have already been approved at the council level. |
| 00:33:28.71 | Kristina Feller | Can I ask a clarifying question to that? First of all, I want to clarify that |
| 00:33:30.62 | Kevin McGowan | Sure. to the team. |
| 00:33:31.63 | Sandra Bushmaker | that's it. |
| 00:33:35.75 | Kristina Feller | Today, tonight, this evening, we're in fiscal year 23-24, is that correct? Yes. And so your 24-25 fiscal year starts, what, June 1st? July 1st. July 1st. |
| 00:33:40.26 | Kevin McGowan | Yes. |
| 00:33:48.12 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 00:33:48.14 | Unknown | July 1st. |
| 00:33:48.76 | Michael Rex | . |
| 00:33:49.64 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, that's right. Okay, July 1. So just want to level set on that. And then I just wanted to ask you, and you might have to rattle your memory a little bit on this, so sorry about that, Director McGowan, but are there any projects on this list in front of us, and I'm looking on my screen at attachment one just to start with, that are still in existence and not completed, that were part of the previous general plan, meaning before the general plan update was adopted? |
| 00:34:23.05 | Kevin McGowan | That's a tough question. I know. So let me... |
| 00:34:26.70 | Kristina Feller | I know I'm putting you on the spot, but I want to make sure like we're focusing our comments to you as best we can. |
| 00:34:33.50 | Kevin McGowan | So let me maybe rephrase the question and see if I get it right. Are you asking if there are any projects that were on this list before the last general plan was approved? Right. |
| 00:34:43.37 | Kristina Feller | Correct. |
| 00:34:44.08 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, there are. |
| 00:34:45.04 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And as we go through these, if you can highlight those, we don't need to go through the laundry list now, but I just want to level set on that with you because I'm assuming that if those were approved under the former general plan, then the new general plan update does not necessarily apply. Is that correct? |
| 00:35:05.71 | Kevin McGowan | These I'll refer that to director Phipps on general plan consistency. |
| 00:35:10.97 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Director. I would suggest that the Commission ought to review this CIP in line with the most recently adopted general plan, the general plan that currently applies to City of Sausalito. What I imagine to be the case is that if there was a significant departure between the goals and policies of the previous general plan and the new general plan and those specific changes impacted specific CIP projects, Kevin would have removed them from the list. |
| 00:35:40.84 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:35:41.05 | Kevin McGowan | So, |
| 00:35:41.18 | Kristina Feller | That's great. And I didn't want to overcomplicate that. But but thank you. I just wanted to be clear on that. So that was my clarifying question. Thank you. |
| 00:35:50.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. So I'm going to assume from this discussion that every project on the active list and the future list, you're looking for us to concur. It's consists with the general plan. Yes. Unless you want to take out some of the active ones because you said they're already funded. |
| 00:36:02.53 | Kevin McGowan | Yes. |
| 00:36:07.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Nope. Okay. Thank you. With that, Commissioner Juni. |
| 00:36:11.59 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, thank you. I was able to quickly look at the maps. I think I'm okay. Back to the city attorney for a second. I will recuse myself if the Langendork Park renovation is I'll be recusing myself from that one. But can I? Can I get a sense from Director Phipps, are we going to go through these, every one of them and vote on them or in groups or how exactly are we supposed to approach this? I'm just curious. |
| 00:36:38.14 | Director Phipps | Yeah, so Anne highlighted some of the process that the commission may take as related to segmenting of the decision based on commissioner's residential proximity to certain select projects that do not apply to exemptions. So, for example, Anne and I reviewed the CIP for projects that are maintenance, repair, and replacement based. Those specific projects would not require a commissioner to recuse or segment the vote. However, there are some projects that are more newer projects that are not just routine maintenance, repair, replacement. Those projects are the ones that we believe could potentially pose the most conflict for commissioners. And we have identified those in an email provided to commissioners. And I also have actually a map that we can reference if that would be helpful. |
| 00:36:51.03 | Sandra Bushmaker | MMM. |
| 00:37:35.58 | Director Phipps | And Commissioner Junius, I would not want to speak for you, but I believe you're correct that you're not proximate to any of these select projects. Thank you. |
| 00:37:42.60 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:37:42.88 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:37:43.56 | Mary Wagner | And just the only thing I'll add is that what our recommendation was, but ultimately up to the commission is not to take each project individually off the list, but to only take into separate consideration the projects for which We have talked about the recusals and the segmentation. So we would do one for the Johnson Street so that Commissioner Marlott could leave. And then same with the one that Commissioner Saad is approximate to. So we would take those individually, but the rest could be voted on as one package by all the commissioners. Does that make sense? |
| 00:38:16.63 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, that makes sense. |
| 00:38:17.68 | Unknown | go. Okay. |
| 00:38:18.15 | Kristina Feller | I think some of these questions, just for clarification, are coming up because this commission hasn't seen an annual CIP program. So we're just trying to get orientated. So thank you for answering the question. |
| 00:38:35.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, to add on to that. So next year, when we see this, we would really only be looking at the new projects because all the other ones will have been grandfathered in from this approval. So since we hadn't seen them before, we're doing all of them. But normally we'd be just doing the new ones, I would think. |
| 00:38:51.72 | Kevin McGowan | Well, each year you will see a capital improvement program. And I do highlight some of the new projects that have come in. However, in the documentation that's presented to your commission, as well as the council, it's all one big package. I see. So we might see the same chart with some of these projects on it next year. |
| 00:38:56.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:38:56.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:07.87 | Peter Brosig | I see. |
| 00:39:13.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:39:13.11 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 00:39:13.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:39:13.39 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 00:39:13.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Get it. You know, that makes sense. |
| 00:39:15.04 | Director Phipps | And I'll just note, the general plan can change on an annual basis, or are entitled to change the general plan a certain number of times every year. And the housing element certainly has and will represent a change to that general plan, which may impact goals and policies, which therefore may require us to re-review and reconfirm consistency. |
| 00:39:36.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that additional questions, Commissioner Juniors. you |
| 00:39:40.35 | Andrew Junius | Nope, I'm ready to vote. Okay. |
| 00:39:41.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Marla question. |
| 00:39:44.79 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:39:45.23 | David Marlatt | Well, I just had one, again, process question. If, in a very hypothetical sense, we approve an active project as being consistent with the general plan this year, and next year's commission, there's an active project underway, and we decide for whatever reason it's no longer consistent with the general plan, what happens? Does the project stop, or does it – what's foreseen there? |
| 00:40:09.32 | Kevin McGowan | I think we would need to bring it back to this commission to have that discussion of why it is not consistent with the general plan. I do find that unlikely just because these are all public projects. |
| 00:40:19.97 | David Marlatt | I completely agree it's unlikely. I'm just asking about the hypothetical sense that if we approve something this year, it's on next year's list. In theory, it could be unapproved or disapproved. |
| 00:40:29.59 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, we would have to bring it back to you as soon as we find out that there is such an issue occurring and discussing. |
| 00:40:36.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:40:36.85 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:40:36.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Any other questions, Commissioner Miller? |
| 00:40:41.41 | David Marlatt | No other questions. |
| 00:40:42.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Phillips. |
| 00:40:43.36 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:40:44.02 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I've got a number of questions here, and this is just to, again, try to get a little bit of orientation. because we haven't seen this before, in front of this commission i'm unclear about the rating system, and I was hoping you might be able to explain the rating system. And then maybe as part of that, just to maybe lump a couple of these together, who actually scores the projects and then decides or proposes what that priority is and how, I guess, in that when a lot of these emergency projects do come up that you just have to respond to, like how does that change the sequence or priority of those that you've already scored? |
| 00:41:32.08 | Kevin McGowan | So I'll start with the last question. The last one is that, yes, it can have an influence on all the other projects. If we have an emergency project where, let's say, the roof's leaking. We've got to take action. You know, I've got to assign the project managers to get contractors in or designers to design it. It has to happen because otherwise these public facilities are not usable. Similar to leased buildings, if you'll notice on the list, we've had a bit of work associated with the old old city hall, which is downtown at I think it's 765 Bridgeway. And there's a tenant in there now. So similar thing that they had not just a roof leak, but they had an underground leak. And so it damaged the entire floors. So we had to take action right away. So what happens with our other projects? We only have so many staff and some of the projects tend to fall off the list. And so that's why you see some of these extending to the next fiscal year. So that was the first thing you asked about. The second one, well, maybe that was the second one and I'll go to the first one. So the first one was the rating criteria and there's I have quite a bit of stories about this, but In your packet, you should see attachment three that says rating criteria. And it goes through one, two, three, four, five, six different rating steps. They include whether these projects are an immediate threat to health and safety. So if you have a roof that's falling in, that's a threat to health and safety. We have to take action on that. And that gets a rating from one to 10. The next one is will cause safety issues if not addressed. So if we don't take action, things could get much worse. And you can see the rest of them on the list. Some of them are required by law. Some of these comply with city goals and objectives. Sometimes our city council has a request to include a specific project. So that would be very important. Sometimes in the downtown area, that's important. aesthetics. We want to put that in there as a rating criteria as well. and improve city operations for our maintenance division. The other one that may not be on this specific list is whether they are grant funded or not. If we have a project that has funding, Thank you. we are on a timeline usually for that grant funding. So for, let's say, the transportation funding mechanism is usually six years. The FTA funding for the Ferry Landsite, it didn't have a deadline, but they're putting pressure on us right now to finish that project. So having that as a criteria as well will raise and lower the priority of these projects. Now, when I first started this process and when I started here in Sausalito, I did bring the CIP to the planning commission at that point in time, but was more of it as a informative type of document, not requesting specific approval. But my little story is that When I first brought this forward, I asked our department directors to rate all of the projects. So we would all sit down in a room and try to rate all the projects together. But we ended up finding out that certain departments would want to rate their projects much higher than others. And so their rating criteria for, let's say, certain park projects would be way up there. And it wasn't reasonable. So what we did is we would take these, the ratings that we got from that meeting, and then we would reevaluate them internally to say, okay, this park project really is going to impact health and safety. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but you give it a rating. So it's done internally specifically so that we come up with a recommendation to council. That's really what we're getting at is we're trying to get some reasonable explanation of why staff is recommending these projects to council. And so we're using a numerical method to do that. And yes, it's done internally. Council can go change that anytime they want. They can pick some project that may have a low rating. and say, look, we want you to do this one because it's important to the community. And that's why you may see one or two of these projects on the list that have a low rating, But due to my conversations with our city manager, and our city council folks. we're trying to bring some of these forward anticipating that they will have an interest in those and try to do that anyway. So. Anyway, that's my. sort of long explanation of how the rating criteria works. |
| 00:46:04.90 | Kristina Feller | Okay. I appreciate that. That's helpful. Did you have a follow-up question? Yeah. |
| 00:46:08.91 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Yeah, no, not to that issue though, but I just want to make sure I get one more in before we get |
| 00:46:13.74 | Kristina Feller | But we'll go back a week. |
| 00:46:13.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But we'll go back around after each of us goes through it. |
| 00:46:17.13 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:46:18.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you Mr. Junior. |
| 00:46:19.16 | Kristina Feller | So when those priorities change, Is there a need to come back to the commission or is that between you and the city council or what is expected? of the commission other than once a year we look at this and, you know, against the general plan or the spirit of that document. |
| 00:46:40.59 | Kevin McGowan | I would always welcome the input of this commission into our projects. So, you know, in the future, I'd be glad to come back and start discussing these type of projects in early January in order to develop this document at this point. Um, We're just looking to find out if you believe that These general projects, which are all public projects, are in conformance with the general plan. |
| 00:47:04.48 | Kristina Feller | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:47:04.80 | Kevin McGowan | That's where we're looking for your guidance. |
| 00:47:07.76 | Kristina Feller | Um, Moving on to a couple other things because, I mean, as you know, because we're working on this together, Kevin, is the landslide task force. And that report, those recommendations were put forth in 2019 to the city council. they approved and ratified that entirely. And there were a lot of really critical issues that came out of that and critical priorities that came out of that. that they that they agreed with and certainly the great work you've been doing so far with the consultant for the geological hazard study and so on, is actually digging deeper into those details and discovering more urgency, in my opinion. But I believe I speak for that task force as well, although they're certainly capable of speaking for themselves, but that was really the essence of our meeting last week. So I want to understand not just what's on this list, but maybe what should be on this list that isn't there based on, you know, that has been elevated. Those things have been elevated to priorities year over year also by the city council, same thing goes for the sea level task force, sea level rise task force, which I was also part of. And there's a lot of overlap between those two. And so it really is putting a spotlight on some of the, not just unforeseen issues, but those that can only be managed and not necessarily stopped or controlled per se. So I'm curious where those are on this list. |
| 00:48:41.90 | Kevin McGowan | So that's a great question. You pick some great examples too. So the geologic hazard study should be brought to the city council on the 16th, unless they have a full schedule and they wanna move it around. But the intent is to seek their guidance on what is the next step. Now, let's just say for the sake of argument, the next step involves allocations of our project managers for a specific design or for developing a. geologic hazard abatement district. To me, that's a new project. And at that point in time, I will put it on the CIP list. because that will dedicate our staff time to doing that work. Some of the other things that you have mentioned or are part of this geologic hazard study may be changes to the municipal code. and how we look at submittals from property owners on building on certain parcels that might have a tendency to move. That would be involving Um, Director Phipps' staff, as well as possibly DPW. So to answer your question, what goes on the list generally has to do with whether I have to allocate our staff time in order to manage it. That's what I put on this specific list. Same with the sea level rise task force. So if there is a project that's developed from that and they want some department to implement it, that's probably us at Public Works. That's when it goes on this list. |
| 00:50:19.49 | Kristina Feller | I see. I didn't understand the connection with staff resourcing and what goes on the list. So thank you for clarifying that. I did not understand that. I also wanted to ask you about the sanitary district, the sanitation district. And I think you mentioned a little bit of this in your presentation, but What role or responsibility does DPW specifically have or the city have with that? with that district since it runs through Sausalito. I didn't really get a sense that anything on this list, although there's a lot of information here, I might have missed something. that any, there are any projects that feed into that? But correct me if I'm wrong. |
| 00:51:07.23 | Kevin McGowan | So that's a complex question, and I'll try to make it short. So I could talk all night just about sanitary issues. But the city of Sausalito has a distribution system of 26 miles of pipe. And so we collect sanitary flow, and we deliver it to the Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District's facilities, which are located within Sausalito. There's a force main on Bridgeway. There's many other systems. That flow gets sent over to the district's plant, which is located on the south side of Sausalito out of our jurisdictions. we manage the collection system, the pipes, everything that collects all the flow from our residents. So those... those systems are rather old. And we have a lot of improvements to do with those systems. In the last year, we televised the entire system and found that we need to make improvements in the ballpark of at least $5 to $6 million worth of improvements on what's called a Class 5 deficiency. Now, I'm not going to get into that, but that's a bad system. So we have to repair all those. There's also been a lot of discussion about trying to consolidate. In other words, have the Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District take over the operations of the collection system. And so we're in discussions with them about doing that. As far as the projects on the CIP, we are working with a consultant to lay out all the projects over the next year, actually the next five years, in order to make these improvements to those class five deficiencies. I haven't got all the details yet. I have a list, but if I put them right on here, we would probably have too many sheets of paper, to tell you the truth. They will be inserted in here at some point in time. Our city council and the budget that comes up in July is generally concerned about the general fund. And so that's the primary focus of the CIP. Since the fund associated with the sanitary, the sanitary, not necessarily district, but the sanitary fund, that's different. We try to focus the CIP on what is needed from the general fund. |
| 00:53:27.11 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Um, Thank you for that. I also note in the previous CIPs that went directly to the city council, and thank you for sending me the links to that. you really kind of broke broke it out by grant-funded, required maintenance. primary priority. a secondary priority list and then completed projects. And it's not really broken out that way here. But I just want to make sure that the prior year accruals were funds that were already approved. Is that correct? |
| 00:54:15.29 | Kevin McGowan | Let's chat about that just for a second. So this is a budget allocation. It's a planning document. It tells our city council that we should set aside this amount of money in order to proceed with these projects. And the way this works at the city is that money gets separated into a big bucket. All right. Now, on several occasions, we may not have tapped into that bucket yet. So there's probably more money there than originally anticipated. our finance department, basically takes that CIP and says, we're putting this much money into this bucket. On occasion, we'll get projects that come back in where the cost is more than what we allocated. in the CIP. So we have to go back and have the council authorize additional funds. So I think what I'm getting at is You brought up a couple of different things about previous CIPs. The previous ones that we have developed They worked with trying to get the council some alternatives. One was a priority list. One was a secondary priority list. I found that to be too confusing. So there's so much documentation, so many lists of projects that it tends to get confusing. So my approach now is to try to make it as simple as possible to counsel. This is what we're recommending. Here's the list of all the other projects. And in, I think it's attachment four that you have, you have all the details of each individual project and the council will have that as well. If they want to add and remove those projects, they can. So I'm trying to shy away with giving too many options, it tends to get too confusing. Now, as far as the finance part of it, Thank you. I believe that our finance director will take that money and move it into a larger pot called the capital improvement budget. for specific projects. But they may choose not to move over the construction funds yet, even though they're noted in here. Why? Because we haven't bid it yet. So there may be some other reasons behind this from a finance perspective. I know that Chad is not here this evening, but I can look into that question a little bit more detailed. The intent is to put that money aside. That is the intent. But there may be other reasons why he may not do that. |
| 00:56:38.91 | Kristina Feller | Got it. Okay. I'm going to ask one less question and then hand it over to my fellow commissioners. So I, before we start talking about maybe specific projects. And I just wanted to get an idea from you. And again, I know I'm putting you on the spot. Do you have a general idea of what like your hit rate is on when you put these CIPs together and what you actually achieve or what your success rate is year over year? |
| 00:57:04.44 | Kevin McGowan | So what I have found here in Sausalito is that projects takes much longer than expected. And maybe not because their complexity, but just because several different factors. Prior to this year, we didn't have project managers. So it was our senior engineer, Andy Davidson, and myself trying to get more than 20 projects out throughout the year while running a department. And that's very difficult. It's great that the city council has allocated funding and we have new project managers. We have two of them. I'm super excited about that because I can say, here you go. So I'm hoping that our success rate gets a little bit better. We have a lot of projects on the list. They are complex. But at the same time, if we have staff to allocate them, I think we'll be much better than we have in the past. And one more comment, though, is what I have found is that we don't give up on the project. They just if we have less staff, it just takes longer. And that's what's been apparent is that. Thank you. These projects and getting them to the construction phase have taken much longer to get there. Why? Because we haven't had the staff. Now that we have more project managers, I'm hoping that'll turn around much quicker. |
| 00:58:20.48 | Kristina Feller | I hope so too. Thank you, Director. |
| 00:58:23.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fellow, Vice Chair Saad. |
| 00:58:27.58 | Nastassya Saad | No questions, thank you. |
| 00:58:28.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, before I go to Commissioner Junius, I do have a question. We were provided with a street treatment list that came, I assume, from you to Brandon to us. And I would like to correlate which item on the list that that, it says street treatment. Is that, just if you could point me in the future projects list of what number? |
| 00:58:55.48 | Kevin McGowan | So let's take a look at that list first. That is called a preliminary. 2024-25 Street Treatment List. That's not finalized at this point. |
| 00:59:06.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 00:59:06.77 | Kevin McGowan | Right? Thank you. And If we're going to take a look at which project that may be, I believe we should go to the street section. under S. |
| 00:59:21.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Catchment two-way. |
| 00:59:22.45 | Kristina Feller | Is that attachment to? |
| 00:59:23.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:59:24.35 | Kevin McGowan | attachment two, I didn't put page numbers on it, sorry. That is S001. called the 2025 Street Resurfacing and Repair. |
| 00:59:36.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so in this particular attachment, you have an FY23 to 24 number for all of those, which include the measure L amounts, the county measure amounts, but nothing in FY2025. So is this, you say this is a preliminary list, but is this a list? What is the list of the FY23, 24 ones that are- |
| 01:00:01.85 | Kevin McGowan | I think I have an error here on attachment two. That first column in orange should read 2425 and not 2324. |
| 01:00:12.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:00:13.10 | Kevin McGowan | My bad. |
| 01:00:13.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, so that explains that I mean we we need to vote emphasize make sure that you're emphasizing maintenance and improvements to the street network that don't require construction or major roadway widening that's one of the objectives of the general plan so for the street things that's what we have to determine so that's why I was asking for a list of those guys. |
| 01:00:36.05 | Kevin McGowan | I don't think it would be even possible to expand a roadway in Sausalito. |
| 01:00:40.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, well... Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Junius, you had an additional question. |
| 01:00:47.75 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. I hope this is an easy one. So attachment for the 2025 Capital Improvement Program And compared to the big list, which I'm forgetting which attachment that is, that's got all the data in it. I saw the Ferry Landside project in the big list with all the detail, but I don't see it here on the 2025. Is that supposed to be anywhere? |
| 01:01:08.55 | Kevin McGowan | It should be an active project. So it's under the active section A-002. And that big document, the last one, I think it should be in there. |
| 01:01:20.49 | Andrew Junius | But why isn't it on the 2025 attachment four? |
| 01:01:24.57 | Kevin McGowan | because we have already rated that. It's already an approved project. Got it. Doesn't need to be prioritized. |
| 01:01:29.97 | Andrew Junius | That's what I needed. Thank you very much. |
| 01:01:32.43 | Kristina Feller | Can I ask a clarifying question, though, to that? Then why do you have parking lot one reconstruction as priority two? It's because that was part of the Ferryland side. |
| 01:01:39.62 | Kevin McGowan | THE END OF We have recently tried to discuss that and separate that out as a separate project. So that's an interesting one in that the Ferry Landside, as you all know, had a component of doing a micro seal on parking lot one. However, parking lot one is in really bad shape and we don't think that a micro seal will do much good other than bring out the striping. So. We have initiated a separate project to resurface parking lot one and reconstruct it. The idea is to develop a design in the next fiscal year and then move forward after that with trying to find some funding in order to either resurface it or make it better. |
| 01:02:22.37 | Kristina Feller | And it's got a priority too on it over all these other infrastructure projects and accessibility projects? |
| 01:02:33.23 | Kevin McGowan | So you are looking at? I'm looking at attachment four. |
| 01:02:36.00 | Kristina Feller | I'm looking at a Toshman 4. |
| 01:02:37.70 | Kevin McGowan | So, Maybe that total score may not be right. Remember, that is just based off of what staff thought. There are tripping hazards there right now, so there are safety concerns. Those tripping hazards will get worse if we don't address them because the tree roots will continue to grow. So it does have a rating system for it. If you disagree with that rating system, I completely understand. |
| 01:03:05.38 | Kristina Feller | Well, I don't necessarily fully understand the reading system. I know you explained it, but I mean, if you're, I certainly don't know. I'm not saying it's a priority or not a priority. I would question it being priority number two over a lot of deferred maintenance that deals with safety issues and public safety issues. But, you know, again, I don't want to go down a rabbit hole because I know we wanted to get to the specific projects, but I would certainly flag that because I also thought that the grant funding covered it. So. Anyway. |
| 01:03:46.15 | Director Phipps | If I may, Commissioners, I think these are all excellent questions, and I do appreciate the comment related to that this is one of the first times that we are hearing this item in this fashion. So I think all appreciated. I'd just like to remind Commissioners that the priority ranking system that Kevin has integrated into the CIP is part of what impacts project scheduling and part of what impacts staff allocations, which is not the responsibility of the Commission this evening. Thank you. |
| 01:04:16.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, let me just, but I do want to, because you were alluding to this, and I will do this for the sake of the public and for understanding. The rating criteria, if I understand it, which we had put up on the board and you went through the six items, health and safety can go to 10. I'm sorry, immediate threat to health and safety can go to 10. And a safety issue, if not addressed, can go to eight. And then it goes down eight for required by law, seven for city goals and objectives, up to six for aesthetics, and up to six for improved city operations. So the way I understood this health the ones on top can get more points which would put if something is really a health and safety issue and a um uh and a threat to health and whatever it will possibly get higher numbers that the way this system works so |
| 01:05:15.50 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, that's the intent. |
| 01:05:16.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so that, and In some cases, it might seem weird that that gets more rated higher than that. But using this criteria, that's what happens. Right. Okay. Other comments, questions from the commission? Commissioner Merrill. |
| 01:05:32.06 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you. I just had another process-related question. You had mentioned the possibility of other CIPs coming during the fiscal year, either because council directs it or an emergency, like a leaking roof or something. And since it's the first time we've done this process, is it the intention then to come back to us periodically with new CIPs that have been introduced during the fiscal year and vote on those and their compliance with the general plan? Or how is that handled? |
| 01:06:03.72 | Kevin McGowan | So that's a decent question in that let's just say for the sake of argument that we come up with a project related to the geologic hazard study between now and July. It might be a good idea for us to bring that back as a single item and just ask this commission, is it in compliance with the general plan? |
| 01:06:23.44 | David Marlatt | That was the sense of my question. Is that the intention to come back with one-off or singular projects that were not on the list that we initially voted on before next fiscal year? |
| 01:06:32.59 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, I think that's a reasonable approach. |
| 01:06:35.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:06:35.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:35.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, other any other questions at this point. Okay, thank you director McGowan at this point I would like to open it up for public comment. I'll let director Phipps explain the process. |
| 01:06:49.58 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. Same process for public comment applies before, as mentioned in the public comments on items not on the agenda. But I would just say that public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand. You'll be called upon when it's your time to speak. For those joining by phone, to raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Thank you. And for those, so I have, I'll just say for the record, I have a stack of speaker cards here. I'm not certain if they are in connection with item 6A or 5A, but actually I do see one from Carolyn Revell. And it is specifically related to this item. Carolyn, welcome. Please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. |
| 01:07:40.34 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. Good evening. I'm Carolyn Revell, an urban planner representing Sausalito Beautiful. As you review the CIP for conformance with the general plan, I'd like to highlight one item, funding for street trees. We ask your support for tree planting and maintenance as the CIP continues its revisions before council adoption. Most CIP items relate to traditional infrastructure. The general plan includes landscape as infrastructure. The community design element states include landscaping and maintenance of landscaping as part of the infrastructure budget as a necessary and basic community service. The sustainability element also states, treat public landscapes as basic infrastructure, along with hardscapes, et cetera. and work to secure funding and resources in both the short and long term for installation and maintenance. Another sustainability policy notes the environmental benefit of trees, Promote tree canopy presentation, enhancement and expansion to improve air quality, carbon sequestration. and increase shade. Of the 60 items in the draft CIP... Item GC007, at least the reading I have of it, $30,000 for tree replacement on Bridgeway. is ranked priority 57 of 60. I've observed over the years that lower ranked CIP items can get whittled away That's why we need your support to affirm the importance of replacing trees on downtown Bridgeway and adding funds for planting and maintaining trees on Caledonia Street. The general plan states identify opportunities to expand the tree canopy along city streets Sausalito Beautiful has worked with the city over the past eight years to expand the tree canopy on Caledonia Street by planting nearly 20 trees. Last October, we completely funded and managed installation of six new trees. As a nonprofit, we can only manage such a project in future by partnering with Citi Funding. So we ask that you recommend $30,000 for it. Caledonia Street. planting and maintenance. to improve the pedestrian experience. The general plan has similar language about the importance of maintenance and enhancing pedestrian-oriented streetscapes for Bridgeway downtown as well. A Bartlett Tree Expert study in 2018 noted that the Callery Pairs on downtown Bridgeway and Princess Street have fire blight. and should be replaced. Sausalito Beautiful worked with the city to replace six new trees and would like to replace the others with funding. Proper planting and watering techniques can mitigate the sidewalk damage that the Department of Public Works is concerned about. In conclusion, The general plan includes landscaper's infrastructure and recommends expanding the city's tree canopy and enhancing the pedestrian streetscapes along Caledonia and Bridgeway. Sausalito Beautiful asks your support in recommending $30,000. of CIP funding for tree planting and maintenance on Caledonia, as well as the $30,000 for Bridgeway that's included in the recommendation. And I have just to give you the citations. |
| 01:10:43.40 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 01:10:43.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:10:43.59 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 01:10:46.59 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. |
| 01:10:49.02 | Director Phipps | Carolyn, could you please provide those to staff? I'll pass them out. Thank you very much. Much appreciated. Thank you for your comment. Looking to the chamber for additional speakers who would like to provide public comment on this item, going once, going twice. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands in connection with public comment for this item. Sandra Bushmaker, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. |
| 01:11:20.48 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you very much. Wanted to introduce myself to the new commissioners, Sandra Bushmaker, former city council and mayor. I was also on the landslide task force that was appointed in 2009 teen and helped draft the report that was presented to the City Council in September of 2019. One of the things I'd like to ask is that that the recommendations of the task force itself be considered on your capital improvement. Now, I recognize that your job tonight is just to see whether the CIP program is in compliance with the general plan. But Director McGowan put up there a slide that said compliance with the general plan and two other projects to bring to the Council. So once again, I'd like after five years after the mudslide on Sausalito Boulevard, right around the corner from where I live. I would like to see those recommendations get some daylight and be put on the shelf. In addition, The geologic hazard mapping study is about to be presented to the city council. There is a group of us that had a meeting last week on that report and hopefully the report will be finalized soon and be brought to the city. If anything is of health and safety. issues of high priority of health and safety issues. It's the subject. of the hazard mapping and the recommendations contained in the report. Just for your information, Sausalito had been working with a 1976 topographic map for geologic purposes. And I found out, we recently just found out that the data for that map was from the 1920s and 1930s. So we are working with 100 year old data in Sausalito. So the importance of getting updated information is really critical for the health and safety of this town. And I'd just like to reiterate that the report that will be presented to the city council will have recommendations for further study This report that is being presented is a geologic hazard mapping study. And in that, in section six, are the recommended further studies to help devise mechanisms so that we can stabilize our community, which is after all a hillside community. And also there was some discussion about overlaying the sea level rise task force information onto this particular map so that you have one set One platform. in which to plug in to get all this data for a particular site that you're about to approve. So let's not let this get on the back shelf. I would like to see you recommend that this be brought to the city council's attention. Thank you. |
| 01:14:21.71 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Sandra, for your comments. Chair looking to the Zoom application once more for raised hands, seeing none. |
| 01:14:29.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Are there any immediate comments? No. So at this point, what I would like to do is I would like to discuss item 2025 A020, which is the 429.5 Johnson. And I want to talk about keeping that in the CIP. It's already in the CIP, but we need to, I guess, take a vote to confirm that that is consistent with the general plan. In order to do that, Commissioner Marlott, I would understand earlier you were going to recuse for that item. So stay close by. |
| 01:15:10.11 | Mary Wagner | and the |
| 01:15:10.16 | Director Phipps | And I see Anne's joined us to assist. |
| 01:15:12.24 | Mary Wagner | Yes, thank you, Chair. No, you got it right, Chair. So thank you for taking care of that. |
| 01:15:17.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So further discussion about maintaining that item that was already in the active projects. |
| 01:15:23.93 | Kristina Feller | Can you repeat the project again? |
| 01:15:26.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The item is item 2025A020, so it's on the active projects list. It's the Johnson Street renovation project that I believe has been designed. It's funded by Grant, and Commissioner Marlott has recused because he's the architect for that project. |
| 01:15:34.93 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yeah. |
| 01:15:46.39 | Sandra Bushmaker | Roger. |
| 01:15:46.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And we just need to determine that that's in conformance with the general |
| 01:15:55.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. |
| 01:15:55.49 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Can I ask a question to the staff? Thank you. |
| 01:15:58.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:15:58.78 | Andrew Junius | I'm curious. That is kind of an interesting project. Do we have a specific general plan policy that We believe that the staff believes directly supports that item. |
| 01:16:10.32 | Director Phipps | I believe, and I would defer to Director McGowan's expertise on this, but I would believe it would be related to affirmatively furthering portable housing in the city. |
| 01:16:20.66 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:16:20.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:16:24.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would assume it's part of the housing element specifically. |
| 01:16:28.83 | Director Phipps | We will be able to count those units when complete towards our arena. |
| 01:16:34.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Vips. further discussion about this particular item. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:16:39.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:16:39.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Could we take a roll call vote, Director Fitz? |
| 01:16:42.64 | Andrew Junius | How about a motion first? I'll move to determine that this item is consistent with the general plan. |
| 01:16:43.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I'm sorry. |
| 01:16:51.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. Now, Director Pips, can you take roll? |
| 01:16:56.22 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:16:58.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I know. |
| 01:16:59.63 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Junius. Yes. Vice Chair Assad. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 01:17:03.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Yeah. Okay, thank you. And Commissioner Junius, can you let Commissioner Marillac come back in? At this point, I would like to discuss the City Hall solar project, which is 2025 FP020 and solar awnings. And with that... |
| 01:17:11.10 | Unknown | Thank you very much. Come back. |
| 01:17:27.41 | Michael Rex | CUTE. |
| 01:17:27.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. and discussion about that item. |
| 01:17:34.58 | Kristina Feller | Tell me again what number you're on. |
| 01:17:36.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh 2025 fp020 so that's on the future projects list |
| 01:17:40.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:17:40.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:42.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And it says solar awnings. If we need more information, we'll have to ask Director McGowan. |
| 01:17:51.99 | Kristina Feller | Well, I think we should ask Director McGowan. |
| 01:17:54.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director McGowan, can you clarify more what's included within this project? |
| 01:18:01.68 | Kevin McGowan | So I think the intent of this project is to put solar panels above the parking lot and back back right up here. |
| 01:18:11.18 | Andrew Junius | Good question. The panels on the on City Hall themselves are they are they functional? |
| 01:18:15.58 | Kevin McGowan | They are functional. you |
| 01:18:16.46 | Andrew Junius | Great. |
| 01:18:16.97 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 01:18:20.53 | Kristina Feller | I have no issue. Okay. |
| 01:18:22.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, uh, can I, I'm looking for a motion there. |
| 01:18:25.49 | Andrew Junius | I would move that this item be determined to be in compliance with the general plan. |
| 01:18:30.08 | Kristina Feller | Second. |
| 01:18:30.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director Phipps, if you could take a role, please. |
| 01:18:33.64 | Director Phipps | Krishnar Feller. |
| 01:18:34.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:18:34.62 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:18:34.70 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Marlott. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 01:18:39.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Okay, can you let Commissioner Sade back in? At this point, there was a discussion about some trees on Caledonia Street. Do we wanna add, if we were to add an item that we want Director McGowan to possibly consider, do we need to determine general plan consistency? So that's for discussion. |
| 01:19:02.56 | Kristina Feller | It's already on the list. |
| 01:19:04.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It is on the list. No, it's not on the list. That was my understanding of why I'm raising it. There is something about trees on Bridgeway. |
| 01:19:05.25 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:19:05.36 | Andrew Junius | I'm not sure. |
| 01:19:06.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Raising it. |
| 01:19:12.20 | Andrew Junius | Just a clarification here. Are we done with the recusals or do we think we're done with the items to be recused? |
| 01:19:12.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You want to. |
| 01:19:16.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | with the... |
| 01:19:18.92 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:19:18.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:19:19.05 | Andrew Junius | There's one more for me because I can't vote on the Langendorf Park one. |
| 01:19:19.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Because there's a lot of people. My understanding is the Langdendorf Park was part of maintenance and the list that we showed you with those are the only projects they felt that recusal was necessary. So, yes, that is close to your house, but that was determined to be. |
| 01:19:40.75 | Andrew Junius | Okay. Thank you. that. |
| 01:19:43.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | use the language for me, Director Phipps. So what is that determined to be? There. |
| 01:19:47.57 | Mary Wagner | There's a carve out. Yes, I'll sorry. I'll take care of that. There's a carve out in the rules about recusal for projects that relate to maintenance or repair or replacement of existing sewer water utility related facility. So that falls within that bucket. So no recusals needed. So we pulled it off that list, but thank you for your conscientiousness. |
| 01:20:05.36 | Andrew Junius | Great. Thank you. |
| 01:20:07.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if we wanted to add a project, whether there was some public comment, but even if we wanted to add it, you would need to know that we determined it was consistent with the general plan. So if we were to recommend adding a project and determine its consistent, then you can prioritize it in however you bring it to the city council. Because funding is not our issue, it's just consistency. |
| 01:20:34.33 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, that's correct. |
| 01:20:35.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 01:20:35.26 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 01:20:35.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | RECORDING TO THE FEDERAL |
| 01:20:35.36 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 01:20:35.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:20:35.44 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 01:20:35.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. So the question is, do we want to add a project related to trees on Caledonia? |
| 01:20:42.01 | Andrew Junius | I would like to talk about that. Yeah, and I would be in favor of that. I think the public comment was pretty compelling to me. The budget seems small, and the general plan is filled with... policies and objectives regarding Street Trees. So I think it's an important one and I think we should add. |
| 01:21:07.30 | Kristina Feller | I just wanted maybe to add to that. I agree with that. I agree with the trees, but I don't think it's just planting trees. The maintenance of what we have or maintenance of new trees is an equal important part of adding something on this list, I think, because the maintenance of the trees is part of the problem. |
| 01:21:26.86 | Andrew Junius | I would definitely agree with that. How do we do we? Is that a. |
| 01:21:32.04 | Kristina Feller | motion to include a new item on the CIP for tree maintenance and new tree plantings on Caledonia. |
| 01:21:43.50 | Mary Wagner | And if I may, if you want to combine with that motion to make the consistency determination so we don't have to handle that separately, we could do all that as part of one motion if you would like to. |
| 01:21:52.38 | Andrew Junius | Great. Yeah, I would make a motion that both the additional tree planting in Caledonia, as well as the maintenance for trees overall, be included on the CIP as consistent with the general plan. |
| 01:22:01.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:22:01.61 | Kristina Feller | . |
| 01:22:01.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | second and attorney Branham I would presume that's a citywide item so no no recusals are necessary is that correct |
| 01:22:11.90 | Mary Wagner | Yes, as long as that's the case that the planting would not be in, you know, one specific area that anyone is remotely, you know, within the 1000 feet of. |
| 01:22:20.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:20.76 | Mary Wagner | If it's citywide, then yes. Short answer. |
| 01:22:21.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:22:21.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:22:21.13 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:22:21.39 | Nastassya Saad | city. then yeah. Clarify a question. Did we not say, did I not hear Caledonia specifically just now? Is that part of the whole thing? |
| 01:22:29.28 | Kristina Feller | We're adding that for trees and maintenance. But for Caledonia. Yes, correct. |
| 01:22:33.76 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, correct. Okay, so if it is for Caledonia, then |
| 01:22:37.38 | Mary Wagner | But if it's for maintenance, and I'm sorry, I know it's very complicated, but the maintenance part of it is within that other bucket. Yes. Even with the new. |
| 01:22:44.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Thank you. |
| 01:22:45.99 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:22:46.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So even if there'll be some new trees, since it's maintenance, we don't have to recuse. |
| 01:22:51.57 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:22:51.59 | Unknown | gifts. |
| 01:22:52.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, there's a motion on the floor, a second. Director Fips, please take roll please. |
| 01:22:59.00 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Filler. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 01:22:59.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:23:04.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Yes. Okay, in addition to that item, are there any other items that the Commission feels that should be added to the capital improvement FY 24 through 25? |
| 01:23:19.69 | Kristina Feller | I do. I still want to go back to the original recommendations out of the sea level, excuse me, the landslide task force, because there were some additional actionable items out of there beyond just the geologic hazard study. And again, that was completed in 2019 and approved in 2019 as priority by the city council. So I'd like to ask that that. completed in 2019 and approved in 2019 as priority by the city council. So I'd like to ask that that that that be added on and I could see potentially that the what the sea level rise task force has already presented to the city council and recommended. Some of that could be combined because it's actually there's a lot of overlap with some of that, including the the GIS mapping, which I know is on here. But I think it's really important that we're capturing the right elements or maybe this is just the name of the project director McGowan and and there's more to it than just the name of the project. But I really want to ensure that those are prioritized because we are feeling the effects of both of those things here in Sausalito, and that's where a lot of those emergency projects are coming from, I believe. |
| 01:24:39.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Director McGowan, can you clarify whether what we're asking for is already covered by one of the items here or could be covered by rewarding one of the items or do you need a new item for this? |
| 01:24:52.57 | Kevin McGowan | So let's just start with the sea level rise or climate adaptation plan. I don't know what's going to come out of that. My department isn't leading it at this point in time. So I don't know if I need to add additional projects at this point in time to that. I think it's still at the infancy stage. And if we are adding an actual physical project where I have to assign. staff to it. It'll probably be in the next fiscal year sometime. And there is funding available for it. |
| 01:25:21.73 | Kristina Feller | So, and I'm assuming regarding funding, you're referring to that million dollar grant that Council Member Kelman had secured? |
| 01:25:29.46 | Kevin McGowan | Yes. |
| 01:25:29.95 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Does that include the GI? You have a line item in here. for the GIS. Was that... sea level rise? No. Or was that... |
| 01:25:40.34 | Kevin McGowan | No. |
| 01:25:41.78 | Kristina Feller | landslide. |
| 01:25:43.99 | Kevin McGowan | at neither. I wanted to, um, one of the projects on the list and if you're interested, I'll pick it off here if I can, has to do with securing services of a GIS firm to help the city develop its own GIS system. We do need this. And so it's one of those items I would like to address with our council, it hasn't rated very high compared to health and safety issues, but it can sure serve the residents as well as staff very well in order to have our own GIS system where we can bring up street trees, we can bring up our storm drain systems, all that type of stuff. |
| 01:26:27.19 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, and as it relates to the general plan, I think that having this tool is absolutely essential. because you know, with a lot of the programs and the general plan update, and I was a member of the general plan working group, you know, a lot of the issues with sea level rise and subsidence and the issues with landslide, mudslide and other, you know, natural issues. are baked into that general plan. And so if we don't have some kind of a tool or a base, and it really is all the same thing, You know, landslide doesn't need something different than sea level rise. It's really all one GIS tool. I really think that this is important in order to actually administer the general plan. |
| 01:27:14.79 | Kevin McGowan | Okay. I share that concern, and I will bring it to the city council to see if we can actually fund that one. |
| 01:27:22.23 | Mary Wagner | If I may just jump in briefly here, I would recommend against a formal motion to add this as an item to the CIP list, just given that the scope of tonight's charge for the Commission is to take the existing list and determine if it's consistent with the general plan or not. I think it's clear that staff is willing to drive that project and bring it to the council. But I just, if we could just take the existing list and make the recommendations based on that. I think that would be preferable. Totally. |
| 01:27:44.46 | Kristina Feller | so that I It's already on the list. That's why. |
| 01:27:48.00 | Mary Wagner | That's what we have determined. We would not need a new item. |
| 01:27:49.23 | Kristina Feller | the last one. Okay. Already, yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:27:53.55 | Mary Wagner | that. |
| 01:27:54.11 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. I would recommend elevating it because we can talk about conformance with the general plan, whatever, but this is one of the most important tools to help actually administered the general plan. So I would say it's, you know, I don't even know what category. It's sort of city-wide. It sort of touches everything. |
| 01:28:17.09 | Kevin McGowan | Right. |
| 01:28:18.81 | Kristina Feller | Um, The. I'm looking at attachment one and I'm on a zero one nine, which is the downtown visioning plan. Can you just explain what that is? |
| 01:28:32.47 | Kevin McGowan | Yes and no. So the downtown vision plan is a attempt to look at conceptual ideas in the downtown area. of how lot one, lot two, lot three, and lot four can be reconfigured so that there would be more of a downtown feel right now. It's more of a parking lot type of approach. So we have a consultant who is working on this, SWA, and they're just looking at concepts and looking at how we can make improvements at this point in time. They were not moving forward with this work until after the Ferry Landside had been brought to council. So we just met with them today and they're planning on moving forward with that effort. |
| 01:29:18.33 | Kristina Feller | Okay, the reason I'm specifically asking about that is that the general plan we took a lot of time to really define what public realm means, which I believe is part of what the public has you know commented on regarding landscaping infrastructure because we're all part of the public realm. There was a big there was a lot of discussion and there are a lot of different areas within the general plan we also talked about what we were referring to as the spine of Sausalito, which is really sort of what... San Francisco calls it the Blue Greenway. It's sort of where the land and the water meet. and our paths that run along the the shorefront and ensuring that particularly in the downtown area and then the southern part of Sausalito express that as well, because it's a little bit more expressed in sort of the central to northern parts, but not so expressed in the south. So I can't tell you whether or not this, you know, if this complies or, you know, is within the spirit of the general plan update, but I would ask that, you know, you're giving this a rating of 17, but it sounds like this is a pretty substantial visioning exercise that, assumingly, projects will fall out of that. to me that that should have a higher Um, Ranking just because you already have actual projects that fall within that so it seems like the carts before the horse a little bit if i'm understanding that correctly, so you might want to look at those priorities because they impact the general plan significantly. |
| 01:31:05.39 | Kevin McGowan | Well, to answer that kind of comment, it's already an active project. And as I mentioned in the presentation, the priority list is simply for staff to try to identify projects to bring to the city council. City council can. dictate which projects they pick. and in this case, They would like to see this project, and we are participating in the development of it. |
| 01:31:29.38 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I'm not, you know, that's, you need to deploy your staff as you need to. I was just thinking a visioning plan, like a vision is a little different than a construction project. Usually you want to have the vision before you start building. So that was the nature of my comment. And I'm sorry if I did not articulate that correctly the first time. But it goes along with... the... the bridgeway bike lane, which I'm not really very clear what that is. But the whole idea is that spine continue for bicycles and pedestrians together along the spine of of Sausalito, along the water's edge. That was the intent of the general plan. And that's expressed in a couple of different areas. rather significantly. I know that they've been playing around with ideas there. I don't really know where that stands, but from what I've seen so far, it didn't really comply with the general plan, but I know that more work is being done. So I, I, I would... I don't know what to do with that one. What I saw didn't, but maybe that progress has been made there. |
| 01:32:48.51 | Kristina Feller | Is there an updated design there? |
| 01:32:51.08 | Kevin McGowan | On which one, the visioning plan or on the- |
| 01:32:53.10 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Spike Lane. |
| 01:32:54.59 | Kevin McGowan | Which Bridgeway bike lane project? Is this Princess to Richardson or is this... Yeah. |
| 01:33:00.43 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:33:00.83 | Kevin McGowan | From gate five to, or from gate six to Harbor? |
| 01:33:05.10 | Kristina Feller | I see. I'm on, it's the first, and I'm on attachment one. It's A011. |
| 01:33:12.14 | Kevin McGowan | Okay, so the Bridgeway Bike Lane project is a conceptual, the intent is to develop conceptual plans for the Bridgeway Bike Lane going from Princess to Richardson. I always mix up the streets a little bit. And so we have parametrics who is handling that. They're collecting data at this point. You may see cameras on the electrical poles out there or the overhead lights. After that, they will be developing some conceptual plans and having some public meetings about what can be done in that area to provide two additional bike lanes. Because at this point, the bicyclists share the road with vehicles, and that tends to be problematic. This is a very high-profile project, and a lot of the residents in town did not like this project. They didn't feel it was appropriate because... The original idea was to remove the center median, and that can be considered as an emergency access to go from old town to downtown. So the project is simply to develop conceptual plans. I have some ideas on how to address some of the other issues in that area, not just bicycle safety, but also sea level rise. I think that will play into this at some point in time. that particular area of town. does get wave overrun when we do have high tides and decent sized winds in the wintertime. And I expect that to increase as we get sea level rise over time. So this may be a good project in the future to apply for additional grant funds in order to address not just the safety of bicyclists and the pedestrians, but to address sea level rise as well. So to answer your question, we are just going through the conceptual design approach, which is supported by a grant fund. And then after that, we'll bring it back to council to find out what to do next. However, at the same time, we are working with the sea level rise folks and seeing if we can find some additional funding to address that section of town. |
| 01:35:12.47 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:35:13.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a question regarding that? Assuming that at this point, we're going to presume it's consistent, they're gonna do this consistent with the general plan, but is it possible before you go back to council on this one that we could see that again? So in case for some reason, the plan that they come up with is inconsistent with the general plan, we can know about that. |
| 01:35:37.21 | Kevin McGowan | They're developing conceptual plans. So yes, that's sure we can do that. |
| 01:35:41.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We would appreciate that. |
| 01:35:44.28 | Kristina Feller | And thank you for your comments on that. I'm looking forward to ideas about sea level rise. You're right about the waves crashing down there. Obviously, it took out the seal as well. See you later. |
| 01:35:56.14 | Kevin McGowan | sea lion. They get really upset when you call it a seal. |
| 01:35:57.71 | Kristina Feller | You call it a seal. Fly on. strike that from the public record. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Oh, boy. Okay. Um, Are there any, let me ask it to you this way. Um, director McGowan, are there any specific projects on here that you wanted to ask us about, or you needed any help or guidance from us about general plan compliance or, or any other projects that didn't make it on this list that you would have wanted to see on this list? |
| 01:36:28.81 | Kevin McGowan | Not really. These are all public improvements. They're all intended to benefit the public at large. So in my opinion, these are all in conformance with the general plan. We're all moving in the same direction. There's nothing specific about repairing somebody's driveway with this project. That's not the intent. What we're trying to do is make public improvements and Really what this document does is it simply keeps track of everything. |
| 01:36:55.53 | Kristina Feller | Got it. you And so sorry, one last question, just for clarification. Forgive me. I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing here. Attachment four was just giving us that same list in order of priority. Is that correct? |
| 01:37:13.36 | Unknown | attachment forward. |
| 01:37:14.04 | Kristina Feller | It's the Future Capital Project Priority 2025. It was just listing them. |
| 01:37:17.68 | Unknown | you |
| 01:37:17.72 | Kevin McGowan | Yes. |
| 01:37:17.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:20.77 | Kristina Feller | with scores and priority versus... |
| 01:37:22.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:37:24.01 | Kristina Feller | your other Excel sheet. |
| 01:37:25.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But excluding the active list. But excluding the active list, yeah. Yeah. |
| 01:37:27.86 | Kristina Feller | But it's literally, yeah. Got it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:37:32.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Any other further questions at this point? So at this point, I'm going to be looking for a motion to determine the consistency of all the items in attachments one and two, which is the active list and the future projects list, excluding the ones that we've already made motions on. because those have already been done, and that way we don't have any conflict. |
| 01:37:57.14 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I want to make sure that... |
| 01:37:58.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | including the The edition. |
| 01:38:00.94 | Kristina Feller | So we have the addition of the Caledonia trees, maintenance, and all that. |
| 01:38:04.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Trees made in the Yes. |
| 01:38:06.82 | Kristina Feller | Um, but I had mentioned the sea level rise and, |
| 01:38:12.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I thought we got a clarification that that's included with some of the other items that we already have. Wasn't that already active? Those are already in the active list? |
| 01:38:14.30 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:38:20.04 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:38:20.05 | Kristina Feller | That was... And I |
| 01:38:21.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That was the question we started, we got off us in a tangent. So is the sea level rise included within one of the items here? |
| 01:38:21.25 | Kristina Feller | That was, |
| 01:38:30.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:38:30.65 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I see the adaptation plan. And the Landslide Task Force also had recommendations for, we talked about a hillside ordinance, and we talked about updating the Sausalito Municipal Code, which, I mean, I don't know. I'm assuming both DPW and CDD would have participation and drive that. Is that something that can be included here? |
| 01:38:56.34 | Kevin McGowan | I am hesitant to include it at this point in time until the council takes action on it. So if the council does take action to give us direction to change the municipal code in some way, then yes, we can put it on the capital list. |
| 01:39:09.75 | Kristina Feller | It was my understanding that they did that in 2019 when they unilaterally approved the recommendations of the task force. Is it possible to get clarification on that? Because that would be something I would want to include. But again, I think that's probably a shared responsibility with both departments, but they adopted and approved all of those recommendations. And those were on that list of 13. |
| 01:39:24.70 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 01:39:24.97 | Sandra Bushmaker | I'm sorry. |
| 01:39:40.60 | Kevin McGowan | I'm not sure I share that. Same understanding, but we will look into it. |
| 01:39:47.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, at this point we're looking for a motion. |
| 01:39:49.44 | Andrew Junius | I'll make a motion. I move that we make a finding that the draft capital improvement program for fiscal year 2425 is consistent with the South Dakota general plan. with the amendments as discussed this evening. |
| 01:40:04.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, with the exclusions that they've already approved. you but we need to include the trees and maintenance on cattle. Correct. That's scary. |
| 01:40:13.44 | Kristina Feller | And we want to, with the asterisks, that those recommendations that were already approved by the city council in 2019, that those be in here as well. |
| 01:40:16.58 | Andrew Junius | we've already... |
| 01:40:25.70 | Andrew Junius | Sure. Thank you. |
| 01:40:26.60 | David Marlatt | Is there a question, Chair? Sorry, just before that, isn't the resolution of what we've been asked is to adopt the draft in Attachment 6 that staff has prepared for us? |
| 01:40:27.44 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:40:27.97 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:40:28.09 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:40:29.98 | Aaron Roller | to love. |
| 01:40:30.52 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:40:30.97 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 01:40:38.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | For some reason, Attorney Branham suggested we not do it that way. So if you could clarify. |
| 01:40:44.62 | Mary Wagner | Yes, just for segmentation purposes, we didn't have the resolution broken out by various projects so that we could make sure that we're complying with the ethics rules about segmentation. So we don't need a resolution that was just, you know, out of an abundance of, |
| 01:40:53.80 | Sandra Bushmaker | We don't want to be able to do that. |
| 01:40:57.80 | Mary Wagner | documentation, having minute orders on each of these is fine and was preferable from a segmentation perspective. And then just to clarify on the motion that you'll be voting on, Is that I understand there was a friendly amendment to request that there be I'm just not sure that staff is going to have the direction they need in terms of having an asterisk that we go back and review. the 2019 recommendations, What I would recommend instead is maybe we, separately, so we take the motion on the project list as presented. And then that would be the general plan consistency finding. And then perhaps we could make a separate motion to have staff review and bring back for the Planning Commission a discussion the sea level rise, or I don't wanna mischaracterize it, but, how do we feel about that? That way it's just that the two items are separated out so that we're making sure we're consistent with the statue. |
| 01:41:50.79 | Andrew Junius | Okay, thank you. I would agree with that. I would agree with that. |
| 01:41:53.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the motion, which includes the projects other than ones we've already approved, includes the Caledonia maintenance. That's the motion on the floor without the asterisks, and we'll get to the asterisks as a separate motion. And is there a second to that? |
| 01:42:10.99 | David Marlatt | I'll say. I'll second it. you |
| 01:42:12.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and any further discussion? No. Director Phipps, please take the roll on that motion. |
| 01:42:19.31 | Director Phipps | Congratulations, Commissioner Merlotto, on the first second. |
| 01:42:22.87 | Kristina Feller | it. |
| 01:42:23.44 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:42:24.76 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:42:25.08 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. |
| 01:42:28.86 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 01:42:30.21 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:42:30.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:42:30.33 | Director Phipps | Motion passes. |
| 01:42:31.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, and I'll look for a motion from Commissioner Fowler regarding that asterisk. |
| 01:42:38.27 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I'd like to make a motion to include the recommendations as approved and ratified by the city council in september 2019 to be included in a cip priority list |
| 01:42:58.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do we need, Attorney Branham, do we need to also determine that those are consistent with the general plan? |
| 01:43:05.97 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, so just for clarification to make sure I'm understanding right, the idea is that we're gonna do this as a separate motion presuming that it's a recommendation up to council to add it to the list when they consider the rest of the items. Is that how you would like it to be framed in the motion? |
| 01:43:21.49 | Kristina Feller | Correct. |
| 01:43:22.28 | Mary Wagner | Okay, then yes, I would say that motion works. Um, And we can, yes, I would just like with the other one we did, I would say that we recommend to counsel that they consider adding that item, as you just phrased it, to their list of the CIP approvals and subject to a finding by the planning commission that it is consistent with the general plan. So just that little add on at the end of the motion. |
| 01:43:44.38 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Agreed. |
| 01:43:46.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Are we saying it is consistent or has to come back to us at a later time when they're more detailed? Or you're saying it is consistent? |
| 01:43:51.72 | Kristina Feller | Well, I mean, it's like anything else on the CIP, the projects that come out of it as the staffing is identified. And those may come back to us, as Commissioner Marlott asked previously. |
| 01:44:00.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Okay, fine. Is there a second? Second. Okay, Director Phipps, can you take the roll? |
| 01:44:09.13 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Feller. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Vice Chair Assad. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. |
| 01:44:14.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Yes. |
| 01:44:17.03 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Motion passes. |
| 01:44:18.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. At this point, we're on to item 6A, which is 21 Atwood. And at this point, I will read what it is, but I will recuse. The applicant and owner, Leo Chao, is requesting a design review permit with heightened design review to demolish an existing 2684-square-foot single-family home with a 380-square-foot carport and construct a new 33-24 square foot single family home with a 380 square foot carport and construct a new 3324 square foot single family home with one attached accessory dwelling unit and a 546 two-car garage. As I mentioned previously, this project is within 500 feet of my home, so I'm going to recuse myself. So go in the back room and you folks will bring me back here and Vice Chair Stott will take over. |
| 01:45:10.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. |
| 01:45:13.15 | David Marlatt | Vice Chair Saad, can I ask a question, if it's appropriate? Can I ask a question of Director Phipps to help educate us on the Housing Accountability Act And this is a two-unit building and why we're using objective versus subjective criteria. And just to make sure that we're on the... Yeah. |
| 01:45:28.97 | Nastassya Saad | Do you mind just waiting? We all have a time for questions of staff. So after our presentation, absolutely, that would be appropriate. |
| 01:45:41.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:45:43.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. Welcome. |
| 01:45:45.98 | Matthew Mandich | Hello, commissioners. Good to see you all again. And welcome to our newest commissioner, Mr. Marlott. Nice to meet you. Okay, I guess we'll just jump right into the presentation. Thank you. As already discussed by Chair Luxembourg, the item before you tonight is a design review permit with heightened review for 21 Atwood Avenue. Next slide, please. Here's the location of the site right here highlighted here. This is the parcel 21 Atwood can see it here on Google Maps. This is our one six single family zone and it is a medium low density residential zone in our general plan. Next slide, please. Summary of the project is a design review permit with heightened review to demolish an existing 2,684 square foot single family home with a 380 square foot carport. Construct a new 3,324 square foot single family home with one attached accessory dwelling unit and a 546 square foot two car garage. This does trigger heightened review as the FAR and building coverage are slightly over the 80% of the allowed. Next slide, please. Just a little bit of recent background on this site. On June 16, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission met and determined that the existing structure on site, which you can see here in this image, was not a historic structure. So therefore, it can be demolished. The existing structure is in very poor shape. It has a compromised and cracked foundation, severe wood rot, and a number of other issues and has been abandoned for several years now. Here's the topographic survey of the existing conditions on the site and again, view of it there. Next slide, please. So the footprint, as we can see here, is the existing footprint of the house at 21. This is 15 Atwood right here. As you can see, they are nonconforming with a zero foot setback pretty much. There's a 15 foot privacy wall here. There's no windows on this side. This is the proposed footprint of the house. As you can see, it matches fairly consistently with the original footprint of the home slightly larger and extended a little bit receding back up the hill it intends to use pretty much the same site so there'll be you know minimal additional grading and some of the a lot of the paved services will also be used as well next slide please just to talk a little bit about the design concept here. It's aiming to stick with the mid-century modern tradition that you find on this block of Atwood Avenue. It has three articulated volumes that recede back into the hillside. Again, you could see the garage right here, the primary residence, and the primary suite studio. And here's that 15-foot or 14 and 1⁄2-foot privacy wall I was speaking of in the last slide. And over here is a rendering of how the finished build is intended to look. Thank you. 15 foot or 14 and a half foot privacy wall I was speaking of in the last slide. And over here is a rendering of how the finished build is intended to look. Next slide, please. Again, we've got the existing and proposed site plan here. You can see the existing plan proposed matches pretty consistently, carport, garage, primary residence, residence. There was a shed back here previously that'll be demolished and there'll be this primary suite slash office in the rear. Next slide, please. I'm just going to walk through the floor plans pretty quickly here. Got the garage here. That's what this slide is emphasizing this area right here. Two-car garage, storage area. There's also a third parking spot for the ADU out here. And then a stairway up leading to the primary residence. This is a storage room, and this is all crawl space. Next slide, please. As you'll see here, this is the primary living area, this is the main entrance coming up from the stairs to two bedrooms right here on suite and then this is the attached at you over here with its own separate entrance bathroom and kitchen next slide please. Here is the upstairs of the primary living unit with a family room, kitchen, living room, den type area and a hallway back that connects to the primary suite, excuse me, which has an office on the first floor. And on the second floor of that, you can see here's the roof of the primary residence here with another bedroom on top of that. So those are the floor plans for you there. I think next we're going to go into some elevations. Next slide, please. As you can see from these elevations, the front south view of the property, which fronts onto Atwood Avenues, relatively similar size and style to what is the current position. A little bit taller, a little bit larger. A few more windows. The rear to the north elevation, almost identical to what's there right now, very low profile over the hill as it's going up the slope in the back there from front to back. So there's the front and rear for you. Next slide, please. Looking at the west and east elevations, here is the existing, here is proposed. You can just walk through those elevations again. We have the garage, primary resident, and primary suite in the back slash office. And this is from the east elevation here. And you can see the grade of that too, how slightly buried down below that level of grade there. Next slide, please. So just looking at the zoning consistency, I imagine all of you have read the staff the staff report and we walked through this a bit so this is the same table that appears in the staff report as far as the objective standards go regarding parcel size building coverage impervious surfaces parking far we're all compliant the only real issues that come up are this from the setbacks and we're going to discuss those in a little more detail next. But as far as the objective standards goes, staff finds that they are compliant. So moving on to those setback issues. Next slide, please. First, we'll tackle the west setback here, which we can see this side here, a number of articulated buildings moving in and out right here, but attached building walls. From the code have the you know so-called 40-foot rule which applies to the length of the building when a building wall is more than 40 feet it needs to be pulled in one foot for every five feet that it is over 40 feet as we have a 64-foot wall here this requires a nine and nine half inch setback however side yard structural projections structural projections are permitted as long as the average depth is equal to the required setback. So the average depth of these varied setback points here needs to equal nine and nine half, nine feet and nine and a half inches. And as well as this, only less than 50% of these walls can encroach into that required setback. As you can see here in this image, and I know it's a little bit hard here. It's a little bit, uh, clear on the plans that, um, I'm sure you've all reviewed prior to the hearing. Um, and in this table as well, that only 31 of the 64 feet encroach into that, uh, nine foot, nine and a half inch setback, uh, which is less than 50% and the average setback remains at this number right here to discuss. So I think the west side is definitely code compliant and consistent and may not be the biggest issue that we'll be touching tonight, but the east side setback, next slide, is one that will certainly bring some discussion and one that we a discussion that we would welcome with commissioners tonight. Again, here's our 40 foot rule. And this is a direct quote from the code here, which I'm just going to read. Where the length of a structure, building wall or series of attached building walls exceeds 40 feet measured parallel to the adjoining side lot line. The minimum setback shall be increased at the rate of one foot for each five feet, such length exceeds 40 feet, as discussed previously. However, when we look into the code and we look into the definitions in 1088 of what attached means, attached, this is directly from the code, attached for the purposes of this title, which is Title 10, the zoning title, buildings and structures shall be considered attached if they share a common roof system and or building walls. So there's definitely some debate about whether or not this garage is attached to the primary structure. This is a workaround that the applicant came up with and supplied to us. These are two separate structures, no shared roofing system and no shared building walls. There is a two inch gap between these two separate walls that have two separate foundations. And there's nothing in the code that mentions how far two buildings should be separated from each other. The code is silent on that. So this again was a creative solution that was proposed to us. And we believe that as the letter of the code goes, it does comply with that. So that's why we're bringing it forward to you today. With that, I think we'll go to our recommendation. Next slide. So, based on the evidence provided tonight and in the staff report and the findings accompanying the draft resolution, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve application 2023-0057 for 21 Atwood Avenue and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the design review permit with heightened review. Staff finds that the proposed project complies with the city's objective zoning standards, and the staff finds of the proposed project is in conformance with the required findings of the design review with heightened review in 1054. Approval is subject to conditions of approval listed in the draft resolution and, of course, any other conditions that would be put on the project tonight, thank you very much and happy to take questions. |
| 01:55:03.61 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Associate Planner Mandich. This will be the time for questions from the Commission. And I believe you had one first. Yes, good. We'll start with you, Commissioner Marlott. |
| 01:55:11.86 | David Marlatt | Yes, good. Thank you very much. This is really, I think, for possibly Commissioner, Director Phipps or Mr. Modich. Can you speak to us about the Housing Accountability Act? This is a two-unit building. Apparently, it doesn't require the objective design standard review. And can you just help us out with that? Is this sort of the new world we're going into? |
| 01:55:35.20 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Certainly, Commissioner, yeah, that's a great question. Happy to take that. So the Housing Accountability Act applies to projects that create net new two units or more. This project does not create any new units or may create one additional unit, and as such is not subject to the HAA. |
| 01:55:54.12 | David Marlatt | So therefore, it's the interpretation. And I'm not trying to argue the point. I know we have to be super clear on this, especially for future projects. So it's the interpretation that net new, even though the existing building has been 100% demolished, as indicated on the plans. So this is a new house. But it is not a net new house because there was a pre-existing house that's been demolished. |
| 01:56:16.97 | Director Phipps | Correct. |
| 01:56:18.20 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:56:19.38 | Director Phipps | And I'll just add to that, based on not being subject to the HAA, this project may be reviewed with both objective and more discretionary review findings or subjective findings. |
| 01:56:34.33 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:56:36.76 | Nastassya Saad | Do you have any other questions for staff? |
| 01:56:39.53 | David Marlatt | I'll have a series of questions regarding the seismic joint, but possibly I should just hold those until the sponsors, the applicants, have made their presentation. |
| 01:56:49.16 | Nastassya Saad | whatever you'd like, Commissioner Fowler. |
| 01:56:51.85 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair Saad, and thank you, Matthew, for another very, very thorough staff report and presentation. It's very much appreciated. Can you just speak really quickly? about this site with the previous owner because this commission did See this. site before, not this project, but I believe that we did approve some work on this site previously. Can you just highlight that? |
| 01:57:23.30 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, absolutely. So I did do some digging into the file on the site when I was working on it and found that there are some permits issued, in particular demolition permits from, I believe, 2021 by the previous owners. The previous owners do live next door at 15 Atwood and recently sold the house on 21 Atwood, but there were permits to pretty much got the house. It was in really poor shape. I mean, I don't know if you've been up there to visit the site. But yeah, it's, you know, got plywood on the windows. It's been abandoned for some time. And yeah, there was work to be done there to gut that house. But then I think they never moved forward with, you know, any remodels or any reconstruction. Obviously, the foundation is compromised, and there's some severe rot issues there. So I think, after that, the You know, they, those owners then sold the house and we have the project before us today for a new, new build. |
| 01:58:17.17 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for that. And in addition to that, the demolition work, there was also some tree removal work that was approved. And I'm just curious if this owner and this project, how they're handling the trees and if there's any type of tree protection that you've looked at. |
| 01:58:35.48 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so there are going to be three trees removed on the site. None of those are protected trees. I think if my memory serves me correctly, it's... a four inch pyracantha that's four inch dbh diameter breast height. A six inch pitosporum and a 14 inch black acacia, which would qualify it a heritage tree, but it is an undesirable tree, so therefore it does not require a tree removal permit. All of the trees on the back of the property understand there are several heritage trees back there, those will be largely out of the way of any sort of construction activities and are not scheduled for any type of removal. |
| 01:59:07.94 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for that. Let's see. I had one other question. Vice Chair, you can come back to me. Thank you. you |
| 01:59:19.84 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Commissioner Juniors. |
| 01:59:22.10 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Vice Chair. Just a quick observation. The footprint of the main house, the existing house, is generally speaking the identical footprint to what we're going to see here tonight. The houses are... |
| 01:59:35.08 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:59:35.16 | Andrew Junius | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:59:35.30 | Matthew Mandich | to the community. |
| 01:59:35.38 | Andrew Junius | So, |
| 01:59:35.43 | Matthew Mandich | Yes. |
| 01:59:35.89 | Andrew Junius | Very good. |
| 01:59:36.29 | Matthew Mandich | something. |
| 01:59:36.55 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:59:37.14 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:59:39.75 | Nastassya Saad | I had a couple of questions, and if you think it's better for the applicant, just guide me there. Yep. So can you speak to this view easement that we had heard mentioned? |
| 01:59:44.02 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 01:59:53.35 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, sure. I'm happy to talk about that a little bit. I will just mention that, first of all, that, you know, view easements are not necessarily the purview of the department. Those are civil matters, typically, and worked out in a civil setting between neighbors. But obviously, the issue of view impact triggers the design review. And, you know, that's, you know, among the many other things that would trigger a design review with this project. um the view impact is something that can certainly be discussed and weighed in on by by the commission um know, what the extent of that impact is, is I think going to be up to the commissioners tonight to determine. But as I'm aware of it, there is somewhat of an eve that is projecting off one of the sides of the home that does enter into what could be considered a view corridor for 15 Atwood. Based on the story polls and the drawings that I've Thank you. of the sides of the home that does enter into what could be considered a view corridor for 15 Atwood. Based on the story polls and the drawings that I've seen, I've discussed with the applicant, this doesn't seem to be a very significant view impact. In fact, it seems to be pulling back to allow a little bit more of a water view, and this is more of kind of something that would be in the sky. But I will let the applicant discuss that more. They have gone over with the neighbors on this subject back and forth and have a lot more knowledge and experience and just time working on that specific issue than I do. But yeah, just that's what I have to offer on it. |
| 02:01:09.49 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, thank you. And in terms of the The new garage that's going to now have the spaces for two plus a space for the ADU. I was having a little trouble just reading that in the plans. Is that going to be is there going to be any like ingress egress issue with the way that you know two cars can be inside while one is in the driveway or. |
| 02:01:34.40 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. I mean, it's a tandem parking issue. So you have, you have two cars in the garage and then one car that could park on, um, on the driveway in front. So you'd have to manage that in, in a way that, you know, would work out for both any, both occupants, if there were a second occupant or another person living in that ADU, I will mention that they are within a half mile of a transit stop. So that ADU parking spot is not necessarily required. That's something that they opted to put in. Um, so, um, With that being said, you know, if it becomes a major issue or anything there, I don't think there's nothing in the code that would or state law that would require them to, you know, keep that parking spot if it became too much of a problem, but they have included in the plan and their space for a nine by 19 on the driveway. |
| 02:02:18.18 | Nastassya Saad | And so in staff's recommendation there's there's no issue there's no safety safety issue in your opinion. |
| 02:02:24.08 | Matthew Mandich | We had DBW look at it and they came back with nothing and fire as well. Neither of them had comments on that issue. So from my perspective, that works. |
| 02:02:33.31 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. um, Great, thank you. I think those were my questions of staff. Commissioner Pellar, did you have... Thank you. |
| 02:02:41.41 | Kristina Feller | I remembered. Yes, go ahead. Thank you, Vice Chair. I guess the first is, are there any variances being requested? No variances. |
| 02:02:41.92 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, go ahead. |
| 02:02:50.54 | Matthew Mandich | No, very much. |
| 02:02:50.96 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 02:02:51.03 | Matthew Mandich | No. |
| 02:02:51.69 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. And then I just wanted to – |
| 02:02:51.86 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 02:02:55.08 | Kristina Feller | acknowledge and make note that we have received public comment. from, it looks like, really, well, we got four different public comments by email, two of which were, I believe, from the applicant. So I just want to acknowledge those because this commission did receive those, and we do look at all of those. So I want to make sure the public knows that. Thank you. |
| 02:03:25.68 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, commissioners. And with that, I will turn the floor over to the applicant. Thank you. |
| 02:03:25.73 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. All right. Thank you. |
| 02:03:34.64 | Nastassya Saad | If you can please state your name and address for the record, you'll have 15 minutes for your presentation. And if you want to reserve any of your time for a response, you may do so as well. |
| 02:03:37.51 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 02:03:37.69 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:03:44.78 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 02:03:45.23 | Nastassya Saad | Welcome. |
| 02:03:46.01 | Leo Chow | Thank you, Vice Chair Saad, Commissioners. It's really a pleasure to be here this evening after quite a journey thus far, and I'm sure it will continue for a while. My name is Leo Chow. I'm here with my wife, Julia Chan. We are the owners of the property, the homeowners, and I am the architect as well. So, you know, I get to play two roles here today. I also want to thank Mr. Mandich and Mr. Toff of staff. They've been really patient and very thorough in helping guide us through the code. So, yeah, so next. So in beginning the design process, what we always try to think about is thinking about the project in three scales. First, the considerations relative to the neighborhood and the community. Second, to our immediate neighbors. And then third, our own aspirations for the home. So, and I love history and I love digging up old photos of how things came to be urbanistically. This is the site and you'll notice actually next, the hillside that the home is on remained empty for many years, kind of curiously, not sure why. Next, the result of it is that all the homes uphill were built around 1907. |
| 02:04:10.21 | Unknown | you. |
| 02:05:03.21 | Leo Chow | Although Holmes downhill sort of were a second wave 1907 to 23. And then interestingly, everything on the north side of Atwood was built during the mid-century modern period. Next. And so here they all are. You can see they all share some very similar characteristics. And we thought that it was important to be responsive and honor this tradition. And the characteristics that really stand out are that almost all of them are about three stories. They have a lower level of a garage or a retention wall. They have a second level that is almost always the bedrooms, or from what we can tell are the bedrooms. And the third is generally the living spaces with expansive glass, low-pitched roofs, broad eaves, and the spaces inside generally reflect that pitch. So you have living spaces that generally rise from one side to the other. I should note that two of the homes were done by notable architects. One is Mario Corbett, which is the second from the bottom left. And the one in the bottom right is done by George Rockrides, who was the one of the founders of Roma Architects. And I think one of the things that's wonderful about those two projects in particular, and that really helped make them stand out is in addition to the characteristics, they're very simple in form, very simple. Not a lot of setbacks, cutbacks, ease. There's a kind of a simple elegance to them. |
| 02:06:14.88 | Sandra Bushmaker | Uh, |
| 02:06:25.18 | Leo Chow | next. And this idea of simplicity is also prevalent on the street. It is something that is part of the tradition of older architecture. And so the buildings from the 20s, you see these very simple volumes with a simple roof form. Again, the eaves are not cut or overly articulated. The building tends to be a rather simple platonic rectangular form. 18 is, 18 at one is the one directly across the street from our property. Next. So the other thing about this particular hillside that I think is really characteristic of Sausalito in general is the way there is this weaving of rows of trees with rows of homes with rows of trees that there is this kind of intermixing of nature and homes. And I think when you look at the homes on Atwood, they're sort of darker color the way they sort of recede into the hillside, I think is really important. Next. the views from our neighbors. So before we began design, we tried to visit our immediate neighbors. This is from 108 Central, which is the rear neighbor. You can see the roof of the home below. There is a branch there that is part of the acacia tree, and our neighbor has asked that we keep the tree. We're willing to try to give it a go, even though the arborists recommended that it be be cut. So it's not originally the tree was in the We're willing to try to give it a go, even though the arborists recommended that it be cut. So it's not originally the tree was in the area that we had thought about building. It is no longer in that area. next. These are the views from our immediate neighbors to either side. So on the right is 23 Atwood East. You can see the wall and the clear story that they have. The property is immediately to the left of that home. and then i think really really the most important one is uh 15 atwood uh and the reason why this one is so important is such a consideration is the way the houses are arranged on the hill is that they're staggered each one steps back further and further so we're sort of you know we're in 15 at woods view cone and 23 is in our view cone right so. Next. We did do a fair amount of due diligence before finally closing on the property. We did agree to an easement, a view easement on the property with the owner. Pretty significant regarding your question. The view easement is segmented by height and from 175-foot elevation, which is the uppermost floor currently, the main floor, and up. Eaves are exempted if they do not block the views of water. OK. So and we can go into that more detail. We went through a geotechnical report. We did a whole historic resource evaluation that Mr. Mandich referenced. Next. So there is the house as it is actually two years ago. So it's looking a little bit worse for wear these days. I think the main thing to note here is the way the house is actually set down a little bit lower than its neighbors. Its first floor, the main floor again, is about two feet lower than the neighbors to either side. And so as a result, you can see the roof is lower. Also the upper floor is set back. You can see that there is this setback and there's about a 10 foot area of roof up. in front of it. Next. Let's see, I'll go through this just super quickly and try to reserve some time here. So there's the footprint that is about a 1400 square foot footprint. Next. The hatch represents the setback area and you can see the two blue lines which are the view easement lines. Next please. Mr. Manich mentioned the privacy wall that is actually located two feet onto the property. So we also negotiated an agreement to Brown defense, the privacy wall. Next. And then for the garage, we wanted to keep it essentially in the same location. It did need to be larger to meet the two-car requirement. So next. Yeah. So that's the existing carport. Next. So next. |
| 02:10:22.30 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 02:10:51.29 | Leo Chow | So there's the proposed garage. It is moved out a little bit. We also moved the entry stair away from the southwest corner to afford both sides actually a little more privacy. So we don't have our guests arriving right in full view of 15 Atwood. Next. So the question was about how do we add this amount of additional square footage now? And really, there were basically two options. One was that we could add up because from a height limit standpoint, that was still feasible within the 32 foot requirements. But we knew that that would not be accepted by the neighbors. And frankly, we wouldn't want to do that to our neighbors. That's their front yard. We didn didn't want to shadow it we didn't want to eclipse their access to daylight. So you can see where it's located it's located in that place where it's almost invisible it's on that blind wall from their home. And there's one more floor on top for the the primary suite next. PB, David Ensign PB, David Ens And a view of where we believe we're lining up. You can see that the roof that we're posing, it is taller. But it is about a foot taller than 23 Atwood. And it is actually slightly lower than 15 Atwood. So just kind of continuing that staggered pattern. So thank you. |
| 02:12:37.72 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Would you mind just staying up here for us so we can ask some questions? And I'll just note for the record that you've got six minutes and nine seconds left. Thank you for stopping the clock. So I will look to Commissioner Junius. Do you have any questions for the applicants? |
| 02:12:53.23 | Andrew Junius | Sure. First off, I'll say a little bit more later on about, generally about the project, but the easement issue, I think is a fascinating one, I think it's the first time we've come across one, and I congratulate you on getting that done. Is one way for us to think about the view easement is it essentially creates a buildable envelope that you and the grantor of the easement allowed, agreed on. So, which is basically the house you've designed in terms of a volume. Exactly, exactly. |
| 02:13:17.72 | Leo Chow | Precisely. Thank you. |
| 02:13:21.41 | Nastassya Saad | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:13:25.68 | Nastassya Saad | Any other questions? Thank you. Commissioner Meyer, please. |
| 02:13:28.10 | David Marlatt | Jamal, please. Thank you. So my question, and this may come back to staff a little bit as well, but the seismic joint that appears on the drawings and in the staff report, Can you explain why, well, first of all, it's unusual, isn't it, that a Type 5 wood frame construction house would require a seismic joint? Yeah. I see you have Herzog on your team. That's very good. Very good. Is the seismic joint a device to overcome the code? Is that, what is the purpose of the seismic joint? |
| 02:13:50.68 | Leo Chow | Yeah. |
| 02:14:04.02 | Leo Chow | Yeah. It really serves two purposes. One is that in order to accommodate the garage, we needed to widen it slightly and therefore lower it in terms of elevation. So it's about three or four feet lower than the current garage. And also because of the driveway easement, we really had only two options for the driveway, for the garage is either in that location, essentially, or to rotate it and make it accessible directly from 21 Atwood, which we really did not want to do. We thought the idea of a single driveway and the green buffer along the street was important. Second and sort of third and probably the final reason is, although it did help us certainly with the setback is that That part of the site is the part that had noticeable sliding and slippage. And so there's different ways to approach it. We could tie all of that structure together, but by separating it, at least we felt a little safer. And having that additional firewall, given cars with electric batteries sort of setting themselves on fire, we thought it was prudent. |
| 02:15:18.12 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:15:18.43 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 02:15:18.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:18.49 | David Marlatt | I see that. Thank you. But I guess my point, my question is, and this maybe comes back to Mr. Modich as well, is so you've separated the garage. The garage structure is a physically separate structure from the house. Correct. So therefore, everything has to be something. So therefore, it's an accessory building. Correct. Which is fine, of course. And it doesn't share a roof, so they're not attached by that definition. Accessory buildings, you know, the clock starts over on the setback, so to speak. |
| 02:15:33.04 | Leo Chow | Correct. |
| 02:15:37.65 | Leo Chow | Correct. |
| 02:15:49.85 | David Marlatt | Do you need the seismic joint? And maybe when we get into the discussion later on the dais, I'll explain why I think that's important. to for us as a commission to think about do you need a seismic joint to make your |
| 02:15:59.21 | Leo Chow | Thank you. case again in order to separate them structurally because of the |
| 02:16:01.46 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:16:05.12 | David Marlatt | because of the concerns. You could just separate the structure |
| 02:16:08.32 | Leo Chow | Yeah. So once two structures are separated, they will, I hope I'm answering your question here, but once two structures are separated, they move differently seismically. And they have the potential, I'm sure you know this, they can move in the opposite directions and the gap can widen or they could move towards each other. And if we don't leave sufficient gap, they will slam against one another and cause damage. |
| 02:16:16.41 | David Marlatt | No. |
| 02:16:30.04 | David Marlatt | Okay. Well, I think I understand. I think maybe when we get into our discussion, I'm not necessarily not supporting the design, but I think that we have to be very careful about recognizing technical construction terms that neither staff nor the commission are necessarily trained to evaluate as a means of, you know, as a litmus test for whether or not setbacks can be determined. That's a discussion point that'll impact future projects, potentially, not this project necessarily, but future projects. |
| 02:16:37.38 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:17:04.69 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:17:06.93 | Nastassya Saad | Do you have any other questions of the applicant? |
| 02:17:09.26 | David Marlatt | I may after some of the other questions. Absolutely. Thank you. |
| 02:17:14.15 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:17:15.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chow, for your presentation. Let's see, just a couple questions. Could you maybe just comment on some of the materials you're using just to get those on the record so we understand what materials you're talking about? Yeah. Yeah. |
| 02:17:31.13 | Leo Chow | Yeah, yeah. So thank you for the question. It's a good one. The material palette is meant to be very simple in terms of color range, but broader range in terms of texture and tactility. So really, actually, where we started was the idea of a metal roof. We all know how challenging it is to get insurance these days for our homes and the concerns around wildfire. So we wanted at least the main part of the house to have a standing seam metal roof and a dark one. And so the colors are generally in sort of the darker charcoal range in order to recede into the hillside, sort of the colors of more similar to, say, trunks of trees and such. There is also a certain amount of siding that is also dark we are evaluating between stained or um shosu shugui bound which is the charred woods which again help with fire ratings um and then on the main facade facing south facing the driveway uh rather than having a whole lot of balconies and guardrails and all that, we wanted the house to be quiet and more harmonious with its surroundings. And so we covered the decks, the lower decks, with a wood, operable wood screen to kind of create this quieter facade. It did cost us in terms of FAR. There's about almost 200 square feet of FAR attributed to those outdoor decks. And then paving would be concrete. |
| 02:17:31.72 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:19:09.55 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you for that. And then I wanted to move really quickly to, I guess it's the west elevation. And I happen to be on sheet A2.03. But I mean, any of those, any elevation that sort of, or photograph that looks at your eve. it seems to me and I did not visit sort of, or a photograph that looks at your Eve. It seems to me, and I did not visit your neighbor's house. I was not able to do that in the time. I only got... |
| 02:19:09.70 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 02:19:47.41 | Kristina Feller | I got that email late. But I'm looking at it here and it seems to me that that roof structure is definitely higher than the existing. Eve, and it's at an angle... heading up or it's higher on the south side than the north side. Is that correct? |
| 02:20:08.83 | Leo Chow | That is correct. The pitch, if I may, is... The pitch, yeah. Yeah, the pitch is 1 in 12. So it's very... It's as flat as we can get it. |
| 02:20:12.42 | Kristina Feller | The pitch, yeah. |
| 02:20:18.16 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And in terms of sort of the location of where that southernmost element is, it seems to me, and we looked at this on the plan, almost in the same footprint of the existing. It's close, but then there's setbacks. Is that important? |
| 02:20:38.80 | Leo Chow | you Correct. So we have additional setback on the west side, given the length. The existing house is slightly over the required five foot. So the whole house is just slightly narrow on both sides. And then the eave is essentially at that forward edge of the existing lower level. |
| 02:20:48.42 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:20:53.41 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:20:53.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:21:06.45 | Kristina Feller | Okay, because it seems to me like it actually helps that view because that roof is higher in the air and not in not obstructing water. |
| 02:21:17.71 | Leo Chow | That's correct. That was a happy mutual benefit, if you will. It helps our view, but it moves the view out of, we believe it moves the view, the roof out of the sort of primary view of our neighbors. |
| 02:21:33.74 | Kristina Feller | Right. Thank you for that. I also just want to ask you a little bit about landscape and a little bit about lighting, if you could talk about that a little bit. And part of the reason I'm asking about that is, you know, this is not just design review. There's a heightened design review here. So they're about 20 findings we need to make. And I want to make sure that you have a chance to explain that to us and that we're understanding what you're proposing correctly. |
| 02:22:01.69 | Leo Chow | Sure. Part of the reason to buy a property like this is the view, and that goes for the daytime as well as the evening. And certainly when sites get lit up brightly, it detracts from the view in our thoughts because you can no longer either see out of the house or see over the immediate landscape. So the idea is to provide no what I'll call yard landscape lighting at all, except where we need it at steps for safety. And then perhaps a little bit of lighting right at the patio area. So perhaps wall sconces or something like that. But that's the intent. |
| 02:22:08.72 | Kristina Feller | Uh, |
| 02:22:09.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:22:42.52 | Kristina Feller | And landscapes. |
| 02:22:43.86 | Leo Chow | Sorry, yes. So the landscape, you know, what we really want to try and do is utilize native plants, drought tolerant plants. So we're trying to stay away from really decorative plants other than those that are drought tolerant. |
| 02:23:01.96 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:23:04.33 | Leo Chow | We've. Thank you. In our original landscape plan, it shows in the version that you have has lavender planted in front of the wall. We are considering actually introducing taller planting to mitigate any sense of the presence of that south wall. And then we have been in conversations with our neighbor at 23 Atwood. They're interested in adding planting because they're adding a deck to their home. |
| 02:23:25.99 | Kristina Feller | And... I see. Okay. And I forget if Matthew mentioned this Southerman fire looked at your landscape plan they didn't have any comments. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, those are my questions for now. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Vice Chair. |
| 02:23:49.30 | Nastassya Saad | Just to follow up on the landscape plan, can you just expand on the comment that you made about the acacia tree that your neighbor wants to keep? Yes. Did you have an arborist report? I don't think we saw that, but you mentioned that it could be potentially... |
| 02:23:58.75 | Leo Chow | Yes. |
| 02:24:03.88 | Leo Chow | Yeah, so we have an arborist report, and he identified some concerns with the tree. He recommended that the tree be chopped down because it's experiencing rot, and it seems to be leaning. It's actually growing up directly adjacent to a wood retaining wall, and so it's pushing against the wood retaining wall, so it's unstable. our neighbor behind us that particular branch we believe it's unstable. Our neighbor behind us, that particular branch, we believe it's from that tree, it screens his view of many things. And he really likes the way the view is framed. You should note, his yard, from what I understand, was landscaped by Tommy Church, the notable, very well-known landscape architect. And so he has a photograph of, I forget when it's from, like the 60s or something, when it was done. And that view and that framing was really a part of the vision. |
| 02:24:31.70 | Unknown | All right. Yeah. |
| 02:24:58.59 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 02:25:05.34 | Nastassya Saad | I see. It's not part of our packet tonight, so I won't get into too much of a discussion, but I think based on a professional's opinion, you might want to think about that. But, okay, thank you for that in terms of the landscaping. |
| 02:25:16.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:25:22.38 | Nastassya Saad | Did you go back to |
| 02:25:24.03 | Kristina Feller | Can I use a clarifying question? But you raise a really good point because we asked about the demo permit. And when we approved the demo permit back in 2021, there was also the tree removal permit. I just wanted to get, |
| 02:25:31.65 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yes. |
| 02:25:38.31 | Kristina Feller | clarification, was this particular acacia tree on that plan? The demolition plan that was previously approved and the tree removal permit that was approved. Okay. Sorry, Vice Chair. Thank you. That's a good question. |
| 02:25:50.46 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry about your thinking. That's a good follow-up. That would actually be helpful. Thank you, Matthew. In terms, and to just follow along, in terms of the color scheme, have, thank you for explaining your reasoning and the fire hazard and safety and the choices you've made, but from a color perspective alone, are you potentially open to something a little lighter, or is it all intended based on the material itself? |
| 02:26:11.83 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:26:11.84 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:26:22.49 | Leo Chow | um, Lighter is a relative term. So, yeah, so, you know, I'd be happy to sit down and try to look at some samples to talk about with you. But the Shoshuiguriban wood is, it is its color, right, because it's charred wood. There is some range of those you can char more or less. And what we're trying to do is get the metal to be compatible. It doesn't have to be the same, but compatible. So happy to take a look at that. |
| 02:26:57.81 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 02:26:58.21 | Leo Chow | Yeah. |
| 02:26:58.55 | Nastassya Saad | And I can't remember now down in the Marin ship. Gate 5. Thank you. Gate 5. We did have a project that had similar composition, and there were some potentially other options. I'm just asking in terms of perspective here. But I understand your design and colors and concept. Okay, thank you for that. I don't think I personally had any other questions. So if you'd like to take a seat. |
| 02:27:15.63 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:27:32.45 | David Marlatt | I'm sorry. Please go ahead. Commissioner Feller reminded me of a question, but it just came up again with the wall materials. In the elevations that we've received, the walls, it says standing seam metal or wood siding. |
| 02:27:32.93 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry. Please go ahead. Sorry. |
| 02:27:47.96 | David Marlatt | So one of my questions was, what are we approving tonight? |
| 02:27:50.81 | Leo Chow | Right. |
| 02:27:50.85 | David Marlatt | Right. And if it sounds like we're approving, or you're asking us to approve the wood siding? The documents say one or the other, which seems strange that the commission would vote for one or the other. |
| 02:27:56.50 | Leo Chow | I'm not sure. |
| 02:28:03.62 | Leo Chow | Right. We would prefer to use the metal siding on the sides, you know, basically any place where it's coming in contact with ground. We had tended to, I think our thinking is that moving forward, we would be using the wood siding in the places where they're visible to our neighbors or to the public realm. So that would mean the west side of the home and the cladding on the garage because that's the most foregrounded piece. |
| 02:28:35.48 | David Marlatt | So where the elevations say, and they point to the elevations, say standing seam metal or wood siding, that would be standing seam metal? |
| 02:28:39.36 | Leo Chow | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:28:47.43 | Leo Chow | I would have to probably mark it up on the drawings because when we submitted them, we were still Thank you. |
| 02:28:51.95 | David Marlatt | Sure. |
| 02:28:52.76 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 02:28:52.86 | David Marlatt | This is a point of process, Director Phipps. Don't we need to be approving something? We can bite it into a resolution or I'd like to know. |
| 02:28:53.25 | Leo Chow | because |
| 02:28:58.57 | Kristina Feller | We're approved. |
| 02:29:02.31 | Kristina Feller | We can condition an approval. |
| 02:29:03.93 | David Marlatt | Is it horizontal? Is it vertical? Is it corrugated? |
| 02:29:06.41 | Leo Chow | It would be vertical. It's standing seam, not with a cap, but folded standing seam, vertical. And all the siding and the wood on the shutters are vertical. |
| 02:29:14.45 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 02:29:22.12 | Unknown | are conditioned into any kind of resolution, if we get that. Conditioned, yes, exactly. |
| 02:29:24.54 | Jane Hook | Thank you. |
| 02:29:24.57 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:29:24.89 | Jane Hook | Thank you. |
| 02:29:27.62 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:29:27.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:27.83 | Director Phipps | If I may, I would agree with Commissioner Feller and Vice Chair Saut on that. Just want to make the point that Associate Planner Mandich has found the TRP, and I'll just turn it over to him to, |
| 02:29:34.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:34.38 | Unknown | uh, |
| 02:29:40.03 | Director Phipps | get some additional detail. |
| 02:29:41.78 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, either commissioners. I did find that TRP from 2021. And there are four trees that were approved for removal. However, none of the black acacia does not appear in that report. the one in question tonight. |
| 02:29:53.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for looking and clarifying. May I ask, actually, I've got one more question now that I, everything's turning in our heads. That eight foot E is there anything, can you just expand on that? If it's a, it's a structural ask if it's because I think somewhere, if it's in the staff report or elsewhere, it was also mentioning as a use for shading, can you just expand a little bit on its, on that purpose? |
| 02:29:59.03 | Matthew Mandich | No. |
| 02:29:59.27 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:30:20.56 | Leo Chow | Mm-hmm. Yep. Yeah, so two parts. One is what I'll call the architectural idea. So we have an eight-foot, we're planning for an eight-foot deck at the south side of the home. And a really fundamental foundational idea for mid-century modernism was this idea of indoor-outdoor spaces moving seamlessly between inside and outside. And the roof plane in many cases is the primary device, if you will, for defining those outdoor spaces, because you can pave something on the ground, but then it's essentially a patio, right? So it's that overhead that can define a space without walls. And you see it in the work of all the Second Bay tradition, the real mid-century modern classics, the great architects that were doing that kind of work. So our goal was to have that eight-foot cantilever directly aligned with the face of the deck below and then the lower levels. So it gives us both that idea of the outdoor space, but also to complete a clean, simple form. As far as the daylight, it also coincides with during the summer, that extension keeps the sun out of the house. So it helps us with our energy costs. It helps us with reducing greenhouse gases, all of those things that are so important. And then in the wintertime, the sun is able to dip down. It comes inside now. It can help warm the house in the wintertime. |
| 02:32:02.20 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any other questions? |
| 02:32:03.67 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 02:32:06.59 | David Marlatt | I'm sorry I'll be more efficient next time. Also, just to clarify for everyone's benefit on sheet A 2.04, which is the proposed East elevation. And I guess it's important because the seismic joint again, this joint. We're missing a line, correct, on the elevation, am I right? Because where there should be separating two buildings and then it points to cast in place concrete. |
| 02:32:31.02 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask that we pull that up? |
| 02:32:31.73 | David Marlatt | That's right. |
| 02:32:34.16 | Nastassya Saad | Is it possible just so we can all look at the camera? |
| 02:32:35.38 | David Marlatt | And I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly because this is critical. |
| 02:32:37.67 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:32:37.72 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 02:32:37.86 | Unknown | that's not going to be a |
| 02:32:37.94 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 02:32:37.98 | Unknown | So, cool. |
| 02:32:39.09 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:32:39.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:32:39.51 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:32:39.53 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Let's give staff maybe just one second. We can get that on the screen so we can all follow along. |
| 02:32:40.90 | David Marlatt | Sure. |
| 02:32:45.25 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:32:45.43 | David Marlatt | just so that we all know. Commissioner Merlin, |
| 02:32:46.16 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Do you have a specific sheet you'd like me to pull up? |
| 02:32:48.40 | David Marlatt | Yeah, A2.04. |
| 02:32:51.05 | Director Phipps | 2.04. |
| 02:33:01.38 | David Marlatt | I don't know if you can zoom in, but yeah. |
| 02:33:02.39 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:33:04.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:33:04.11 | Director Phipps | on the show. |
| 02:33:04.30 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:33:04.32 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:33:04.35 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:33:04.47 | Director Phipps | or the bottom. |
| 02:33:04.60 | David Marlatt | Or the bottom? The bottom of the proposed. Mm-hmm. So, right, because we're looking at the stairs, which are cast in place concrete. Yes. We're looking at the buildings. |
| 02:33:13.16 | Leo Chow | Yes. You are absolutely correct that there is a note and a leader line or leader to no line. So there should be a line there. |
| 02:33:23.18 | David Marlatt | Okay, and then there's a change in materials because you've got the vertical wood siding, stained or stained. Right. Then you've got raw concrete, cast in place concrete. |
| 02:33:29.53 | Leo Chow | Thank you. Right. |
| 02:33:33.46 | David Marlatt | Right. Yes. Okay. And they're also recessed. |
| 02:33:35.00 | Leo Chow | And then, they're offset from one another yeah all three planes are offset from one another and one thing to note also you know the the site setback requirements are really focused on light and air access i wanted to note that just this portion you can see a pretty significant portion of this garage is four feet or less from the adjacent grade so it's shorter than there's actually a fence there now it's actually shorter than the fence |
| 02:33:38.35 | David Marlatt | of |
| 02:34:07.36 | David Marlatt | Yes, yes, I agree. Thank you. |
| 02:34:11.99 | Nastassya Saad | attention to detail. Any other questions? My job. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. You still have some time left. We're gonna open this up now for public comment. Director Phipps, may I leave that with you? |
| 02:34:17.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:25.96 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you very much, Vice Chair. I do have a few speaker cards, which I will start with. First to the dais is Jane Hook. Daniel will have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:34:48.52 | Nastassya Saad | You can please state your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes for public comment. |
| 02:34:53.68 | Jane Hook | Sure. Greetings. I'm Jane Hook. And I live at 15 Atwood. I'm one of the owners. My husband is here as well. And I want to thank you all for listening. Pete and I purchased our dream home, 15 Atwood. next to this proposed project in 1993. Can you hear me? Is that better? Okay. Sorry about that. We love our home and we would like to embrace this development of Leo and Julia's, but cannot, given its mass and impact on our property and the general neighborhood. 15 Atwood is a multi-level 1949 mid-century modern home. with big, expansive city and bay views, similar to the other homes on the street. Leo and Julia's home actually has a bigger, wider view, even though they're saying they're set back a little bit from 23 Atwood The recent contemporary homes have complemented these houses. mid-centuries by recognizing the similar volume. it's kind of curious. We all look, forward to the demolition and reconstruction of Atwood because not only is the property a wreck, visually and structurally, But the past 20 years, Atwood has just been continuous construction and remodels. And so we look forward to maybe this is the last one. Hope. But you have to wonder why we're in an uproar now. Leo and Julia are wonderful, warm, sincere people. We like them a lot as people. And we want them to build and but we're shocked by the height. the volume, the mass of their design. which has also been in the work for two years. Two years, and we've been kind of wondering But amongst the neighbors go, well, have you seen the plans? No, not yet. You know, so then we saw a model, as you saw, but then you have to fast forward. It's been a long time since we saw that model. Leo will say that he has addressed our concerns... which is a little improbable, because just a couple weeks ago, we got the plans and the story polls. Now we have a partial set. I think you do too. and we can visualize these eight foot eaves that overhang the 13 foot soaring roof line the fascia boards that are designed as designed right now to be about 22 inches tall. That's, well, that's pretty good there. and the overwhelming vertical mass on the southern face of the building as one views the house from the street and as we drive up the driveway. Our personal home is going to be dwarfed. Our living room and office views are going to be changed dramatically. Am I out of time? |
| 02:37:55.78 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your public comment. |
| 02:37:58.84 | Jane Hook | That was quick. |
| 02:37:59.56 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:38:00.98 | Jane Hook | Thank you. |
| 02:38:01.00 | Nastassya Saad | I would like to note for the record that we do receive your public comment as well that's on the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:38:01.84 | Director Phipps | for the record that we did receive. |
| 02:38:08.34 | Director Phipps | Next speaker is Peter Brosig. Peter, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:38:21.84 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 02:38:21.97 | Peter Brosig | committed. hearing us. I've got to fast forward to all this writing that I've got. It's hard to compete with almost 45 minutes. |
| 02:38:30.44 | Sandra Bushmaker | minute. |
| 02:38:31.79 | Peter Brosig | We like Leo and Julia. I'll say that wholeheartedly. But something went awry. For the last two years, we've been contacting them by saying, show us something. Yes, we saw that model, which really shows very little except what the designers. So fast forward two years, nothing, nothing. And here we have March the 12th. We got the drawings. Four days later, we get the polls. Imagine what kind of a shock you're in. And then on top of that were the poles. Of course, we saw the slanting roofs, kind of a ski lift with that horrendous eight-foot overlap. And as Jane had said before, we have these almost two feet fasciors. It's massive. When you walk up, the driveway. You basically look at 33 feet straight up. So Leo and I had only two meetings. A week before? Sunday, and then I reached out for Rex yesterday to say, I need some kind of help, because Leo just says, no, this is what we're going to build. I try to negotiate to something He wouldn't budge. So I said, Rex, we need some kind of alternative. We need to tone this down. It's too massive. And yesterday, basically, nothing was accomplished. It was a waste of time. Aaron Rolla, of course, sent you messages. You will eventually see the pictures, I think when Rex comes on, of what the actual house looks like. On the model and the drawings, it shows very little what the massive construction really looks like. I don't think we have anything near on our streets that looks so big. It's like a cathedral. So I guess I was looking for Leah for a continuance. I still feel that we can work it out, but he kind of said, no, I'm going forward with this meeting. And I feel it's already been rubber stamped. And What can I say at this particular point? It's really sad for the neighborhood. Thank you. |
| 02:41:04.78 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comment. Next speaker is Jan, and I'm having difficulty with the last name. Welcome. |
| 02:41:13.88 | Jan Kujewski | has trouble with that name. |
| 02:41:15.48 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:41:15.50 | Jan Kujewski | You'll have three minutes to speak. Jan Kujewski. Hi, I live at 1 Atwood Avenue. My parents bought it in 1959 when my mom was pregnant with me. I'm sorry, I was raised in that house. Obviously, you don't know where that house is. I was really very surprised Um, I'm in the house now. My mom just passed away, so. I'm the new owner. And I really knew nothing about this project until last Saturday. when I, I saw Leo and Julia down the street, and they were showing plants. Okay, I got this card. Yes? It's postmarked March 14th. I did not get it until Saturday. I didn't have this card until Saturday. To me, that's improper notice. I am a landscape architect. or 202. And I've been in front of plenty of planning commissions. I just don't understand what the process is here anymore. I had nobody come to my house in two weeks. None of the commissioners, none of any of you, That used to be the process. You came and looked. From my house, how does the impact of Leo's building. impact my building. You don't know, do you? You weren't there. Why not? Do you visit any of the sites? Is that not your job? |
| 02:42:58.77 | Jan Kujewski | Um, Anyway, I agree with Pete and Jane that Leo and Julia are very nice people. And I think they'll be great to have in the neighborhood. But I have to stick with my neighbor, Pete and Jane. They've been there 30 years. They... We're good friends with my mom. And, um, Obviously, how they feel, I've looked at the story polls. And I can definitely see the impact. from the height. And I believe that it's very workable. You know, I believe Leo and Julia can work with Pete and Jane, make this thing. work. I just believe that... it. Well, I'm not happy with the process. The notification wasn't sufficient. And that's not the way things are done. I'm going to give up the rest of my time. Thank you. |
| 02:44:00.30 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comment. Next speaker is Michael Rex. Michael, come on down. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:44:10.51 | Michael Rex | Before you start the clock, can you pass out those photos? There's three photos. And here's late mail just to summarize the few points I want to make. Can you hold the clock? Oh, thank you. |
| 02:44:34.18 | Michael Rex | Okay, thank you. I'm representing Pete Barsig and Jane Hook. I just was brought in Sunday. They had another architect look at this who didn't deliver a service in time. I've had one phone call with Leo Chow and we met last night. I said, I think we can work this out. Would you please request a continuance to give us time to do so? And he said no. other than pull the Westy back of foot, that's all he would offer. So I'm asking you tonight to not approve this project. tonight. but to continue it, to give us an opportunity to work it out. Because here's the good thing. This proposed design is thoughtfully done. I don't think anybody could deny that. And I think it's an excellent design, but it needs some fine tuning, particularly at that downhill southwest corner adjacent to Pete. and Jane's home. When they drive up that driveway, it's a straight vertical wall all the way up 31 feet. Seven inches. with this eight-foot roof that's almost two feet thick, hanging way out in space, that's not over the deck below. we would like that pulled back. to four feet. And if you pull the Westy back foot like Leo's offered, and four feet back on that corner on the south side, It'll pull that corner that's right in the review. of the city. Way back And that's what makes the building. There's two things that make the building really tall, unnecessarily tall. It's that 10-foot Eve on that corner. And this two-foot wood screen that I understand is going to be black so-shoe-gibon, there's no reason. I thoroughly understand this outdoor room. And keep the eight-foot overhang over the deck. Keep the two foot vertical screen Below the deck. But that ADU would feel more open if it wasn't all enclosed with black wood. Just make that a little glass railing, a guardrail. and have a balcony that's one foot high on the corner of that building. And you'll get some horizontal line, not a total vertical line. The floor area is understated. They didn't count the mechanical room or the two-story stairwell. So the actual square footage is 3755. It's almost totally maxed out. And, and, uh, We asked for on the east side yard It may follow the letter of the law that a two-inch gap separates a building, but it's not the intent. And a one-foot offset, this is one long building. And that Side yard setback should be doubled. You don't have to double it, though. You can just attach the garage and honor the code. Thank you. |
| 02:47:37.67 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comment. That concludes the speaker cards that I have received. I'll just look to the chamber once more for folks who have not had an opportunity to submit a speaker card or who have forgotten to submit a speaker card. I am seeing no hands raised, so I will move to the Zoom application. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands, I see Aaron Roller. Aaron, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:48:04.16 | Aaron Roller | Hey, everybody. I'm Aaron Roller, owner of 23 Atwood Avenue. I sent in a letter which really states I think most things that I need to say, I just happen to be awake here. I'm in Switzerland and I'm unable to be there to look at the actual story polls and understand the situation, but you know, honestly, it's, it's, it's on the other side of the home that is, That is not the controversy for us, as I stated. But it is on the side of the home. for Jane and Pete. Mostly I just want you guys to be just to reiterate the importance of hearing their argument and their opposition. I will say that it's a surprise and unfortunate that we've gotten here. I think I've been the chair of the Pedestrian Bicycle Advisory Committee, so I understand Sausalito politics better than I perhaps would like to. I know without going to many planning commissions, you all see all kinds of neighbor tension. And we, this situation I think is on the, is on the small side. It was something I didn't really think was gonna happen. I thought we were gonna move through smoothly. And that's, I guess what I'm asking for your help tonight is I think we're not far from finding that compromise. I don't know what the path forward is, for you all, but I hope you do. And I hope you guys can find a way that our neighborhood can move forward where Leo and Julia feel that they, are able to continue with their dream home that they're building. They are putting a huge investment into Sausalito and Our Neighborhood. And I really appreciate that. That is... something that we'll be grateful when it's all over. And I look forward to that day where they can be our neighbors and we can go on bike rides and walks together and all that. And Jane and Pete have been wonderful neighbors forever. And we've been collaborating saying, when are we gonna see these designs? When are they gonna see the designs? And you can see the escalating nervousness towards this thing. So I do believe that Given a little bit more time, there is some happy neighbors that are going to come out of this. And then we can have a happy neighborhood. And there are going to be happy stories of new homes being built in Sausalito. And maybe somebody will write a book about that instead of the opposite. So thank you for the consideration. And good luck tonight. I think we could really use your help. Thank you. |
| 02:50:58.55 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comment. Looking to the Zoom application once more for additional hands raised. Seeing none. Back to you, Vice Chair. |
| 02:51:07.84 | Nastassya Saad | Director Phipps, can you please remind me, do we bring the applicant back up to respond at this stage? Thank you. |
| 02:51:13.99 | Director Phipps | Excellent question, and I believe the answer is yes. The applicant has the ability to utilize their rebuttal time to respond to public comment as they see appropriate. And in my notes, I have six minutes and nine seconds. |
| 02:51:30.24 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Director Phipps. I have the same. We could put six minutes and nine seconds back on the clock, please. |
| 02:51:44.41 | Director Phipps | I will say seconds are more difficult to add than minutes. |
| 02:51:47.50 | Nastassya Saad | Shut up. |
| 02:51:47.84 | Director Phipps | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:51:49.00 | Nastassya Saad | No, I think we'll be OK. |
| 02:51:50.88 | Director Phipps | I will do a hand count or a count in my head, and I'll give Matthew the go-ahead at nine seconds. Okay, ready, go. |
| 02:51:58.77 | Leo Chow | All right, thank you for the time. If we could bring the slide deck back up. |
| 02:52:04.65 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Microphone. |
| 02:52:10.40 | Leo Chow | Slide 19, please. It's a couple ahead. So I would like to maybe just address a couple things. |
| 02:52:23.43 | Leo Chow | I think you've gone too far. Okay. |
| 02:52:29.25 | Kristina Feller | The clock is moving. We should either stop the clock or. |
| 02:52:34.80 | Leo Chow | Feed up the slide. but back one if you could. |
| 02:52:39.39 | Nastassya Saad | Can we go back to the six minute mark just in the interest of there. |
| 02:52:45.13 | Leo Chow | Yes. Thank you. |
| 02:52:48.08 | Kevin McGowan | Um... |
| 02:52:48.98 | Leo Chow | Thank you. one. One more. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. If we get the clock back. I did. Okay. All right. So this is the view as it is today. So just to be completely clear. So you see the existing roof line and you see the vertical pole. And the story poles are actually at the roof line. So they show the shape of the roof. Next. So this is what's being added. Okay. It's about four feet, which is a little taller than a guardrail. And as you can see, the eave touches the same plane as the pole does. And what you see the magenta line next to the mullion, we have actually set back further than the easement. The easement was based on that corner of the existing home. We've actually set back further. It's small, I grant you, but it will allow Pete and Jane to see all of Alcatraz. Next. What we've offered is a setback that cut back that eave by one foot two, and this is what it does. It actually will be higher out of the view plane of the city. It is not over the Bay water, so it's not in violation of the easement and you can see it actually is going to extend less than it did than the existing roof does currently next |
| 02:53:19.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:02.97 | Kevin McGowan | It's... |
| 02:54:15.90 | Leo Chow | Let's see. Can we go forward next? Next. So this question of mass and scale, This is the classic question of perception, right? This is the roof from above. So you can see the amount that we're adding. You can see its height in relationship to 15 Atwood, which is to our right here. You see it's slightly smaller in the width. As I was describing, it's not as long to the back. And you can see its length. Next, let's see. And so the house does not rise straight up to 33 feet. There is a clear break at 20 feet where the screen stops. And then the entire glass line, the entire closure line is set back eight feet next. |
| 02:55:01.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:07.49 | Leo Chow | And so when you look at the residents in relationship to its neighbors, From our view, it is both similar of size and similar of scale. Those two things are not the same. So size, the height, you can see it is lower. It's lower than 15 Atwood. It's a little bit higher than 23. Its full vertical extent is less than that of 23 Atwood. The screen, as I said, is about 19 foot 10, and then we have 13 foot 7 up from there. Next. The reason why I say that there's a difference between size and scale, this is a very famous library by Louis Kahn. And I had the benefit of studying under the design architect from K's office on and he took us here and he said next this what looks like a five-story building is in fact a nine-story building and the way to make buildings actually appear shorter is to remove lines to remove the presence of stories because it calms down the facade rather than multiplying more and more. Next, actually, if you could just... |
| 02:55:29.10 | Sandra Bushmaker | a little bit. |
| 02:56:24.71 | Leo Chow | Thank you. quickly go through these. So we have a series of views. So the views that you've been given is sort of this main view of coming up the driveway. The reality is we move around space, and so therefore we perceive volumes and understand them and their scale through movement. So this is adjacent to North Park. The middle image is at the intersection of Atwood and 3rd Street. And you can see you can't even find the story poles, right? The next image is we're approaching the driveway. Next slide, please. And so here, part of what is nice about this property is that, or both properties, is the presence of the green buffer. And you can see it's really at that moment when you're perpendicular to the driveway where you see almost the whole length, but not even. next. And then this is coming around the middle slide is right in front of the property slide on the right is Mr. Roller, who was on earlier. You can see the story polls are sort of they're just above the trees next. And I think there's been some concern that with the garage that the green buffer is gonna be damaged. If you look at the photo on the left, all of that planting, that massive planting is at the street. we are only removing really the two trees that were mentioned in order to expand the garage so i'm going to maybe leave there maybe close with a couple things one is i agree we've had a wonderful dialogue with our neighbors and we do like all of them very much um it is unfortunate we we met with them twice and then last night we met again um i will say we went there with an open mind about the continuance and wanting to work things out but we really felt like we were given no choice it was there was no negotiating cut the eve or or not um it's get rid of the mass or not lower it or not. And it became very uncomfortable for, I think for all of us, we all felt that. And perhaps there's a misunderstanding Hopefully we can get past that. But we decided to continue because I thought what we really needed was to hear some additional voices and look forward to your thoughts about the design. We really want this project to move forward. So I'm happy to answer any additional questions you might have. |
| 02:58:59.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. So with that, we will bring it back up to the dais for discussion. And I will see who would like to start us off. |
| 02:59:14.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:15.95 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Yep, please. Go ahead. |
| 02:59:16.48 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. Yeah, please. Go ahead. And maybe can we ask questions of staff as part of this? Is that? |
| 02:59:18.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:23.72 | David Marlatt | Bye. |
| 02:59:23.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:59:24.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:59:24.07 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 02:59:24.14 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:59:24.19 | Unknown | It's usually our discussion. |
| 02:59:25.72 | David Marlatt | Our internal discussion? Okay, so my concern, thank you. My concern isn't about the house itself. I think the house is very attractive and, you know, Congratulations, it's articulate and I think sensitive. And my concern myself is not about the view either. There was a view easement. Um, that's a civil matter of course, but also in terms of view impairment, I think they've done a pretty good job. |
| 02:59:51.12 | Kevin McGowan | I WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT |
| 02:59:51.95 | David Marlatt | personally. My concern, and this is more about the commission and helping staff going forward with future projects is the way we've sort of twisting the code towards intention and what do the words really say? And gosh, I wish it was drafted differently, but it's not. So I'll give you an example of 426 pine, the gift that keeps on giving. Uh, And Chair Luxembourg in that hearing found or, you know, observed that the building wall was actually 47 feet, I want from memory, not 40 feet. And that was going to require extra setback. And of course, that all went before the council and they decided to cut the deck off and to comply with that. But had we accepted this notion that a detached, a joint, a seismic joint, call it what you like, a joint, It means you get to sort of start over One could imagine. I'm sorry, it means you get to sort of start over. I'm exaggerating a little bit here. It means that that sets a precedent that could one have two two-story buildings that are 40 feet each, effectively an 80-foot wall. So it doesn't apply specifically to this project in my mind, because this project creates an accessory building, the garage. It doesn't share a roof, as Mr. Modish points out quite correctly. |
| 03:01:14.09 | Sandra Bushmaker | um, |
| 03:01:19.75 | David Marlatt | I think there's a kind of a workaround, so to speak. I don't think we need this joint. And I hope we don't adopt that and maybe condition our findings that we don't adopt that so that it doesn't become something that other people in other contexts can use in future projects. |
| 03:01:34.11 | Kristina Feller | Are you having issue with the expansion joint from a technical standpoint, or are you having a problem with the expansion joint as it relates to the definition of the code because From a technical standpoint, all of the technical issues go through the planning department. We're not here to be the architect. |
| 03:01:54.43 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 03:01:54.70 | Kristina Feller | And we're certainly not here to be the building department or anything like that. We're here really, there are 20 findings that we need to make tonight. And, of course, the discussions are important to get into the detail to actually make the findings. But I'm not sure I'm clear yet the issue with the expansion joint. |
| 03:02:13.46 | David Marlatt | I'm just thinking about how the notion of an expansion joint or a joint, seismic joint as they called it, of any sort that can split a wall and start the clock again on the five-foot setback was the intention of the zoning code. And it can be used nefariously for someone to add a deck on that you can easily just slice off. And I don't want us to be in a situation where someone can come with an 80-foot wall, divide it in two, and say that's a five-foot setback because it's two walls. So I think we should think about that. |
| 03:02:46.94 | Kristina Feller | think we should think about that. I think we should stick to this project, though. And there are two different foundations on these two separate structures. Yes. |
| 03:02:51.18 | David Marlatt | Well, |
| 03:02:55.11 | David Marlatt | I agree. And so this project, I find there's two separate structures with independent foundations. The garage is an accessory structure, which is defined under 10.44.020. To my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's no requirement for a minimum separation between a primary dwelling and an accessory structure. Some communities there is. |
| 03:03:19.14 | Director Phipps | not in this community. |
| 03:03:20.27 | David Marlatt | not in this community, so it complies. It complies. That's what I'm trying to, I guess my point, and I know we do want to stick to just this project. but I also think that whatever we do provides precedence for staff. They like to rely on us. And so I think there's a way of complying, you know, without having to resort to this vertical joint. Um, My follow-on concern is now is back. I'm sorry to monopolize. |
| 03:03:45.65 | Andrew Junius | Can I respond to that? Because I think that's interesting. And, you know, with all due respect to Commissioner Feller, I do think Commissioner Marlowe is raising an interesting point. I do think staff is probably hearing you raise that point. And I do think that if this ever comes up again in this kind of context, staff is probably going to say, eh, maybe not. I mean, what I'd be curious about is if you think that the design and the arrangement of the structures |
| 03:03:47.30 | David Marlatt | that. |
| 03:03:57.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:03:57.58 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 03:04:10.54 | Andrew Junius | on this sloping lot, you know, complies with the Thank you. you know, the, the, um, the policy behind that rule, which I think is a very rule difficult to apply as we're now seeing it for the, you know, twice in six months. It seems to me that the, you know, given, again, the adjoining structures, given the slope, given the different heights, it looks like... clearly like it does the job. |
| 03:04:36.55 | David Marlatt | I agree. It seems perfectly reasonable. It seems perfectly reasonable. And part of my going on and on like this is to provide staff direction So that they get a sense of, okay, this is what the Commission thinks. This is how we interpret some of these things, which have to be interpreted. Understood. |
| 03:04:53.23 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:04:53.59 | David Marlatt | If I... |
| 03:04:53.60 | Mary Wagner | If I may, apologies, I don't mean to interrupt. What I was going to recommend is that I appreciate the discussion. If you would like to see this brought back as a general discussion item, I think what you could do is recommend that staff bring this back, place it on an upcoming agenda, have the discussion holistically outside the context of one specific project. It seems like it's not an issue that will result in this project going one way or another because of the findings that you're expected to make for this particular project so i'm not saying we shouldn't have discussion but perhaps if it's amenable to the Commissioners we could direct staff to bring it back for discussion as its own topic at an upcoming meeting. |
| 03:05:31.66 | David Marlatt | And I would welcome that. I don't know, like I said, I'm new here, so I don't know if there's a formal process for interpreting the code and those become interpretations that staff can rely on. And that's another discussion. I don't want to get off onto that. But then coming back, I'm sorry, sorry. So that's the east facade. On the west facade, if we accept Planner Modish's definition of an unattached wall not sharing the same roof. The two-story office bedroom module, let's call it, doesn't share the same roof. Therefore, that is not an articulated wall. Those are two separate walls in the bedroom. should be set back five feet, not four foot four or whatever it is. And I'm just trying to be consistent. I actually like the architecture. believe me, but I'm trying to be consistent so we can provide direction to staff. Thanks. |
| 03:06:26.77 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Do you have any other comments on any of the findings as well that we're going to have to make here? Because we do have a heightened design review in front of us. So we do have quite a few findings. We can also come back. Thank you for starting the discussion. |
| 03:06:39.95 | David Marlatt | I thought on the findings, personally, I thought I could find all of the findings. Speaking for myself, I was a little concerned about the ambiguity of the note about metal siding or wood. But if everyone is comfortable that that can be conditioned, I'm perfectly comfortable with that as well. |
| 03:06:52.17 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:06:52.32 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 03:07:00.08 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you very much. Commissioner Fowler? |
| 03:07:03.42 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Vice Chair. I went back through the findings you know, as the applicant was closing out his rebuttal time, let's say. And because I wanted to reconfirm. that I could actually make. all the findings and what I'm looking at specifically for those in the public following along there are you know our standard 13 design review findings that we have to make but because this is a heightened design review there are seven additional findings that we have to make. I actually think this applicant took quite a lot of time and effort to study the vernacular on that street, study a lot of the the landscape, the massing, all of that. I think the materials are still a little bit unclear to me. And that might be something that we either condition or I'd like to see come back. But I ultimately don't necessarily think it's about the findings. I think the public comment that we have heard, and I think it's important to address this or acknowledge it, is really more about process. And as commissioners, we don't just randomly go around knocking on people's doors, asking to come into their home, into their living room to look out their window. We don't do that. That has never been a process. that Sausalito Planning Commission, regardless of who's sitting in any of these seats does. That we work through staff or staff is part of that outreach or those conversations within a neighborhood or, um, you know uh you're you're invited by neighbors to come in unfortunately at least i received an invitation to one but i only got it today and i couldn't couldn't go um but unfortunately the the next door neighbor uh offered a photograph which i thought was helpful as well as a lot of the other um studying the the facades uh which is why i don't have a problem with any of the findings. I just think that the neighbors have an issue with the process. But at the end of the day, there's one architect for this project, and that happens to be the applicant as well. And so we don't need to design by committee here, and we certainly don't design from the dais. But I do want to acknowledge that, because in past really successful projects that come in front of this commission are those that really do engage a lot of outreach and just chatting and conversation with neighbors. clearly sounds like the applicant has gotten to know neighbors, neighbors have gotten to know them because everyone speaks very highly of the applicant. You know, how much of that was a discussion around this design, you know, I don't really know. There's not an absolute requirement to do that necessarily, so it's very difficult for this commission to hold somebody to you know. a new requirement that we just make up up here. We don't do that. but I actually would like to see a little bit more on the materials, but I'm very supportive of this project, and it would be nice to get something replaced with what is there. |
| 03:10:34.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. May I, before I go to you, Commissioner Junius, just ask one point of clarification, because it was a process comment that came up from staff. Don't we usually get the story poll certification as part of the packet? |
| 03:10:52.99 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, and we do have that, and I can forward that on to you, and I'm sorry it wasn't included at the time of the staff report, but I do have it on file and can forward to all commissioners. |
| 03:11:02.31 | Nastassya Saad | Can you also just comment in the interest of... being in the middle of this meeting. Thank you for confirming that you have it. Any issue with the story poll certification from any aspect? |
| 03:11:16.53 | Matthew Mandich | No. |
| 03:11:16.80 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:11:17.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for clarifying. Commissioner Junius. |
| 03:11:21.19 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Vice Chair. Well, I certainly can make all the findings as well. I think we're very lucky to have such a renowned architect as Mr. Chow to be coming to Sausalito build a home for our fair city. I think it's a very thoughtful design. and I you know as the lawyer on the group here I'm fascinated by and truly heartened to some extent by the fact that when the purchase was made from the adjacent neighbor who's in the room here a view easement was negotiated which is essentially a buildable envelope which I think Mr. Chow's design respects to the T so and and I think the slides that Mr. Chow threw up there and the views, you know, responding to some of the concerns speak for themselves. I mean, I think that's why we're, I think, moving in a direction that's in unison here. And You know, I think again, it's it's with all due respect for all the architects that come to to our commission. I think we're we were really treated as something very special. Mr. Chow and I really did enjoy the history. I enjoyed the |
| 03:12:32.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:12:38.97 | Andrew Junius | um, the, you know, your consistent treatment of the mid-century modern, you know, style in this neighborhood. I think the time that you've spent with the staff, which is probably coming up on two years, trying to figure this out and fit this beautiful home within our clunky code is admirable. Yeah. So, you know, I just couldn't be more excited about this home coming to us. You know, it's unfortunate that after what I would have thought would have been a very clean transaction, that you still end up with a dispute like this at the final hour. I don't appreciate the comment regarding somehow we're supposed to be rubber stamping. We don't rubber stamp anything. This condition does not. If I could be very clear about that, we're very careful, and we take this very seriously. And I mean, maybe to some extent the misperception regarding communication between the parties is what you're experiencing there. But this is an extraordinarily complex process. I think Mr. Chow and his wife sticking with it is, again, admirable. And there's no rubber stamps about that. This is hard. This is is expensive this is a community that really values its architecture and its design and and I think we're going to get a great house here so You know, and, you know, with all due respect, I'm again, I'm kind of, you know, with some of the comment in opposition, just a lot of mixed messages. On one hand, you know, Mr. Rex gets up and says, we're kind of close. We could figure something out. And on the other hand, you know, I think it was Peter that said, my God, it's a mass. You know, I mean, I don't know what to think. The pictures in my perspective speak for themselves. You fit within the envelope that you purchased, essentially, you didn't go, I think you even pulled back a little bit. So I just think all around great design, great project, and I'm curious as to what the vice chair thinks. |
| 03:14:48.68 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Junius. I am not sure I'm as far along as everybody else is. I think I do take some concern with the concept of the setbacks. I think it's a, you can understand staff's position. I'm just not sure I entirely agree with that assessment personally. I also agree, Commissioner Feller, on some of the material and the the coloring just from a concept of of light and air even because color does color does matter actually and and that does give you a sense of potentially feeling more closed in whether you are or not from a from an angle or actual height height view so I I don't know how we want to proceed here if we want to I don't know how we want to proceed here. If we want to, I don't know if we want to necessarily go through every single finding, but rather maybe a process of elimination. And if I'm the odd one out, then that's what I am. But I'd be open to continuing discussion around hearing more of your thoughts around the material, Commissioner Fowler, if you have any direction to provide potentially that could get us started. But thank you. |
| 03:16:05.06 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, well, let me just get the conversation started. Let's see where that goes. In the past, we have either conditioned a project, we have continued a project and asked for a material board or something similar to come back. we, um, You know, we've also assigned a working group to work with staff and the commission gives you know, two commissioners plus the staff are proxy, in essence, to make a final decision as to not hold anything up unnecessarily. You know, I think if we, and that's specific to materials or colors or paint colors, whatever it might be, I'd be curious if If you have any issues or any other commissioners have issues with any of the 13 design review permit findings that we make that are published to the public as well. Let's just start there and then maybe we can move into heightened design review. |
| 03:17:24.64 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I'm going to just pull up the resolution with our findings here. |
| 03:17:32.88 | Mary Wagner | And Vice Chair Sade, if I may, just before you get into this final bit of the discussion, I just wanted to bring one final thing to your attention, which is that This project is subject to the five hearing limit rule in state law. So I just bring that up to let you know it's not a problem to continue it. But, in order to also have time for counsel to consider in case that needs to happen. I just wanna make sure If we continue we are prepared to you know, sort of commit to having the next hearing be the final hearing. I just wanted to make you aware of the five hearing limit so that everyone is on the same page about that. |
| 03:18:08.98 | Kristina Feller | Got it. |
| 03:18:09.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. But just for confirmation, this is the first hearing on this project. Correct. Thank you. |
| 03:18:15.32 | Mary Wagner | Correct. |
| 03:18:18.39 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, maybe in the interest of the public, can we pull up the findings please just so we can all |
| 03:18:26.09 | Kristina Feller | Attachment one. |
| 03:18:27.37 | Nastassya Saad | look along. So I'm going to breeze through these, team. So the first one would be the proposed project is consistent with the general plan. Does anyone have anything to note? Number two, the proposed architecture and site design complements the surrounding neighborhood. |
| 03:18:32.18 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:18:49.69 | Nastassya Saad | The proposed project is consistent with a general scale of structures and buildings in the surrounding neighborhood or district. The proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of public views and primary views from private property. The proposed project will not result in a prominent building profile above a ridgeline. The proposed landscaping provides appropriate visual relief The design and location of buildings provides adequate light and air for the project, site-adjacent properties, and the general public. Number eight, exterior lighting, et cetera, is located to minimize visual noise air quality. The project provides a reasonable level of privacy. Number 10, proposed entrances, exits, internal circulation, and parking are configured to provide an appropriate level of safety. The proposed design preserves protected trees. The project site is consistent with the guidelines for heightened review for projects, which exceed 80%. We'll get into that. And the project has been designed to ensure on-site structures do not crowd or overwhelm structures on neighboring properties. So, looking for any issues. |
| 03:20:05.99 | Kristina Feller | issues i can make all 13 uh findings i mean this this project not only is within the the buildable envelope and this owner does have a right to build on their property. There are no variations, as we confirmed with staff. And we've come up across these issues that Assistant Planner Mandich did describe in terms of the linear structure and the linear facades. And we've come across this on many projects. 426 Pine was just the most recent. But we've come up across this on many projects. And I think this analysis is correct, is absolutely correct. |
| 03:21:00.19 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I'm going to probably be the odd one out. I do disagree with finding two on the setbacks, but I won't hold it up in the interest of discussion because I don't think anyone else is going to agree with me. But I'm currently not able to make that finding. I don't think... |
| 03:21:20.25 | David Marlatt | I kind of agree on finding seven. Yeah, can you just make sure you speak? Yes, please. On finding seven, and it's just maybe just a nitpick thing where it says a proposed design complies with the height limits and special setback requirements. That's what I was going on about earlier, as discussed in the staff report. |
| 03:21:20.45 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 03:21:26.06 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:21:27.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:21:42.75 | David Marlatt | I agree it probably does comply with the special setback requirements, but not those discussed in the staff report, because that's where the so-called seismic joint is. And so if we could scratch out, if we can just strike out as, sorry, but we're trying to be expeditious here, strike out as discussed in the staff report, that doesn't commit us to this vertical joint. |
| 03:21:52.18 | Andrew Junius | We can just strike out. Scratch out. |
| 03:22:01.70 | Kristina Feller | in the works for me. Bye. Yeah, no. |
| 03:22:05.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I'm just going to take a note, potentially. Okay. In terms of the heightened design findings, proposed development of the site maximizes preservation of protected trees. Number two, the site is configured with adequate width and depth to provide yard spaces and setbacks. Number three, the site will be developed in a manner that minimizes the obstruction of views. And number four, the proposed development of the site prevents no potential hazard to public safety. Number five, the slope and topography of the site allow for limited excavation and minimal alteration to site topography. Number six, the site will provide adequate guest parking. And number seven, the proposed plan provides adequate landscaping to maximize privacy. anyone take issue with any of those findings? I take issue with number two for the you setbacks, but I can see where we are headed and I don't think I will have anyone agreeing with me, but I will just go on record as well to say that I do think that the design is very interesting and thoughtful, but I do hear what the neighbors are saying as well and in the interest of making all of the findings. I personally cannot make them all. But I will look for a motion at this stage if we don't have any further discussion on this project here. |
| 03:23:38.41 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, let me throw something. Before we make a motion, though, I do want to respect the comments with respect to color materials. I'd be curious what Commissioner Marlott thinks about that. I do, I personally, from a process standpoint, I'd like to get away from the subcommittee thing or the working group. You know, I believe that if there is something we can agree on in terms of condition where we can get the staff to work with the applicant on something that is a detail that can be worked out with some direction from us, that's much preferable. I always like to leave these things in the hand of the design architect and here I'm completely comfortable with what Mr. Chow has proposed, but I'd actually be curious about your thoughts as the sole architect on the commission as to the colored materials. |
| 03:24:25.84 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. That's a lot of weight on my shoulders. So generally, I concur. Maybe a motion can be constructed in favor of the design with the condition that they work with staff to finalize the materials, possibly come back to the commission with the materials, but exclusively that issue. So in 60 days or 30 days or whatever seems appropriate, if we want to have one last approval, but just for that one issue, the motion like that could be |
| 03:24:58.78 | Andrew Junius | Well, but that we usually bifurcate. Yeah, we have a, it's, we're either going to bring it, if we bring it back to the city attorney's point, it's a second hearing on the project. So, we're either, I think the choice is we give it to staff with some direction or we make it, we tell them what to do right now, which I don't think we want to do. I mean, I personally don't want it to do material. |
| 03:25:00.47 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, we can. |
| 03:25:08.17 | Unknown | So. |
| 03:25:15.84 | David Marlatt | I personally don't want it to be material. I'm not personally ready to tell stuff that you do. |
| 03:25:18.63 | Andrew Junius | But I mean is I'd be curious from an architectural standpoint and maybe Mr. Child would need to come up here and respond is is the direction of lightening the materials or getting it in a different color palette that's not as dark. Is that a direction that the staff could work with? |
| 03:25:36.60 | Kristina Feller | You mean not as dark as the charred wood. As the charred wood. Yeah, yeah. |
| 03:25:38.95 | Andrew Junius | is the chart. Yeah, yeah. Similar, I think we did the same thing on Gate 5 Road. Yeah, yeah, yeah. |
| 03:25:41.21 | Kristina Feller | I think I'm good. Yeah, yeah, yeah. |
| 03:25:44.31 | Andrew Junius | I mean. |
| 03:25:45.83 | Kristina Feller | I'm comfortable with that. |
| 03:25:47.10 | David Marlatt | I like the chart work. And I have no problem looking at houses across Sausalito or San Francisco anywhere. We have some very dark houses that it's a very bold look, as long as it's not black metal with charred wood with black concrete. I didn't agree more. And I would be... |
| 03:26:04.66 | Andrew Junius | Didn't agree more. |
| 03:26:07.92 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, or we could give a range with, say, Thank you. Lighter than this house, but darker than that house or give an address or something, but we have to give some direction. And Just to be clear, I'm leaning to approve this project or make a motion to approve it, but I do think we need to clean up a couple items. |
| 03:26:30.33 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:26:30.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:26:30.60 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:26:31.76 | Andrew Junius | So anything, what else then? What do you think? I mean, I'm ready to make the motion subject to any conditions that all three of us can agree on because I don't, we can agree on that. |
| 03:26:41.17 | Nastassya Saad | You don't have to hold out for me, but I will say in terms of the concept around the, you know, I understand we are at a point where we have subjective review here still, and I'd like to take advantage of that. And I personally think that, with all due respect, I do find the materials interesting, and I find the design interesting. I find it very dark, and's a looming color to be soaked in such close proximity. And I'm not a fan of these dark colors in the seaside town. So with some direction, we did offer gate five, they did do with commissioner Graff, there was a whole color palette ranging from dark a darker, lighter than dark charcoal up into the blue range. And I'm not saying to go that far, but it would be nice to use those samples because we had an existing project that had an existing swatches to maybe just choose from and look at and give staff the discretion. Exactly. Yes. Give staff some of that discretion. I'd be fine with that. At least be open to a color range. |
| 03:27:42.73 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 03:27:48.92 | Andrew Junius | I'd be fine with that. Although maybe Mr. Child would respond, maybe try to defend his color selection. Do you mind if he comes up for a? |
| 03:27:53.52 | Nastassya Saad | I... |
| 03:27:58.11 | Kristina Feller | No, no, no. We can't. |
| 03:27:59.19 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 03:27:59.21 | David Marlatt | and, you know, the We can't, yes. And I'm not familiar with, I'm familiar with the project, but I listened to one of the hearings for the project, but I'm not familiar with the palette that was. |
| 03:28:00.24 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:28:07.95 | Nastassya Saad | there were a range of colors from quite a dark maybe it was even a dark charcoal, but it did go into a series of ranges all the way up into a darker blue. So there were some swatches of color with the same material that would just expand potentially, um, to allow a little bit of a lightness coming into that space. Um, |
| 03:28:14.48 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 03:28:30.83 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. you And that was a multiple hearing process, though. They came back at least a second time, if not a second time. |
| 03:28:33.69 | Nastassya Saad | Right. |
| 03:28:33.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:28:35.85 | Nastassya Saad | We definitely – well, as an entire project, yes. They did. Yes, we did have a work – was it a working group? It might have been a working group. Right. Well, Commissioner Graff and I were on that working group and chose those colors. So I'm open to that. I don't know if anyone else is, but if not, I would leave that at four staff. |
| 03:28:39.64 | Andrew Junius | They did. |
| 03:28:54.86 | Andrew Junius | Let me explain for the public and for us again. On the working group thing, and I'd be curious if the city attorney has an opinion on this, the idea of approving it and then having two of us go off to, finish something. It just isn't the way the process is supposed to work. I mean, that's just not. I mean, it seems like it should work, and it's probably not a big deal, but it's certainly not consistent with final decisions that commissions are supposed to make. |
| 03:29:14.37 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 03:29:20.19 | Kristina Feller | I agree with you. And I think that that was a situational issue because we had sort of temporary staff running. There was a lot of that. I think that that was a. |
| 03:29:30.03 | Andrew Junius | There was a lot of that. |
| 03:29:33.39 | Kristina Feller | A situational issue, that is not something I want to repeat either. |
| 03:29:33.63 | Andrew Junius | of us. |
| 03:29:37.88 | Nastassya Saad | Our city attorney is. you have a comment. |
| 03:29:41.47 | Mary Wagner | Just to confirm, it sounds like you're going in that direction anyway, but yes, the definition of hearing under the statute that's in play here is quite broad and so. You know, letting staff work with the applicant based on a condition that you might be able to fashion for the applicant is one thing. |
| 03:29:50.33 | Sandra Bushmaker | I don't know. |
| 03:29:55.53 | Mary Wagner | But to have a committee sort of re-review, even though it's not the Planning Commission, it would still likely qualify as a hearing under the statute. |
| 03:30:03.26 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, that's good to know. May I throw something else out here? The compromise that wasn't very well received, yet still a compromise from Mr. Chao on pulling the Eve back One. And a half. Alternative proposal? Yes, and I don't, that was the one note I didn't take, but there was that slight alternative proposal, but that I don't, that's not what is in front of us. |
| 03:30:20.37 | Kristina Feller | alternative proposal? |
| 03:30:29.75 | Nastassya Saad | but. Would we be open to, as a slight compromise since it was offered by the applicant, to potentially pull that back? |
| 03:30:40.17 | Andrew Junius | I think we're getting a nod from that. |
| 03:30:41.47 | Kristina Feller | If it's offered, then yes. It doesn't really achieve much, but if he offers it, I think. |
| 03:30:42.95 | Andrew Junius | than |
| 03:30:48.20 | David Marlatt | I think I agree it doesn't achieve much. I'm and of course I would defer to the applicant. It's his home. It's his eve. But I recognize the exuberance of an enormous, you know, mid-century modern expression that's going on. I admire that. It's an exuberant architecture and pulling it back just makes it kind of tighter and less dramatic. But it's an architect's choice, so. |
| 03:31:08.35 | Andrew Junius | You know, I think... I mean, I really do agree with that. I think the original intent here is just softened and diluted, you know. |
| 03:31:20.14 | Nastassya Saad | I'm gonna keep throwing things, keep knocking them back, but that's it. Those are my two points. I'm not gonna be able to make all the findings. |
| 03:31:21.34 | Andrew Junius | to keep knocking them out. |
| 03:31:28.34 | David Marlatt | If a foster child chooses to pull it back into his own free will, of course, that's not a problem whatsoever. Right, we're not. |
| 03:31:32.53 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:31:33.07 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:31:33.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:31:33.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:31:33.22 | Kristina Feller | What you have. I would start there. Okay. Back to the palette. I mean, if we, and I would look to staff to make sure it's clear to staff, just to throw something out. If we reference the gate five road, we try to limit and focus color ranges to anywhere from the charcoal wood to you know, charcoal grays into sort of dark browns. And again, I don't know what the commissioners think about this. We will want to ask the applicant at the appropriate time to come back up to the podium for a moment. But is that the type of direction that begins to make sense to staff? |
| 03:32:09.70 | Sandra Bushmaker | Think about that. |
| 03:32:26.38 | Director Phipps | I would say staff would like more confirmation. We would like more clear direction. What I have in my notes is limited and focused color to charcoal wood and to dark browns. Thank you. And I may have missed the end as I was addressing another inquiry. |
| 03:32:41.31 | David Marlatt | And that doesn't even address it. If I understand right, I don't know the percent exactly, but a substantial amount of the wall is actually standing seam metal. So we haven't even spoken about the color palette for that. Is it turned? That's why we're throwing out colors. |
| 03:32:49.87 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. Well, that's why we're throwing out colors, not just the wood. But I'm just trying to figure out what is a – a direction that staff would also find clear. Um, |
| 03:33:08.34 | Andrew Junius | Well, maybe I think we bring Mr. Chow back up. He might have an idea of that. Yeah, sure, sure. |
| 03:33:11.87 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, sure, sure. I'm just trying to figure out how specific we have to be. |
| 03:33:16.02 | Andrew Junius | Agreed. |
| 03:33:20.63 | Leo Chow | I'm not sure. Thank you, and I'm trying to process the question about color quickly here. Maybe I could help with two suggestions. One is that when we're talking about the colors, if we could limit it to the vertical faces that are visible, as opposed to areas such as roof surfaces. Thank you. |
| 03:33:43.02 | Nastassya Saad | That's fair. |
| 03:33:43.48 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 03:33:43.61 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:33:43.63 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 03:33:43.65 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:33:43.66 | Leo Chow | Yeah. |
| 03:33:43.68 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 03:33:44.09 | Leo Chow | And I heard several commissioners mention that they like the charcoal wood. Would it be possible to separate the coloration of wood versus the metal? So we could have a little bit more, I could see it being comfortable having more variation, that there's some dark wood and then there's some lighter colored metals. And so then what we could do is work with staff and try to select from a range of the standard colors that we showed in our material palette. And most metal roofing companies have several shades that are standard. Otherwise, you're into custom ranges. So I think it should be a pretty fairly straightforward exercise at that point. |
| 03:33:58.43 | Sandra Bushmaker | a little bit. |
| 03:34:27.64 | Kristina Feller | Forgive me, Mr. Chow, you mentioned you have a material palette. |
| 03:34:30.32 | David Marlatt | I was about to ask the same thing. |
| 03:34:31.88 | Leo Chow | Thank you. There were material samples in our submission. Not physical samples, photographs. |
| 03:34:39.40 | Unknown | Do we not have those? |
| 03:34:39.88 | Unknown | We may not have those. |
| 03:34:40.92 | Andrew Junius | Bye. |
| 03:34:40.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:40.99 | Andrew Junius | . |
| 03:34:41.60 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:34:42.39 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:34:43.08 | Andrew Junius | We should bring it up now. |
| 03:34:43.11 | David Marlatt | you |
| 03:34:43.13 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 03:34:43.50 | David Marlatt | I think we should. it up now. This would be the time. |
| 03:34:45.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:45.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:45.33 | Unknown | So we're doing it. |
| 03:34:45.65 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:50.14 | David Marlatt | This would have saved a lot of discussion. |
| 03:34:54.45 | Kristina Feller | I'm glad you're asking. No. Thank you for mentioning that. This might help solve issues. |
| 03:34:54.56 | Leo Chow | I'm glad you're asking. |
| 03:34:56.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:34:56.48 | Leo Chow | moment. Yep. |
| 03:34:57.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:35:04.97 | Kristina Feller | But while they're pulling that up, I think there were a couple nods about differentiating the different materials. |
| 03:35:11.35 | Andrew Junius | the metal color, the wood color. |
| 03:35:12.90 | David Marlatt | I had assumed we would. I just thought we hadn't gotten there yet. |
| 03:35:15.63 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 03:35:16.04 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. And happy to limit this to the vertical surfaces. Yeah, vertical surfaces. |
| 03:35:18.64 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 03:35:18.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:35:18.72 | Andrew Junius | ADVERTISING. |
| 03:35:19.02 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Oh, yeah. |
| 03:35:19.57 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:35:19.68 | Unknown | Oh, yeah. |
| 03:35:20.39 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:35:21.00 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:35:21.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:35:21.13 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:35:21.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:35:21.24 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:35:21.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:35:39.31 | Kristina Feller | No worries. |
| 03:35:56.32 | Andrew Junius | But I think are we leaning toward agreeing to allow them to keep the charcoal wood and different color on the metal? Is that... |
| 03:36:05.09 | Kristina Feller | I like the charcoal. |
| 03:36:06.04 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I mean, I think that's kind of a... |
| 03:36:06.12 | Kristina Feller | Yeah. |
| 03:36:07.57 | Nastassya Saad | I think if we see that palette that might. |
| 03:36:09.55 | Director Phipps | May I just ask if there is consensus on the commission that a color change is appropriate? I mean, I guess we're in process of defining. |
| 03:36:19.93 | David Marlatt | I don't think the color changes. We don't know what the color is. Thank you. I don't have to change anything. I don't know the color. |
| 03:36:26.86 | Director Phipps | Okay. |
| 03:36:32.03 | Nastassya Saad | I think in the interest of time as well, if there is in fact a color Palate material pallet that is available and staff has that on file and on record then we can leave it at staff's discretion with the applicant to review that unless They're not finding it. if there are options, can you just speak to it while they're looking to it? Do you know, are there other options for colors or was it- |
| 03:37:04.78 | Leo Chow | Yeah, most roofing companies have different alternatives of colors. It's not, you know, I would describe it, you know, it's... |
| 03:37:13.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:14.52 | Kristina Feller | He'll pull it up. |
| 03:37:23.16 | Andrew Junius | And this is partially for the vertical metal siding. |
| 03:37:26.78 | Leo Chow | Correct. |
| 03:37:26.80 | Andrew Junius | Correct. You were referencing roofing companies, but it's the same material. |
| 03:37:30.89 | Leo Chow | Yeah. So, so we show here, |
| 03:37:37.25 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 03:37:38.60 | Nastassya Saad | Do you mind? I'm sorry. I know it's difficult. But you have to speak into the microphone just so everyone can hear you. |
| 03:37:43.42 | Leo Chow | Yeah, actually, if you don't mind, I actually don't quite remember all the sheets I have in here. So if you could, yeah, if we could go all the way through it. And I have to say, I'm a little concerned |
| 03:37:48.62 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:37:54.33 | Leo Chow | for you to be making a decision based on this projector |
| 03:37:57.73 | Kristina Feller | That's okay. If you can describe as we go. |
| 03:37:58.19 | Leo Chow | It's okay. |
| 03:38:02.51 | Leo Chow | Yeah, if you go down further, there's actually a couple photographs of buildings. So you go down one more slide right there. So the color that we're imagining is it's not black. OK, start there. So that's one end of the spectrum. Of course, there's no grays in this room, really. |
| 03:38:26.88 | David Marlatt | It's like a galvalume or galvanized metal. |
| 03:38:29.17 | Leo Chow | Yeah, so you can see in this image on the right here, it's a gray metal, but because of the coating and the way it sits in the light, it has a spectral quality that catches light, which is why I was mentioning specifically the metal. I think that there's an opportunity there to create a kind of a steel blue, I want to be careful here, but sort of a mid-gray steel blue tone. and I think one of the things that really helps this material is because of the standing scenes you get kind of a texture across it. |
| 03:39:04.02 | Kristina Feller | So you're recommending that the roof is a steel blue? |
| 03:39:09.33 | Leo Chow | Thank you. |
| 03:39:09.37 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:39:09.39 | Leo Chow | Still gray blue. This is exciting as well. This is the wall. |
| 03:39:09.45 | David Marlatt | Still gray-blue. This is exciting as well. This is the wall. Exciting as well. |
| 03:39:11.82 | Kristina Feller | Friday as well. |
| 03:39:12.27 | Leo Chow | Yes. |
| 03:39:12.74 | David Marlatt | This happens to be a picture of it. |
| 03:39:13.70 | Leo Chow | Yeah. the wall. Yeah. This is like trying to describe the color green to a blind person. Yeah. |
| 03:39:14.70 | David Marlatt | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:39:15.95 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Yeah. Okay. And. |
| 03:39:25.20 | David Marlatt | This is... |
| 03:39:25.57 | Leo Chow | there. |
| 03:39:25.89 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:39:28.45 | Leo Chow | That's the concrete work for the staircase. |
| 03:39:32.32 | Andrew Junius | So the current color was the one that very top here, was it a darker metal, and you're basically, you'd be, the condition would be something to the effect of, work with staff on moderating the metal sighting color to create a contrast. |
| 03:39:46.22 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Yes, just point out for the record. Thank you. That was thank you, Commissioner. Jesus, the current one. is one of these three, and if so, which one? |
| 03:39:56.99 | Leo Chow | Yes. So the current one is on the left side. Okay. I will say, I just want to add some color to the comment here, but it is projecting much darker than what we, our original images. So that's, that's, so that is the material is on the left is the metal siding. The material in the middle is the wood. And then we do the wood screen on the south side is natural finish wood. |
| 03:39:59.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:39:59.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:39:59.62 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:40:23.64 | Leo Chow | Right. |
| 03:40:25.04 | Kristina Feller | These are about the color range I thought it was, you know, that you were verbally describing anyway, which I have no problem with. |
| 03:40:28.09 | Leo Chow | It was. |
| 03:40:28.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:40:28.33 | Leo Chow | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 03:40:35.60 | Nastassya Saad | Right. I'm leaning, I mean, I'm not going to design the whole thing here, but that lightest color is just so much lighter. So I think I'll just leave this to the discretion of, oh my gosh. |
| 03:40:46.16 | Sandra Bushmaker | of, |
| 03:40:47.80 | Nastassya Saad | Staff and the architect, but I think you do have other options here. So if we can just provide the direction of looking at the existing material. Color palette, please. Yeah. |
| 03:40:58.80 | Unknown | . |
| 03:40:58.87 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:40:58.89 | Andrew Junius | to consider other options. |
| 03:40:59.93 | Nastassya Saad | Exactly. Yes. I would appreciate that if everyone's amenable. Yes. Probably the only thing I'm going to get. So I will look here to see if there are any other comments. Okay. I'm just going to go on the record that I do think that this side yard setback concept is going to become an interesting case for us. And I respectfully disagree with the interpretation. So I'm not going to be the one to make a motion. I will look to anyone else to make a motion. And we'll get it. |
| 03:41:34.53 | Andrew Junius | I'm going to move to approve, as proposed with the added condition, that the applicant continue to work with staff on potential adjustments to the color of the metal siding for the project. |
| 03:41:47.86 | Kristina Feller | I will second that with one quick clarification question. The demo permit that was already issued still remains. So we don't have to comment on that, do we? |
| 03:42:00.28 | Director Phipps | I don't believe that's the item before the commission tonight. |
| 03:42:02.42 | Kristina Feller | Good, okay. I will second that motion. Thank you. |
| 03:42:04.80 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:42:04.83 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:42:04.95 | David Marlatt | I would add one small amendment to that, also on the condition that in the findings where written, the as discussed in the staff report will be stricken. |
| 03:42:13.76 | Andrew Junius | Agreed. That amendment is accepted. There's fights that I can say. |
| 03:42:16.19 | David Marlatt | in his first place. |
| 03:42:17.12 | Nastassya Saad | And that I think was just for staff. I think that was number seven. |
| 03:42:17.52 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:42:20.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:42:20.97 | David Marlatt | and number two of the Haydn review. |
| 03:42:23.11 | Nastassya Saad | And number two, yeah, number seven of the design review, number two of the heightened review. Thank you. |
| 03:42:27.55 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Agreed. Agreed. So as amended, yeah. |
| 03:42:30.35 | Nastassya Saad | Can we take role, please, Director Phipps? |
| 03:42:32.78 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Marlott. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. |
| 03:42:35.45 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 03:42:37.28 | Andrew Junius | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:42:40.39 | Nastassya Saad | No. |
| 03:42:41.88 | Director Phipps | Motion passes. Thank you very much. And if we could invite Chair Luxenberg back into the room. Peace, Felix. |
| 03:42:51.22 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:42:51.38 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:42:51.68 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:42:51.70 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:42:51.73 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 03:42:52.00 | Director Phipps | you And I can appreciate that. Let's give him a moment. And I believe we have one other item on the agenda this evening, which is communications. But I will let the chair drive once he gets back in his seat. |
| 03:43:09.89 | David Marlatt | Yeah, you bet. |
| 03:43:31.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:43:33.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | uh, What's that? That's good. I'm glad she did. Congratulations. Yes, we're on the item five communication. So if you could do that, that would be great. |
| 03:43:51.84 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:43:55.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Item 7. I'm sorry, is it item 7? I don't know why I thought it was item 5. All right, yeah, item 7, communication. It's usually item 5. Item 7, communication, Brandon, up to you. |
| 03:43:56.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:43:56.24 | Kristina Feller | Item 7. |
| 03:44:07.72 | Director Phipps | No communication items this evening, Chair. |
| 03:44:10.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and other commissioners, any reports out or any other communication? Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:44:19.21 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. I just want to report out that the landslide task force met last Thursday. And that meeting was run by Director McGowan, and it was a presentation by Miller Pacific, who is a city's consultant, on the geological hazard survey. It was an excellent meeting. We provided a lot of feedback and direction to revised the draft report and in order to take that we've asked it for it to come to us and then also to the City Council. I will point out that there were some excellent maps that were created out of this entire process and study and they're actually very very interesting so I'm very eager for this Commission to see those because it will help inform what we do and also for the City Council as well so I don't believe we're going to be meeting again before that item hopefully will just come to us it's probably a study session or recommendation to City Council and then ultimately to the City Council so I wanted to report out on that um, one other communication item and maybe this is something that we might agenda is in the future, but Um, I was a little bit perplexed by the appeal on Santa Rosa. of the tree cutting. And I think you know what we saw and what the city council saw were so different it would be really helpful to get their input and insight so we are better informed as a commission So maybe, Chair, you could reach out to the City Council members who were pushing the reversal of that appeal or the change in the decision. because I think we need to understand better what that expectation is because it was so radically different |
| 03:46:18.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I mean, we could agendize that, and I think Director Phipps was at that meeting, right? So he might be able to relay what the comments were to us maybe at our next meeting. |
| 03:46:31.07 | Kristina Feller | Well, there weren't comments to us. It was just their decision. But it was so... |
| 03:46:33.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 03:46:35.32 | Kristina Feller | totally different from what our findings were that I think it's worthy of a conversation to figure out what we were seeing that was so different. And it just helps better inform what we do moving forward. |
| 03:46:50.06 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. Can I follow on with that? I think that's an excellent idea. And frankly, not to make a bunch of more work for Director Phipps and his staff, but, you know, for things like that, and for frankly, for 426 Pine, I would be curious to know what, you know, exactly. I hear rumors, what have I didn't, I wasn't able to watch. And, you know, for things like exactly like Commissioner Feller is saying, when we took an action and it got changed, we'd just love to give us the three minutes of what the heck happened and kind of your understanding of why it happened. That really helps us. |
| 03:47:21.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, not for discussion here this evening. It's not on the agenda, but the city did deny the appeal and upheld our thing, but they made an extra condition. |
| 03:47:33.31 | Andrew Junius | OK, yeah, but a little more detail would be nice at some point. Lessons learned or something. Yeah. |
| 03:47:33.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:47:37.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:47:37.34 | Kristina Feller | Lessons learned or something. We want to understand... that. |
| 03:47:41.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're I was suggesting that at our next meeting we could agenda this and have Brandon give us an update because he was there to hear their comments so that he could report out what was said or whatever. |
| 03:47:57.18 | Kristina Feller | Well, we can see it's a recorded meeting. I was hoping that you could reach out. |
| 03:47:57.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:47:59.72 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:47:59.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know. |
| 03:47:59.97 | Unknown | with the |
| 03:48:02.91 | Kristina Feller | to the city council members who are pushing that to get better idea from them. That's what I was looking for. That's normally what the chair will do is engage in that way. Thank you. |
| 03:48:14.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will probably check. |
| 03:48:14.60 | Kristina Feller | I just want to know what on earth happened. You know, it was so different. |
| 03:48:18.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. I will try to reach out. Other items. |
| 03:48:25.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:48:25.82 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:48:27.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any other items from any other commissioners at this point? Okay. With that, we'll look for a motion for adjournment. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. |
| 03:48:34.51 | Kristina Feller | Don't move. |
| 03:48:40.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 03:48:41.23 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, David Merlot, for a successful first meeting. And have a good night. |
Sandra Bushmaker — In Favor: Former city council member and Landslide Task Force member urged that the task force's 2019 recommendations be included in the CIP, emphasizing health and safety issues from outdated geologic data and the need for further studies to stabilize hillsides. Also recommended overlaying sea level rise data. ▶ 📄