| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Matthew Mandich | Commissioners, Chair Saad, Vice Chair Junius, Planning Commissioners, staff and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito's Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. My name is Matthew Mandich, Senior Planner here in the City of Sausalito, and I'm filling in for Director Phipps in his absence. With that, I will move to call roll. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:00:13.01 | Patrice Taylor | percent. |
| 00:00:28.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 00:00:28.35 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Commissioner Marlott. Here. Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:00:31.72 | Kristina Feller | Here. |
| 00:00:32.53 | Matthew Mandich | Vice Chair Junius. Present. Chair Saad. |
| 00:00:35.10 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:00:35.11 | Nastassya Saad | here. |
| 00:00:36.13 | Matthew Mandich | We have achieved quorum. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:00:38.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much for starting the meeting. Item number two on the agenda for this evening is the approval of the agenda. Thank you. |
| 00:00:46.81 | Kristina Feller | So moved. |
| 00:00:47.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:00:48.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. . |
| 00:00:50.99 | Matthew Mandich | With that, I will call roll. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:00:54.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:00:55.69 | Matthew Mandich | Commissioner Marlott. Yes. Commissioner Fowler. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Assad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:00:58.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:01:01.81 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you very much. Item number three is for public comments on items that are not on this agenda. Acting Director Mandage, could you please give us some direction there? |
| 00:01:13.56 | Matthew Mandich | Absolutely, thank you. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the Planning Commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the Planning Commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct the subject be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you would like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me or my colleagues to my right. If you would like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you will be called upon when is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, a star nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. So looking to the chamber for any raised hands, items not on the agenda, and to the Zoom application. Seeing none. Back to you, Jared. |
| 00:02:13.28 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, thank you very much. Item number four on the agenda is the approval of the Planning Commission minutes. This is from item 4A, which are from March 12th of 2025. Are there any comments on the meeting minutes? |
| 00:02:28.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. In line 10, it says that I as chair called the meeting to the order, but chair said you called that meeting to order. Thank you for catching that. So I'd like to get that corrected. |
| 00:02:29.98 | Nastassya Saad | Go ahead. |
| 00:02:43.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, then in Also in line 41 I note for the record that in the meeting notes for February 19th Which is the previous meeting we had that same error So I'm hoping that we can just simply correct that When before you sign those notes as well, but we don't have to take a formal amendment on that We can just note that for the record this evening. I think |
| 00:03:09.52 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Any other comments? None. |
| 00:03:15.95 | Kristina Feller | So I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from March 12, 2025, with the correction identified by Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:03:16.73 | Patty Glovsky | Thank you. |
| 00:03:16.78 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:03:16.96 | Patty Glovsky | Thank you. |
| 00:03:17.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:03:17.16 | Patty Glovsky | Bye. |
| 00:03:26.46 | David Marlatt | Is there a second? Second. Thank you. |
| 00:03:29.57 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. I'll call roll. Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Commissioner Marlott? Yes. Commissioner Feller? Yes. |
| 00:03:34.70 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:03:35.34 | Matthew Mandich | Vice Chair Genius. Yes. And Chair Saad. |
| 00:03:37.57 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you very much. Item five, our communications acting director managed. Do you have anything from city staff for communications? |
| 00:03:50.09 | Matthew Mandich | I would like to first just make one comment on a new hire that we had and just make the planning commission aware of that because I received some feedback earlier prior to the meeting. So recently at the end of February, we hired a new code enforcement officer, which we're very happy about. His name is Justin Goger-Malo, and he was a wildfire mitigation specialist in San Rafael prior to joining the city. So, yes, Justin has been here about two months now. He's really hitting the ground running, and we're happy to have him on board. So if you do have any code enforcement issues or any complaints like that, please direct them to Mr. Mela. And with that, I would like to pass to Commissioner Feller for some comments, perhaps. |
| 00:04:33.73 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Acting Director Mandich. I'll just make a couple very, very brief comments. This is very likely my last commission hearing here as a sitting commissioner. And so I did wanna take this opportunity to thank the team. And I really want to focus on the point that we are a team. And we We deliberate a lot. We have a lot of... discussion, we have a lot of discovery, and there's not a time that I don't learn something new or a new perspective from from one of my colleagues here, both within community development here on the dais. And I definitely need to give a shout out to DPW, who we certainly interact with quite a bit as well. So I also want to recognize other members of the community and citizens here in Sausalito that volunteer their time as well. You know, this is a wonderful town. So many people volunteer their time, whether it's a city, whether it be, you know, their private areas of interest or garden clubs or churches or whatever it might be. I think that we're powered very much by volunteer work. And I think that that is a wonderful cornerstone of Sausalito. So I definitely wanted to acknowledge those volunteers as well. You know, over six years here on the commission, we've certainly seen a lot. We've seen a lot together. And I did make a point to write them down because I would forget something. But we've had the COVID pandemic. We've had five different community development directors and a lot of staff turnover, and so I want to thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg for. Um, allowing yourself to be volunteered to sit on a selection panel to find Director Phipps. And for Director Phipps to have built this incredible team here Matthew, Maria, Adam, you know, and so many others that aren't here this evening. So I think that needs to be pointed out. There was a landslide task force. We had a major, major mudslide landslide here. We had quite a number of wildfires that got a little bit too close. We had the sea level rise. and subsidence task force that the commission was involved in. the Parklet and Outdoor Dining Working Group. Not sure whatever happened to that, but that was quite a bit of work. We had a general plan update that we had to adopt and the EIR that went with that. So no small feat there. the six cycle housing element and the planning commission working group thank you chair sod for for being a partner in crime on that um the housing element advisory committee and all the work that went into that thank you again for being a partner we had seven different staff contacts and points of contact for that so it was it was a chaotic time uh to say the very least uh objective design and development standards um i can't thank you enough vice chair junius for being a partner in crime on on that and so many other things i mean ordinances updates and and just the regular business of the Planning Commission. I think it's really important to emphasize that that the commission, any commission, any planning commission is a state legislative mandate. And the idea behind the commission is a very important and significant role that we play within any community. I mean, obviously, this is the commission for our community here in Sausalito. But it's very important to remember the work we do and the fact that we are not a political body. and we should not be influenced by political forces, whether they are from your neighbors, people from other side of town, people outside the city, whatever it might be. It's really important that we are driven by our laws, our ordinances, our municipal codes, the interpretations of those, the application of that. and also to be stewards of constantly evolving what those standards might be. And I think we've all here on this dais been played a huge part in that and thank you staff for being a huge part of that. as well. That is tireless work and it never ends. And even though we've had a number of people applicants in front of us that You know, there's a lot of debate and deliberation. I appreciate everyone always coming prepared. That includes applicants, that includes staff, that includes this commission. And even if we don't agree whether it be here on the dais, whatever the findings might be for the applicant, It's critical that every applicant be treated equally and fairly and transparently and that the application of our ordinances and our laws and our parameters, let's say, are applied equally that way. So I think that that's really important. So, um, Thank you all. for the work at hand and My hope is, you know, as the commission continues to advance forward, and that special team entity that I talked about at the beginning that that that continues to evolve as well, we are each individually stewards of a position on this Commission but this Commission transcends any single one of us. And so it's really important to try to leave it better off than the way you found it. And I hope I've done my part. I will continue to support this commission and this community. And I also wanna thank all the applicants that have trusted us with the work that they have at hand as well. And know that we are all your advocates. And again, those parameters are the parameters. There are ordinances and laws and municipal codes and so on, but we will, the commission will always be an advocate for every applicant. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, team. Those here tonight and those that couldn't be with us tonight. Thank you. Okay. |
| 00:10:40.66 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you, Chair Feller, and just a thank you personally for me and on behalf of the department for your many years of invaluable service as a commissioner, a team member, and a collaborator. Your work has certainly made us better, so thank you. |
| 00:10:56.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Beller. And also thank you for the reminder of all those items. I forgot I kind of blocked some of that out, I think, but we appreciate you more than you know. Looking to other members of the commission for any communication items. |
| 00:11:12.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I just want to thank Commissioner Feller for her service. And I have to say, when I came on in December of 2020, you were chair at the time, and you allowed me to get oriented to this commission. And we went through a long period in Zoom, which was even more difficult. But all of your leadership at that time was greatly appreciated. |
| 00:11:40.90 | Nastassya Saad | Any other communications from anybody? Absolutely. |
| 00:11:45.37 | Andrew Junius | Absolutely. We can't let the moment go without a few more words. I very much appreciate working with you, Christina. |
| 00:11:46.86 | Nastassya Saad | I share. |
| 00:11:57.30 | Andrew Junius | Your comments at the outside about how this is a volunteer city, I think, is something a lot of people need to remember. And we should never forget this body's volunteer, the city council's volunteer, all the different groups that make Sausalito what it is as a volunteer are volunteers. So without the volunteer spirit in the city, we wouldn't be nearly where we are today. And you are an absolutely fabulous volunteer for the city. And I just think we've been fortunate to have you on for two years. Your your values and your willingness to be open to dialogue and to to again, I think your your comments at the end there about treating everybody fairly and applying the rules rigidly in terms of fairness and process and making sure that everybody gets a fair shot everybody gets an opportunity to express their feelings and their and their positions and then we hash it out and we make a decision and we move on um and i've just enjoyed the collegiality uh of the group and you've been an incredibly important part of that so it's been an honor and i can't wait to work with you in the next project down the road whenever that is so yeah |
| 00:13:03.71 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to get the last word and then you are a mentor. You are a friend. You are the heartbeat of this commission. And I've enjoyed it so immensely to get to sit next to you and to watch you as chair and be under your wing. And thank you for all you've done personally to help me grow and for this community. I don't think the housing element could have gotten to where it was without you, honestly. So thank you very much. And without getting too emotional here, we will actually open up communications for public comment. May I look to you, Maria and team? |
| 00:13:45.22 | Matthew Mandich | Looking to the chamber, seeing none. And into the Zoom application, we do have one. |
| 00:13:57.59 | Sandra Bushmaker | Hello, everybody. I meant to bring this up during items for not on the agenda, but I wanted to thank Christina for her six years on this planning commission. Your leadership was stellar. The way you handled yourself and the matters at hand was so ethical, so above board. And so reliable. And I really, really appreciated that. And I also appreciated all the work that you did on the housing element. You know, I was there on Zoom for every single meeting with you during that entire time. And I know how much work it took. And I really regretted that the council did not extend your term. to allow you to finish the amended housing elements. at this point. And I regret that deeply. And I think the city has lost An incredible amount of institutional knowledge and experience that could have helped shepherd this amended housing element through to completion. So I just want you to know, personally, I want to thank you so much for your effort. And I'm sure there are other citizens who, if they'd known this was coming up, would have been here tonight. But I do want to extend my heartfelt thank you. as a public servant to the community and to the city. Thanks, Christina. |
| 00:15:23.62 | Nastassya Saad | Any other further public comment on communications? |
| 00:15:27.40 | Matthew Mandich | Seeing none, Chair. |
| 00:15:28.38 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. OK, this moves on to the public hearing portion of the evening. This is for 324 South Slido Boulevard. It is a design review permit of variance, a lot line merger, and encroachment agreement for project ID 2024-00195. We have assistant planner Adam Blair here this evening with us. Thank you very much. And yes, we have a lot going on. Please hold for me. Adam. |
| 00:16:00.84 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:16:01.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Marlott. |
| 00:16:02.88 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you, Chair. I will be recusing myself from this item this evening. This is my last legacy project that predates my time on the commission. So I will leave you in the capable hands of Mr. Blair and my associates. |
| 00:16:18.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. And then I'm looking for ex parte communication. Commissioner Feller. Nothing to declare. Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:16:25.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:16:26.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. |
| 00:16:27.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:16:28.03 | Adam Blair | nothing to declare. |
| 00:16:28.69 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, and I also have nothing to declare. Thank you very much. Back to you, Adam. |
| 00:16:28.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:16:33.26 | Adam Blair | Thank you, Chair, and good evening, Commissioners, members of the audience. It's a pleasure to present before you all this evening. I'm Adam Blair, Assistant Planner with the Community Development Department. The item before you this evening is an application requesting approval of a design review permit, a variance, lot line merger, and an encroachment agreement to facilitate an exterior and interior remodel project at 324 Sausalito Boulevard. This application includes merging of two parcels to facilitate the proposed project next slide. So here's a location map showing 324 Sausalito Boulevard. The residence sits on the larger approximately 4,075 square foot parcel. That parcel is identified by assessor parcel number 065-252-39. And the project site also includes a smaller parcel that's directly adjacent. to the larger parcel with the residents. It's about 149 square feet owned by the same property owners and the assessor parcel number is 065-252-54. Both parcels are located within the R-2-2.5, two-family, medium, high-density residential zoning district, per Salcelito zoning ordinance and general plan. Next slide. |
| 00:17:50.82 | Adam Blair | Alright project summary so applicant David Marlatt with DNM architecture on behalf of owners Patricia iglofsky and Robert Metzger It's requesting approval of a design review permit to facilitate an exterior and interior remodel at 324 Salcedo Boulevard. The remodel includes a new front entry landing, a new front guardrail adjacent to the front garage. You can kind of see it in the top right photo there. I'll admit it's a little small, so it might be hard to see. A new front entryway addition, a new flat roof, which will be constructed over the main residence in place of a pitched roof. Essentially, the pitched roof, the portions that slope down will be raised up to form a flat roof. The project includes a new angled roof over the front garage. It kind of comes up to a peak on the left side and slopes down to the right. The project proposes new foundation and shear wall work, a relocated furnace, new exterior siding, and remodeled kitchen and bathrooms. The design review permit is required because of the proposed height increase of the front garage and the portions of the pitched roof of the main residence, which, as I explained, will be rebuilt into a flat roof. Those portions will increase a little bit in height with the new flat roof. Um, a variance is requesting relief from floor area ratio requirements due to a 531 square foot increase in floor area ratio, which takes the property from 61%. to 73%, which is above the maximum allowed floor area ratio for a property in that zoning district. Um, the added F a R is largely through the proposed front entry addition, which spans the third and second floor and conversions of existing interior nonliving space into livable space. Moving to the lot line merger portion, the project includes the proposed merging of those two parcels, the larger 4,075 square foot parcel and the smaller 149 square foot parcel, both owned by the same property owners. The resultant lot would be sized 4,224 square feet, which would bring the overall parcel closer to conformance with minimum parcel standards, as we'll discuss later in the presentation, and to facilitate the proposed project. And finally, the encroachment agreement portion of this application is to facilitate proposed improvements in the right of way, which includes a front entryway landing, which you can kind of see in the top image there. It's the landing that spans from the driveway to the front door of the residence. Um, a front guardrail adjacent to the garage. It basically serves as a buffer between the driveway and a very steep drop because of the steep slope nature of the lot. So it's a barrier for protection. And to permit the existing garage, which will be reconstructed in the right of way, the garage was constructed in the right of way without a prior encroachment agreement. And so this encroachment agreement will retroactively permit that garage, which currently encroaches into the right of way as well. Next slide. Diving into the background and history on this property, the. Properties of single family residence constructed in 1965 through building permit number 4657. The original report for the plan check noted the residence as being 2008 square feet in size. And again, the residence is located on a approximately 4075 square foot substandard lot. interior and exterior alterations were carried out on the property throughout the years with permits, as well as a number of exterior and interior alterations being carried out without permits, as we'll discuss in a little bit. Moving forward to February 21st, 2022, the city's chief building official at the time, Thomas Ahrens, performed a visual inspection of 324 Sausalito Boulevard to investigate undocumented construction and additions. And Mr. Aaron's prepared a memorandum outlining his findings, which we'll dive a bit into in the next slide. |
| 00:21:59.34 | Adam Blair | So during Mr. Aaron's investigation, he noted that approximately 1065 square feet of improvements and additions, which includes conversions of interior non living space into livable space were carried out without permits. Um, the vast majority of these occurred on the third story through an illegal conversion of that space into a living unit without permits. Mr. Ahrens noted that there was fairly high potential for serious structural or other life safety concerns due to the unpermitted work carried out by prior property owners. Mr. Ahrens recommended that all of this work be retroactively permitted through planning and building permits specifically noted a building permit. to ultimately bring it up to code and make it safe to live in. Moving forward to October 10th 2024 the city received an application for an interior and exterior remodel project which is intended to correct all structural issues noted in Mr Aaron's report to permit all illegal and unpermitted work detailed and Mr Aaron's report and to improve the livability and design of the single family residents for the current property owners next slide. So jumping into the zoning data table for zoning compliance purposes, in the R-2-2.5 zoning district, it's also the zoning ordinance states or lists the minimum parcel size requirement at 5,000 square feet. The larger 4,075 square foot parcel where the residence currently is, is about just shy of a thousand square feet smaller than that minimum parcel size, making it a substandard lot. The 149 square foot smaller lot is obviously not even close to compliance with the 5,000 square foot minimum parcel size. The proposed lot through the merger of these two parcels would create an approximately 4,224 square foot lot, which would bring that property closer to compliance. But unfortunately, that would still fall short of that 5,000 square foot minimum parcel size. So it would still be a substandard lot. Moving to the number of dwelling units, Susilita zoning ordinance lists a requirement of one dwelling unit per 2,500 square feet of lot area. There is currently one dwelling unit on the site that will remain one dwelling unit through this proposed project. And so that. portion, that aspect of the project is in compliance with Sol Solito's zoning ordinance. Moving to minimum setbacks, Sausalito zoning ordinance sets a front setback requirement of zero feet, 15 feet for the rear, five feet for the right side of the property, and five feet for the left side. As the property currently sits, it's technically in compliant because the garage crosses over the front property line, and it didn't have an encroachment agreement to permit that crossing of the line. The proposed project will remain the same with the garage crossing over, but it will be brought back into compliance because the encroachment agreement will permit that garage to cross into the right-of-way. Moving to the rear portion of the property, the existing residence has a setback of measured at 22 feet, six inches, which is more than the 15 foot minimum. That number will not be changing with the proposed project. And so that aspect of the project is in compliance. Moving to the right side of the property, I apologize for the mislisted number there, but that existing number for the right side, which you could see where that corner of the garage on the existing site plan, it goes almost right up to the line. So that number is actually a 10 and a half inch setback from the right property line. The proposed project will shrink, will basically take out that corner, bring it in a little bit to attempt to bring it closer to compliance. which will create a three foot 11 inch setback from the right property line. While it does attempt to bring it closer, it still falls short of the five foot side yard requirements. So it is not compliant in terms of that particular right side setback. Moving to the left side, The left side of the property is incompliant as existing because the front entryway deck, as you can see in the top left image, crosses the property line onto that smaller 149 square foot. Parcel, I tried to mark it with a red line coming across. So you could see a right where that little corner just crosses over. With the proposed merger of these lots that will get rid of that encroachment issue and grant that deck area, which will be turned into an entryway addition, a four foot three and a quarter inch setback, which is compliant pursuant to Salcelito Municipal Code 10.40.090 subsection D, which grants exceptions to side yard projections subject to criteria, which we'll discuss later. Moving to building height, Sausalito Zoning Ordinance lists a maximum building height of 32 feet. The existing residence measures at 30 feet zero and a quarter inch. And then the proposed residence, excluding the garage, and we'll talk about that in a bit, measures at 31 feet five and three. three quarters of an inch, which is less than the 32 foot Uh, height limit. So it's compliant. a height exception was utilized for... the garage portion of the property, since it's a downhill slope parcel, which we'll discuss later, it increases the height limit to 40 feet for just the garage portion of the project. And so for the garage structure, if you were to include that, the overall height of the residence with the garage is 35 feet, nine and three quarters of an inch, which is still compliant with Sausalito zoning ordinance for reasons which we'll discuss later in the presentation. Moving to maximum building coverage. Sausalito's zoning ordinance, which imposes stricter standards for floor area, building coverage, and impervious surface for single-family residences that are located in the two-family residential zoning district. It netted out a calculation of a 44% maximum allowed building coverage. The existing residence currently has 38%, or 1,614 square feet of building coverage. And then the proposed project barely brings that up to about 39%. 9%, so that aspect of the project is in compliance. Moving to floor area ratio, that calculated number per that special section of the code. is 57%. The proposed or the existing residents already non compliant at 61% and that number will go up to 73% by that approximately 500 ish. Square feet, so the aspect of the project is not compliant, hence why the variance is being requested. moving to the maximum impervious surface, that Um, meant previously mentioned code section has a 72% maximum impervious surface allowance. The existing residents currently is at 40% and that number increases by 3% to 43%. So that aspect of the project is in compliance. Then finally go into required off street parking. The zoning ordinance mandates two off street parking spaces per dwelling unit for single family residential properties. The existing residents has a off street garage which accommodates two parking spaces. These parking spaces are both at least nine feet in width by 19 feet in depth, which is compliant with Sausalito's parking size requirements. This number remains the same for two off street parking spaces maintained through the proposed project. And so this aspect of the project is in compliance. Next slide. Okay, diving into the design review permit. And, Permit portion of this application. Again, the design review permit was required because of the proposed height increase of the main residence and the front garage structure. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, the pitched roof is being rebuilt as a flat roof for the main residence. And then the roof height of the garage is increasing with that pointed and slanted roof design. A design view permit is also required due to potential view impacts arising as a result of this project. And these view impacts were mentioned, were brought to staff's attention, largely through public comment received from surrounding property. following the writing of this staff report. Moving into the side yard structural projections portion, this falls under the design review permit. portion of this project because the criteria which allows for certain side yard structural projections lists the following requirements. The average depth or width of yard is at least equal to the required depth otherwise required. No more than 50% of a building wall that encroaches... Or basically, if you have a building wall that's along a side property line, no more than 50% of that wall can encroach into that line if that line is not parallel. to the building. The yard, also for the parcel, the yard is not less than three feet in depth or width at any point. And ultimately, you know, this side yard structural projection is subject to review by the planning commission, subject to the design review permit section of the municipal code, which is why I included it in this slide. Again, it's to permit a portion of the westerly building wall to project into the required side yard setback. That would mainly be the front entryway addition on the southwesterly side. It does slightly encroach with that four foot I think it was like a four foot three quarter inch setback from the side yard, but less than 50% of that overall wall. If you were to take the entryway addition and the sidewall, encroaches into the setback. And so because of that, even though part of the entryway slightly encroaches, that wall is still compliant because of that side yard exception in that section of the municipal code. Diving into the covered parking height exception, which was mentioned earlier for that garage being above the 32 foot height limit. This section of code permits covered parking structures, including garages located on downhill sloped parcels to project above the 32 foot required height limit if it satisfies the following criteria, that the overall height of the project, including the garage, does not exceed 40 feet, If the portion of new structures excluding the garage does not exceed 32 feet, If the proposed project does not violate other provisions of this title, if the Hi. structure. If the covered parking or the garage is the highest structure on a, the code states uphill lot, but I mean, it's a downhill exception. So it applies to downhill lots. And then finally, if this height exception is subject to planning commission review under the design review permit section of this code. And so that is why it is here. Next slide. So staff recommends approval of the design review permit portion of this application because the proposed architecture and site design introduces a creative solution which takes advantage of the unique characteristics of the site and contributes to the design diversity of Sausalito, the proposed project Again, intends to bring this residence into compliance with the 2022 California building code and it incorporates a creative entryway design, which allows for safe and covered access to the steeply sloped property. It's sloped at 67% downhill. for the property owners. The proposed project has been designed to not crowd or overwhelm structures on neighboring properties due to the increased utility largely through the conversion of interior non livable space into living space. The conversion of interior space again made up the majority of the floor area ratio increase so there were. Very few alterations done to the outside to really increase the mass or bulk of the residential structure. And finally, the proposed project is designed to maintain the level of privacy currently enjoyed by surrounding properties through design aspects such as modification of window layout where the windows on the residents were either reduced. They were either removed or they were just maintained at their current sizes. So there were no expansions of window openings to where the windows get larger looking into neighboring properties. Next slide. |
| 00:34:19.12 | Adam Blair | Diving into the variance aspect of this application, again, the variance is requested for relief from floor area ratio requirements due to that 531 square foot increase from 61% to 73%. I put the diagrams here so you can kind of see how those numbers change. A lot of the changes were on the third story. In the top left, you could see that whole northwest corner where everything's in red had a ceiling height of less than 5 feet 11 inches. was basically non-livable space the proposed project in the bottom left side would make this space into livable space largely through that slight roof height increase so that would now become livable space and that space was needed to accommodate the front entryway and interior staircase going down Um, again, that third story converted space totaled about 242 square feet of that added floor area. So roughly half of the total added square footage of floor area. And then the front entry addition was the exterior alteration that contributed the most in terms of FAR at 152 square feet. And again, the front entryway addition was proposed to increase accessibility of the property, given its very steep slope for the property owners and to increase the overall livability of the residents for the property owners. Next slide. |
| 00:35:41.96 | Adam Blair | So again, staff recommends approval of the variance requesting relief from floor area ratio requirements because the parcel, is less than the minimum parcel size and the R2 2.5 zoning district. It's about a 800 ish square feet short after the merger. The lot has... topographical challenges with a 67% downhill slope, which results in few opportunities to integrate safe and code compliant entry solutions for safe ingress and egress of the property. The proposed design is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property in the vicinity. I mean the property as it exists is non-compliant and structurally unsafe. The project proposes to remodel the residents and make a structurally unsafe building into a safe code compliant and livable building for the property owners. And finally the proposed design is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Sausalito zoning ordinance. because it incorporates a design solution which works with the topographical and increased floor area ratio limitations post to the property both by its topography and by social it is zoning ordinance. The proposed design results in minimal impact to step forms mass book and density relative to surrounding homes again due to the large conversion of non livable space that's already inside the residents into livable space next slide. So the lot line merger, as we discussed earlier, proposes the merging of the following parcels into one approximately 4,224 square foot lot, the larger 4,075 square foot parcel, which has the current existing residents, as well as a smaller 149 square foot. Parcel the results in lot will be closer to compliance, but the minimum parcel standards, since it will eliminate an existing property line encroachment it's nonconforming due to the existing entryway deck it crosses over that property line. The merging of the lots will eliminate that. And then the front entryway will still comply due to the, Side yard projection exception mentioned earlier. Uh, No new non-conformities will be created as a result of the slot line merger. and the proposed resultant lot conforms with shape, orientation to public right of way, use, open space, setbacks, and bulk requirements. Next slide. Finally, the encroachment agreement portion of this application is proposed to facilitate the following improvements in the right-of-way. That front entryway landing, which I think you could see better here. It's just to the left of the proposed garage rendering. It allows the property owner to adequately walk and access the front door to their property. The second improvement in the right-of-way is the front guardrail adjacent to the front garage. I think you can see it more clearly now on the right side of the garage. It serves as a safety barrier between the driveway and a very steep drop. As you're walking towards the property, And then finally to I guess permit the rebuilt front garage, which encroaches into the right of way. And again, the garage The existing garage already encroaches in the right of way. And so this encroachment agreement would legalize this encroaching garage while it gets remodeled. Proposed encroachments will not adversely affect the usability or enjoyment of adjoining parcels. And the encroachment agreement will not create or extend an undesirable land use precedent since it largely replaces existing encroachments. You can see there's a guardrail even in the existing one that was put there some time ago without permits and the stairway on the far left, which was also put in. And these improvements will increase safety for accessing the property for the property owners. Next slide. So with all that being said, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve application 2024-00195 for 324 Sausalito Boulevard. and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the design review permit variance application lot line merger and a recommendation of approval to city council of an encroachment agreement. Staff finds the proposed project is in conformance with the criteria listed in the municipal code sections below the first one pertaining to design review permits second for variances. They're for encroachment agreements. And the fourth for... lot line merger and with that that concludes my presentation happy to answer any questions you may have thanks |
| 00:40:02.86 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Adam. for a, thorough presentation and taking us through all the details. I'm going to turn to my colleagues first, but can I just, can we just confirm for the record all of the public comment that you've received? Do we have everything attached to the agenda? Was there anything, any late mail today? |
| 00:40:22.08 | Adam Blair | Correct, yeah, no late mail was received. |
| 00:40:24.45 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. And then just some point of privilege to ask one more question. Did staff visit with any of the abutters, any of the neighbors to look at view impact or? |
| 00:40:38.81 | Adam Blair | Well, I did not go out to any of the neighboring properties. One of the neighbors did come in to the public service counter, and we had a good time. And 15 minute conversation about her concern. She showed me some photographs she took. We kind of walked it through. And so that was the main contact that staff had with neighbors that live surrounding the property besides for the public comment received via email. |
| 00:40:58.35 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay, thank you very much, and just... for the record. I probably lost one of my pages. I had, I think, counted six. Can we just confirm six, six of the, six public comments on the record? Thank you very much. Commissioner Luxembourg, do you want to start us off here? |
| 00:41:17.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. First, I want to thank you for your extensive presentation, Mr. Blair, as well as responding to my emails earlier in the week. And I also want to thank the city attorney's office for responding to those, which pretty much said bring all those questions forward. So I'm doing that this evening. So my first one, in the draft resolution attachment under design review findings number 12, the following is indicate. The project is not subject to heightened review findings since a variance is being requested for the relief from floor error ratio requirements as outlined in the Sausalito Municipal Code. Isn't the relief being provided and allowed the project to proceed I think as you said with a variance to construct the project at 3,104 square feet that amount of square footage exceeds 80% of allowed by the municipal code so don't don't we have to make the findings on heightened review just because we make the findings of a variance doesn't mean we do not have to consider the heightened review analysis as part of our considerations. And these items are mutually exclusive. Earlier in the week, I asked City Attorney Rudin regarding this, and he indicated that we should be analyzing heightened design review findings. He indicated that if we can't make those findings at the Planning Commission's discretion, a variance could be considered for the findings, but the variance itself does not negate the need to address those findings. Given the extensive analysis that you've already done and you presented this evening, how much time would it take to analyze the heightened design review findings? How much time do you think this would take the staff to do that? |
| 00:43:11.30 | Adam Blair | Well, the heightened design review findings, I believe there are about seven additional findings we would have to make. The city also charges a fee to cover staff time to make those findings. So in terms of when we had our correspond, when I had correspondence with legal about this issue, this was brought to my attention about a day before the hearing. A day would not have been adequate time to make those heightened design review findings. Typically, staff would need at least a few days to make those findings. |
| 00:43:38.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But you could do it in a couple days, is what you're saying. |
| 00:43:43.25 | Adam Blair | Yeah, it can be done in a couple to a few days. |
| 00:43:45.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:43:45.55 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 00:43:45.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, that's good, thank you. Next question. |
| 00:43:48.24 | Nastassya Saad | Just one second, Commissioner Luxembourg-Kylie, it's just, Attorney Otto has just popped up. Is there something that you'd like to comment on? |
| 00:43:57.93 | Nastassya Saad | We can't hear. Are we able to unmute her? |
| 00:43:59.21 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:01.56 | City Attorney Otto | Thank you. I wasn't allowed to be unmuted. Thank you. I just had a question for Adam. On the FAR, is it 73% or 80%? What is the FAR on this one? And does it fall under the height and review findings of that 80%? Does it exceed the 80% of the permitted FAR? |
| 00:44:22.48 | Adam Blair | Yeah, the proposed floor area ratio was 73%. Thank you. |
| 00:44:28.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | but it's actually 104% or something like that. The 73% is, the requirement is like 57%, so this is more than 80%. the |
| 00:44:42.38 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 00:44:42.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Correct. There's two different percentages we're using here. |
| 00:44:42.45 | Adam Blair | Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So the maximum allowed is 57 percent. And correct. Yeah. The proposed floor area ratio is 73 percent. But in relation to that 57 percent FAR requirement, it is exceeding the maximum allowed of 57 percent. |
| 00:45:01.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So just to help you there, it's 80% of 57% is when heightened design review kicks in. So this is well, well over that. |
| 00:45:21.58 | City Attorney Otto | Thank you. |
| 00:45:23.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, moving on to the second question. And I'll probably ask this in more detail for the applicant or the architect. If the shed roof was made flat, which it currently is, would the planning commission would not have to determine the exception for the garage? Because I think if I tried to measure it off the drawings, it would come under the 32 feet. We wouldn't need this exception that the wording has uphill and downhill. Is that correct? |
| 00:45:54.39 | Adam Blair | Yeah, to my recollection, if the roof height of the garage were to remain flat, it would be, to my memory level, what the rest of the residents. So it would result in that 31 foot, I think five and three quarter of an inch measurement that I had mentioned earlier. |
| 00:46:09.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and I'll ask the applicant when they come up of what the purpose of the extra feed is. Next question is the staff report on page seven says that the parking is the highest structure on the uphill, the highest, the staff report on page seven says the covered parking is the highest structure on an uphill lot, which you explained was not an uphill lot. It's under the downhill section, and it appears to be an error in the municipal code. So I'm flagging that, and I'm also saying if we change this, the whole thing might go away, but we might want to look at that in the future for correcting the code on that. Let's see. Although not being considered at this time, it appears that the intent of the third-story bedroom and family room is to become an ADU, which was shown on an earlier version of the plans, which are publicly available. They need to track it. And the square footage is shown in the current set of plans on sheet A0.2. And if I understand the calculations correctly, once the ADU is completed, the square footage for the main unit would be under the FAR requirement. Is that correct? |
| 00:47:26.17 | Adam Blair | So if the ADU, which originally was proposed, the proposal was then modified later to remove the ADU from this proposed scope. Generally speaking, at least up until very recently, well, interior ADUs, the square footage would not be exempt from FAR calculations because it's just conversion of existing livable space. The complication with this project is that because of the level of work being done to the third level, if they were to proceed with the ADU as part of this application, the walls and the roof are basically going to be removed and then replaced with that higher flat roof. And so staff had determined that that did not meet the criteria for conversion of existing as built space and so that adu would be considered an attached adu and attached adus are subject to a stricter height requirement which the proposed project wouldn't have met and so the applicant then indicated that they would pursue an ADU at a later time, maybe when the space is already built, potentially for an interior ADU conversion. if that makes sense. |
| 00:48:33.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think I understand that, but the drawings currently show that the FAR calculation, once that ADU is built, that's in this set of drawings. They're still in there, even though it's not shown as an ADU. I mean, if we can avoid a variance, a variance is a very high standard. So if a variance isn't really required because the ADU is not going to count, then there might be a better and a different way to, there might be a variance for the ADU height rather than a variance for FAR. And so I guess that's what I'm exploring. |
| 00:49:05.70 | Adam Blair | I could have foreseen that going at that route. Yeah. The variance would have shifted from the floor area ratio to the height. If they were to have pursued the ADU as an attached ADU. Cause again, the roof height would have been above the 25 foot height limit. Or an ADU attached ADU. |
| 00:49:22.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I'll explore that more with the applicant. The next item is in the staff report in Table 1062-1. There are some highlighted items in yellow and indicating that I'm not sure why the yellow is there, but it's indicating this is a partial demolition. But then you go to the conditions and the fire department has determined that this is substantial substantial substantial demolition and then the staff report text indicates a Nonconformity is not aligned and so shouldn't the the highlighting either be on the next line Which says that it's a substantial demolition and they can't use a nonconformity permit Or shouldn't we just take the yellow highlighting out of this because I'm not sure what the hot yellow highlighting was meant to accomplish |
| 00:50:10.34 | Adam Blair | Yeah, the yellow highlighting was to demonstrate that the nonconforming portions of the property were being partially demolished and remodeled, hence why a nonconformity permit would not be necessary. Because if it was like a substantial demolition or they were taking down the entire nonconforming sections of the building, then it would be subject to either a nonconformity permit or a variance. |
| 00:50:32.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So why is the fire department saying it is the substantial demolition? |
| 00:50:33.11 | Adam Blair | What? |
| 00:50:37.65 | Adam Blair | because they're considering the project as a whole and all aspects. This section of my staff report below was focusing just on the non-conforming parts of the residence, which was that right side wall that was slightly encroaching into the side yard setback. They're just taking off siding, doing some exterior siding. And so that was just partial demo. They're just taking the siding off and putting new siding on there. And then obviously the top portion will be demoed because they're going to be installing the flat roof. So there would be a height increase of the new wall to accommodate the higher roof. |
| 00:51:12.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, but in the chart it says something about we only need a building permit, so that's why I was confused. So I don't know, you may want to re-look at that chart in the staff report. Let me move on. There is no landscape plan included, and in order to make finding six and 11, we need a landscape plan that indicates what the landscape is, even if it's only existing, so we can evaluate it. Is there a reason there was no landscape plan? |
| 00:51:43.19 | Adam Blair | No landscape plan was provided because no landscaping alterations were proposed. The only alteration to the landscape would just be the portion of land that would be excavated for the stairway on the side and then the new foundation pierce. Going into the ground. |
| 00:51:56.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to the but we need to make a finding about whether or not the landscape is appropriate for to make those findings. So even without going out and trying to look at what it is, typically we would see a landscape plan. Is that something that could be asked for? |
| 00:52:16.49 | Adam Blair | Yes. Okay. |
| 00:52:17.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. And the next is, thank you for adding the parking requirement, which I mentioned earlier in the week, to the zoning table. Given the angles, and I'll probably ask this to the applicant, the garage door, at least when I scaled, it looks like 16 feet, not 18 feet. And I'm not sure. There's this dash line that looks like one parking space, and it looks like the size of one parking space. And if that is, two spaces won't fit. But I'm not sure what that dash line was for. You know what the dash line was for? |
| 00:52:51.84 | Adam Blair | I don't recall what the dashed line was for, but when staff scaled the proposed rendering of the garage, I got a measurement of 21 feet in terms of width for the garage entry, and then I got a measurement of just over 19 feet in depth. And so I got numbers that did correlate to adequately sized parking spaces based on Sausalito's parking requirements. |
| 00:53:14.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The 19, it's 9 by 19, so the 19 feet is dimension, so that's clear. So I don't think that's an issue. It's that there are angled walls, and the door doesn't appear to be 21 feet. The door appears to be at best 16, and to get around that, again, I'll ask the applicant because the architect will be able to address that. In the draft resolution, in the order of conditions, typically for a project of this size and this magnitude, we would have a requirement for a construction management plan as a standard condition. And I don't see that. Is there a reason that has not been included? |
| 00:53:19.80 | Adam Blair | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:53:20.12 | Patrice Taylor | Thank you. |
| 00:53:59.42 | Adam Blair | Give me a second to look back through the requirements that typically would be included. Let me see. |
| 00:54:25.73 | Adam Blair | it looks like under the community development department section, that condition was not intentionally, but it was omitted. And that's something that can be added to the draft resolution as an additional condition of approval. |
| 00:54:37.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | OK, I do have that language this evening. Anyways, thank you for bearing through those questions. And I yield to the chair. Thank you. |
| 00:54:45.71 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Feller. |
| 00:54:48.36 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Commissioner Luxembourg, for getting us kicked off here. I think we're seeing some of the same things. Mr. Blair, thank you for always a very thorough presentation and report. I just want to start back with a heightened design review. And you and I had a discussion about this earlier today. you know, again, and back to the comments I made about consistency and fairness and equal application, this really should be a heightened design review as well. And so I think that, you know, if you want to comment on that i uh if you have any other thoughts about that i think that you know that would be consistent with what we typically do here at the commission |
| 00:55:34.51 | Adam Blair | Yeah, thank you for the question. Just a comment. It was my understanding that the city's general practice, going back at least a year to the last few years for reviewing projects where you have proposed floor area ratio that exceeds the maximum allowed. The city would generally process that application through a design review permit, and then basically the variance portion of the application for the floor area would supersede the heightened design review because staff had determined that the variance findings had fulfilled both the purpose of the heightened review because we would still have to assess if the proposed project with the FAR over the maximum would be able to be, I guess, justified in terms of the property being built out. And then in addition, these standards would be a lot stricter because they would have to comply with the strict variance standards, which were set forth by California government code. |
| 00:56:27.77 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:56:28.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I can certainly comment on the last six years, at least. That is not the practice we've had. We've gone to heightened design review, and I would expect to see that here with this one. Back to one of Commissioner Luxembourg's other questions about the ADU, because I saw that as well. I just want to... reaffirm and ask you if that an adu is considered a second dwelling so theoretically you would need four parking spaces because this property is not within uh half a mile walking distance to a primary transit hub which is the ferry um so that you would have to park four spaces here is that correct |
| 00:57:13.22 | Adam Blair | To clarify, the ADU parking exceptions apply not just to major transit stops. It would be to any public transit stop within the city. And so when staff did their assessment for the ADU when it was part of the proposed project, staff determined that the property was within a half-mile walking distance of, I believe it was the Spencer Avenue bus pad, which is close to Highway 101. And so through that, staff had determined that the proposed ADU did not have to provide additional off-street parking. |
| 00:57:42.43 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I think maybe we would need that clarified because I find it hard to believe that that's not more than half a mile away. But, you know, I've not measured it myself. The issue about the garage, you know, and this is just for anyone. looking at this at home or later on, I'm looking at sheet A1.3 And that sheet really shows possibly one car being able to get into the garage. barely kind of up literally up against a wall um and so i i really do question that two cars can get in there within the normal parking you know standard parking um measurements that we use for length and and width so i would just ask um i would ask you if you've if you actually confirmed that or verified that or if you if i'm looking at a wrong sheet you can correct me |
| 00:58:46.35 | Adam Blair | Yeah, when staff assessed the proposed project, as mentioned earlier, got a different measurement. I got a wider measurement of about 21 feet when I scaled it and then even when I measured the depth I did verify that was it was more than 19 feet in depth, but this is certainly something that we can revisit and look into at greater depth to try to assess where the inconsistency may be in terms of the findings that the Commission, I guess you the Commission are making versus what staff made. |
| 00:59:13.72 | Kristina Feller | that on to the landscape plan and the idea of landscape first of all there were some comments in public comment that there are trees that have were significantly pruned or or cut down and may not survive I don't know which and I'm not here to determine that but you this new design is imposing on the site. And so I think it would not be reasonable to think that the existing vegetation on that site would be sufficient. In addition to that, You have we have the landslide task force with all of its findings and DPW who are enforcing new considerations for anti-erosion and and things of that kind on on hillsides and slopes such as this property and there are many of them across south salido as you know and so my question is have you had that discussion with the applicant And of course, they'll have a chance to address this. And have you yourself gone out there and sort of surveyed that slope and sort of the status of the vegetation and so on? |
| 01:00:30.79 | Adam Blair | Yeah, so I guess for the first part, I'm not aware of any trees that have been, I guess, altered or removed. The only tree I would know, at least in connection with the proposed project, the only tree that I do know was recently removed was located on the smaller 149 square foot parcel. I believe that tree was removed through either an emergency removal permit or it did not require a discretionary tree permit. Staff had back and forth correspondence with the applicant for at least a few weeks on this matter. Other than that, having visited the site, I'm not aware of any trees or other vegetation that would be adversely impacted by this proposed project. |
| 01:00:47.58 | Patrice Taylor | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:00:59.19 | Patrice Taylor | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:01:07.96 | Adam Blair | As again, I guess the additions towards the back are very minimal. And so I don't, through my analysis, I did not find that any trees in the rear portion would be impacted by this project. |
| 01:01:16.55 | Kristina Feller | I'll just point you to the public comment, Kay Malol. And if I've said that last name incorrectly, my apologies. But it's the first public comment we have. There are photographs there. I think it's worth looking at. |
| 01:01:28.86 | Nastassya Saad | I'm terribly sorry to interrupt you, Commissioner Fowler. Can we just limit the conversation in the chambers so we can concentrate? Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:01:35.76 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. No, I appreciate that. Thank you. |
| 01:01:35.77 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. |
| 01:01:38.24 | Kristina Feller | And then just two other quick things real quick. And the first one is just a clarification because as we were looking at your zoning table, on the right side, the setback on the right side, I want to make sure that I'm looking... at this correctly or that you said the right, I think you said something that's different in the table and I don't know which one's correct. So on the minimum setbacks on the right side, |
| 01:02:04.61 | Patrice Taylor | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:02:08.53 | Kristina Feller | I think you said three feet 11 inches, but on both, both your staff reports that are the, the amended staff report in the original one, it's three feet, four and a half inches. So maybe I heard it incorrectly and correct me, uh, or, or maybe just tell us which, which it is. What, what is the existing in the proposed? Yeah. |
| 01:02:29.67 | Adam Blair | Yeah, that three foot four and I believe it was like a quarter inch measurement is not correct. I'm actually not sure why that was in there. It's supposed to be for the right side. It's about 10 inches for existing because of that corner that flanks out from the garage, the existing garage. And then the new right side setback would be three feet, 11 inches. |
| 01:02:30.08 | Kristina Feller | that's... Thank you. |
| 01:02:49.70 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:02:50.01 | Adam Blair | So those numbers would need to be amended. Thank you. |
| 01:02:52.12 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:02:52.66 | Adam Blair | Yeah. |
| 01:02:52.91 | Kristina Feller | All right. Thank you for that. And then this is the last thing that I wanted to ask you about is back to this February 21st, 2022 investigation of undocumented construction additions to 324 Sausalito Boulevard. That was done by Thomas Ahrens at the time. So I wanted you just to quickly maybe... dive into a little more detail. There's quite a lot here It looks like some of it had been possibly permitted, but it was never finaled or closed out or confirmed, and maybe some work that was not permitted and so on. And so I want you to maybe address some of this and also just confirm for all of us here that this proposed project as we're looking at it this evening will completely address and close out any issues or loose ends from all this undocumented work or unpermitted or whatever it might be. |
| 01:03:57.30 | Adam Blair | Mm-hmm. And I guess for the project aspect, that is correct. The intent of this proposed project is to correct all of these issues identified in the letter. Mr. Ahrens wrote that letter, I believe, when the property was in between owners. This was prior to the current property owners purchasing the property. It is my understanding that the property owners worked... Back and forth or worked, I guess, a lot with their architect, the project applicant to come up with a design solution that was able to fix all of these issues. Because as you saw, the list was quite extensive while also improving the residents and making it more livable for the current property owners. Mr. Aaron's identified that the total square footage of spaces that had been altered. During his assessment, it was about 1,237 square feet. But he did clarify in my presentation, I noted that 1,065 square feet was modified without permits. And that's because Mr. Ahrens provided a breakdown that the only permitted work that had been done from the time the last, I guess, building permit was issued for, I believe it was interior alterations. And his assessment was about that difference of 172 square feet for like an entry foyer. And so if you were to take that 172 minus the 1237 that he put, you would get about 1,065 square feet of work that was done illegally without permits. |
| 01:05:21.19 | Kristina Feller | Thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. |
| 01:05:24.97 | Matthew Mandich | Chair Saad, do you mind if I just jump in for a second to address some of the issues that were discussed there by Commissioner Feller and Commissioner Luxembourg, excuse me. So I just wanted to, on behalf of staff and the department, address the issue with the heightened review and the variance and say that I do want to echo Adam's thoughts that there have been some permits in the last couple years since I've been here that have in conjunction with a variance not required heightened review and I'm happy to lean on your six years of experience on that. That was a discussion that we did have internally and Adam was directed not to include those findings in this permit. That's why it was marked complete notice and brought to hearing. So as a team member, I'm very happy to take the planning commission's coaching on that and we will be happy to take that forward and include those findings. Thank you. |
| 01:05:27.67 | Kristina Feller | to address some of the issues. |
| 01:06:10.84 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:06:10.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:11.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Chair Sott, can I have a point of information on one of the questions that Commissioner Feller had? So my understanding, Adam, just so you can research this, but we've had this discussion on the dais before. Any property within a half a mile, you're talking about bus stops. That particular provision requires walking distance. So when you do measure it, it's not air distance. It's not drawing a circle on a map. You have to map it for the roads, because we had something up on George or something. And although it was very close to Spencer, you couldn't literally get there within a half a mile. So as you measure, make sure you're measuring it on the roads. |
| 01:06:51.61 | Adam Blair | Correct. When I did my measurement, I used Google Maps and I did a walking directions. I guess basically I calculated the walking directions from that property to adjacent transit stops. And I found that the Spencer bus pad, I believe it was, was 0.4 miles walking distance going through the windy roads up. from the property. |
| 01:07:12.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, good. So you've already done that. I appreciate it. Back to the chair. |
| 01:07:17.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you for the great questions. |
| 01:07:21.39 | Andrew Junius | I don't really have any questions at this moment, but I am kind of concerned that are we headed just to continue this? It sounds like there's a bunch of, I mean, I actually tend to agree with staff's original decision, and I would be fine moving forward without heightened design Ruby, I don't think that's gonna be the majority position here. I mean, I know we've opened a hearing. We've got to have public comment and all this stuff. But, you know, maybe we just move it along if we're going to continue this anyway and give staff direction and not spend the next three hours thinking we're going to come to a decision when it's basically already looks like we're not going to be able to get to a decision tonight. So I just wanted to throw that out there. |
| 01:07:58.16 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, thank you, Vice Chair. I think, you know, mid-hearing, we'll definitely hear from the applicant, and I think there are some other potential questions here that might warrant some feedback to both the applicant and to staff that ideally we can work out here. So if we end in a continuance, we can at least have an easier time next time. So I don't, those were excellent questions. I don't have any further questions for you, Adam, so I'll just look one more time since I know it's a complicated topic this evening, Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 01:08:28.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, I have a response to what just got said, but it really is more for when we bring it back to the diet. Yeah, maybe we'll hold tight there. |
| 01:08:35.24 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, maybe we'll hold tight there. Okay, thank you very much. I'll turn it back to you for the applicant at this time. Do we? Would you like to introduce the applicant for us? |
| 01:08:49.02 | Adam Blair | Yeah, the applicant coming forth is Matilda and she works with DNM Architecture. |
| 01:08:54.57 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. You're going to have 15 minutes for your presentation. If you could just state your name for the record and speak into the microphone, we'll have people on Zoom here tonight. And if we stop you, the time won't be used against you. And you are more than welcome to reserve some time for rebuttal or other comment. Maria, do we have 15 minutes on the clock somewhere? Yes. OK, thank you very much. Go ahead. |
| 01:09:13.36 | Mathilde Manacorda | us. Hello, my good evening, commissioners. I am Mathilde Manacorda from DNM Architecture, and I will be representing our clients tonight. We're here to present the project at 324 Sausalito Boulevard, which is a thoughtful proposal to correct the past issues, improve safety, and request approval of a few interlinked items to bring this home into compliance and prepare it for long-term livability. Next slide. The proposal includes a design review permit, a variance request, a lot line adjustment and an encouragement agreement. The site's background sheds light on the goals of this proposal. Next slide. This home has a complex history, including unpermitted and partially permitted work completed by previous owners. It has remained vacant for nearly three years as the current owners have worked closely with the Community Development Department to resolve all outstanding issues. The commitment has been to make things right, pausing use of the home entirely in order to develop a safe, legal and compliant home. Next slide. This proposal includes a new entry for improved access, a roof replacement to correct unsafe conditions, and legalization of existing space for a future ADU. Next slide. Understanding the property's history helps frame the constraints we're working with. The home sits on a steep substandard lot, which presents significant safety and circulation challenges. Currently, residents must exit the garage, walk along the public street, and access the home with exposed outdoor wood stairs. Additionally, the roof framing was done without permits and is questionable. There are areas where we and our engineers do not understand how the roof is supported. Next slide. Given these challenges, here is what we're proposing to address them comprehensively. a new roof, an internal stair connection between levels, and eventual conversion of the upper level into a one-bedroom ADU. Next slide. These are the existing plans. Next slide. And this is what we are proposing. There are no major exterior additions, just minor massing changes and a small entry that encroaches slightly into the public right of way. As part of the long-term vision for this property, a key component is the future creation of an ADU. This brings us to the variance request. Due to the required roof work next slide. Due to the required roof work, the ADU is classified as new instead of a conversion or legalization of space, which triggers the height restriction. Next slide. Functionally, it is still an interior ADU that already exists that is being improved. We are asking for an FAR variance to increase the ceiling height of the space with the intent to convert it to an ADU under a future permit. The owner is also open to filing the EDU application as a condition of the variance. It's also important to note that once the ADU is complete, the goal is to have the primary dwellings FAR fall below the maximum allowed. The site has unique challenges. Enforcing the zoning literally would make safe access impossible and limit the property's potential. The proposed entry resolves safety concerns and will not harm views or privacy. It simply brings the property in line with others in the neighborhood in terms of usability. It does not create more floor area. It addresses real safety and access issues and enables the long-term goal of creating a housing unit in line with the city's general plan. |
| 01:13:04.22 | Patrice Taylor | and it enables us to |
| 01:13:10.47 | Mathilde Manacorda | Beyond code compliance, we've been thoughtful with the design and how it fits the neighborhood. It complements surrounding homes in both form and materials. Next slide. The height is almost unchanged, about a foot taller on the main roof and five foot taller on the garage. Views are preserved. Vertical wood siding and a curved stairway help the addition fit in. It also improves the home's visual character safety and functionality. Next slide. We are also requesting an encroachment for the garage and a small 50 square foot landing to connect to the street. In fact, there is an existing set of steps in the same location. The small street facing landing is necessary for the safe pedestrian access. It's on a stretch of the road with no sidewalk and does not interfere with traffic views or the city's ability to make future improvements. Next slide. Finally, we are requesting a lot merger to absorb a small remnant parcel of 149 square feet. It brings the property with better alignment of the code for standard lots, though not completely, and has no effect on development potential or neighboring properties. Next slide. This proposal improves and brings a long problematic property into compliance, increasing safety and accessibility, and enabling future housing in a thoughtful and modest way. We respectfully request your approval of the design review, variance, encroachment, and lot line adjustment. Thank you. I'm available for any questions. |
| 01:14:50.48 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you, Maria. You've got nine minutes and 20 seconds left after. We're going to go ahead and ask you some questions, so if you could please stay up there with us. Commissioner Foward, let me start with you. |
| 01:15:01.66 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you for coming tonight and presenting. I guess I do have a couple questions for you. One is back to the garage. Yes. the sheet that I referenced earlier, A1.3, it doesn't appear that more than one car could really get into... that garage as it's sort of re-envisioned. Can you maybe comment on that? |
| 01:15:32.22 | Mathilde Manacorda | I believe that the current garage configuration is not, a standard garage that is, uh, I mean, on a two car garage, uh, with two separate doors, it's one door. And depending on how you enter from the garage, it could be, um, argued that you could fit the two cars. I don't know. I don't remember the dash line that you mentioned earlier, um, on the plans. And I can definitely look into that to see if maybe that's something we admitted showing in the plans. |
| 01:16:10.27 | Kristina Feller | I think it would be helpful because, you know, again, there's some standard measurements for a car size. Forget the make and model of the car. Absolutely. You know, and based on your drawing of something that Commissioner Luxembourg had brought up, it does not appear that two can get in there. So we, of course, want to need to verify that. |
| 01:16:19.97 | Mathilde Manacorda | Absolutely. |
| 01:16:31.45 | Kristina Feller | So that would be really helpful. And then, you know, I want to go back to, I mean, have you guys retained a landscape architect or is that something you guys do yourselves and do you have any thoughts or ideas about the treatment of the property beyond what's there today? |
| 01:16:49.69 | Mathilde Manacorda | So we do not have a landscape architect because, like Adam mentioned earlier, there will be no changes to the current landscape. We are using helical piers to minimize the soil disruption. And the great beam that will be connecting those helical piers will be placed so that it avoids the roots of existing trees that are there. And we will consult an arborist, um, to make sure that the trees that are there are untouched and preserved and, um. As much as possible during this renovation. |
| 01:17:28.33 | Kristina Feller | And I don't know if you've talked to an arborist yet. I mean, I want to make sure there are no undesirable species also, because that part of South Slita Boulevard sometimes can have the undesirable species that, you know, is something that Southern Marin Fire usually publishes and updates on an annual basis. And we've had to deal with that before. So I just want to make sure that obviously what is going to be there is fully acceptable. So did you speak to an arborist? |
| 01:17:57.11 | Mathilde Manacorda | I'm, I'm not sure I haven't personally, but I would have to check and get back to you. And if we haven't, I think that is definitely something that we Um, would like to do moving forward. to ensure that |
| 01:18:09.19 | Kristina Feller | Okay. |
| 01:18:11.21 | Mathilde Manacorda | that the property stays. |
| 01:18:11.26 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And I'm curious why, I mean, we keep talking about this Thank you. ADU that's not part of technically part of the application today, but there's an intent |
| 01:18:18.30 | Mathilde Manacorda | That's nice. |
| 01:18:24.14 | Kristina Feller | to put an ADU there. Is there, what was the methodology behind not including it tonight? I'm just, I'm curious. Yes. |
| 01:18:33.03 | Mathilde Manacorda | The code prohibits an ADU from being on the third story because I think it has a maximum height of 24 feet. The way that the property currently is laid out is the main level, the main living level of the primary dwelling is on the third. lowest floor And then you have the second level, which is the bedrooms. And then on the third level, which is at street level, that was an illegal unit. Um, And so putting the ADU under that 20 foot height limit would entail flipping the entire house around and having to rearrange the entire plan to accommodate that height restriction. So the, the, the goal was to keep the ADU or the... a future ADU in the current location of this illegal unit, but permitting it later so that we would meet that interior conversion and we could have the ADU in that space as a converted space. |
| 01:19:47.42 | Adam Blair | And again, to clarify, staff had numerous, I guess, back and forth correspondence with the applicant regarding this issue. And ultimately, again, staff had determined based on the scope of the proposed project, the extensive demolition done to the third floor would not have met the criteria for an interior ADU because interior ADUs are for converted existing as built space. the proposed project would basically be redoing the whole third floor and so that existing as-built space. The proposed project would basically be redoing the whole third floor, and so that existing as-built space will be gone. And so an attached ADU was appropriate because it's essentially being attached on top of the existing residence, and per ADU regulations, the maximum height limit for an attached ADU would be 25 feet, which posed a big challenge to the applicant in terms of making that work given the steep slope of the lot. And so that is why the, after back and forth correspondence, the applicant indicated that they would like to pursue the ADU later, maybe when the space is, the new space is constructed and then they could just convert that existing space into an interior ADU. |
| 01:20:53.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you both. And the last question I have is, what kind of outreach did you do or the applicant do with neighbors? Because we did get a... the majority of the comments we got were not necessarily supportive. And so I wasn't sure if you had already engaged in conversations with them or gone over plans or what that dynamic was like. So I just wanted to give you an comment on that. |
| 01:21:22.88 | Mathilde Manacorda | I have not reached out to the neighbors personally, but I believe our client has and seemed to have gotten good feedback on the proposed design. So it comes as a surprise. |
| 01:21:37.54 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:21:37.56 | Mathilde Manacorda | Thank you. |
| 01:21:37.61 | Kristina Feller | Do you know if your client spoke to the folks that spoke up against this project? |
| 01:21:44.70 | Nastassya Saad | Would you like to approach? approach. |
| 01:21:46.61 | Kristina Feller | Excuse me, ma'am, but if you'd like to speak, we need you at the microphone. And the reason is that people are on Zoom at home, and they can't hear, unfortunately, unless you're close to the microphone. So thank you for coming up. |
| 01:22:00.19 | Patty Glovsky | Um, My name is Patty Glovsky. I'm the owner. I'm going to just tell you a couple of things. Um, We bought this property. I think it's very important to understand. We had heard there was unpermitted work. We did not create that that unpermitted work. And to that end, we talked extensively to the city. We've worked for over three years with the city to get this Project right into work with David Marla my husband very badly wanted to to. move into this property, and he's been battling cancer, and on Sunday evening he died. |
| 01:22:37.62 | Kristina Feller | So I've got to go. |
| 01:22:38.01 | Patty Glovsky | So let me make this perfectly clear. We have been at the hospital on and off for several months. I will tell you for a fact that I did reach out to neighbors. I was at the hospital, I repeat. I didn't get response from a number of people, Sandra Bushmaker in particular, who did comment. I take issue with her comments because I was at the house, I talked to her, and she was rushed off to walk her dog. I told her my husband was at the hospital, she told me she was a renter, and as a renter she had no rights to make any comments. I was very upset that she actually then |
| 01:22:38.02 | Kristina Feller | So... |
| 01:23:23.47 | Patty Glovsky | created comments because I found that ridiculous. She has my phone number. She has... my email address, and she did not reach out to me. And given I was at the hospital, on and off, over months, she could have reached out to me. She did not. So I take issue with that. |
| 01:23:44.31 | Kristina Feller | I'm sure I speak for all of us. We're very sorry, ma'am, for your loss. And I will tell you. |
| 01:23:49.81 | Patty Glovsky | And I will tell you that the amount of money and time we put into this to work through this process, which has taken far too long. is an issue. and in getting us into the house. Okay. |
| 01:24:03.28 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you for that. I didn't have any further questions. I just wanted you to comment on whether you could spoke to any of the other neighbors, and I'm talking specifically those that had commented. So I think we got the answer, and I appreciate it. |
| 01:24:09.82 | Patty Glovsky | Well, you did ask about |
| 01:24:20.03 | Patty Glovsky | You did ask about an arborist and landscaping. I'd like to address that. |
| 01:24:25.01 | Kristina Feller | Sure. |
| 01:24:26.14 | Patty Glovsky | First of all, I have talked to arborists. I've talked to three. And secondly, I talked to the fire department who came and we had a consultation. This property around this this slope everywhere is covered by ivy everywhere. So you can't single out this dwelling. That being said, my husband and I cared a great deal about doing the right thing with this property. And I would like one of the things that the fire department recommended is clearing a 10 foot ring around the property. We intended to do that, but we wanted to finish the dwelling, see where we're at. My neighborhood suggested maybe we put a stair. into the landscape that goes from our house there. You saw on the drawing that started one down my land. My neighbor who lives below is here. We had thought we would continue that down to make it easier for her to come up to the house, me to go down. get into town. We have thought about a lot of things over this period This was not done lightly. We've worked very hard with David. We covered absolutely every angle. including the garage. It does fit two cars. The way it is built right now, the lip of the outside covers a little bit too much, and you could actually fit barrels in. If you widen it on the footprint, you can... fit into cars. So we have looked, we have put extensive amount of time and money into this. We have thought put a lot of money and time into how to create problems, how to alleviate the problems of this property, We are very excited about this property and the design because the amount of time to sort through what we faced when we bought the property. we wanted to correct. Thank you. |
| 01:26:23.10 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:26:23.37 | Patty Glovsky | And we I... in the amount of time you have to do this kind of Designed. |
| 01:26:31.78 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:26:32.76 | Patty Glovsky | you really work through all the issues. I think if you spent the time, and I'd be happy to take you through the project physically, I think you'd be extremely impressed with what we did. to turn around the property. And I think it will add a lot of value to this neighborhood where people don't put enough money into their property and I we also to that end intend to put Um, at least the current thinking is cement siding on the house to make it fireproof. And so there have been tremendous amount of thinking to make this a a highly a design take something that doesn't look particularly attractive, but has a lot of potential and make this a real asset to the community. |
| 01:27:22.25 | Kristina Feller | appreciate those comments very much and thank you for taking on a project Thank you. |
| 01:27:27.38 | Patty Glovsky | in more ways. We think that the city should thank us because the amount of work and time to really make this an attractive building, we think we're doing the city a favor. |
| 01:27:27.50 | Kristina Feller | I know. |
| 01:27:33.22 | Kristina Feller | out. |
| 01:27:39.19 | Kristina Feller | I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Chair, no further questions. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. |
| 01:27:41.74 | Patty Glovsky | Thank you. |
| 01:27:42.04 | Nastassya Saad | you. |
| 01:27:42.33 | Patty Glovsky | Thank you. |
| 01:27:42.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:27:42.48 | Patty Glovsky | Thank you. |
| 01:27:42.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg, question for the applicant. |
| 01:27:48.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, can we bring back up her presentation, please? Matilda, first I want to thank you for your presentation. I appreciate your work. I just have a couple specific design questions. So if we go a couple more to the one with the keep going. go back yeah that one that one we'll start with that one that one there so if i look if you look at where the garage has those windows why i don't understand i mean it looks nice it's an excellent design but given that if you made it flat at that point with the other roof, this whole issue with the 40 feet seems to go away. What is in that space? Is there anything in that space other than the windows? |
| 01:28:22.16 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:28:43.00 | Mathilde Manacorda | So the garage footprint is actually relatively small and we added this extra height so that it would provide a little bit more storage inside that space. Given that we're not increasing the height by... a significant amount it's about five feet higher than the main uh house's roof so the the goal was just to create more storage and to give some visual appeal also to the front of the house instead of just having a flat roof this roof also follows the existing slope of sauselita boulevard |
| 01:29:21.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, but it obviously is creating this need for this exception, which would go away. And this exception is problematic. But I'm sort of in my mind, for the findings, it's problematic. So if it functionally can be. changed and meet code than Some of the variances and some of the exceptions completely go away. So I just I flag that for you. Let me go on to the next one. Can we go to the next slide. Go to the one that has the garage plan, the actual plan. keep going yes right here so it's very back one go back one um So on the right side, you have a dashed line in that drawing. You see that little dashed line inside the garage? Yes. And the best I could do off my screen is that's about 9 by 19. That's the size of a parking space, a legal parking space. So whether or not you can fit two cars is not the question. You have to have two 9 by 19 foot spaces. And I believe I don't know what else that line is for if it's not for that. That's why Commissioner Feller and I are both asking that question. |
| 01:30:41.73 | Mathilde Manacorda | I would have to go back into our plans and look into this because I can't see exactly that dimension right now off the screen. But I. that might just be a graphic, uh, scaling problem on our end. And I would have to go back into it and, and, Get back to you about that. |
| 01:31:04.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I looked at all the dimensions. There is a dimension that shows the length is 19 feet. So I think the length is fine. It's the width that's of issue. And so, and the wall has changed. I think you've changed the wall, the configuration of the garage a little bit, correct? |
| 01:31:09.77 | Mathilde Manacorda | Okay. |
| 01:31:10.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:22.13 | Mathilde Manacorda | Yes. So there was originally, um, if you go to the previous slide, you can see that the garage. Um, winged out to the side. So we're not changing the footprint of the garage itself where the car can park. We're just removing that existing little triangle on the side that was also, I think, I believe in the side yard setback. |
| 01:31:45.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It was in the what? |
| 01:31:46.83 | Mathilde Manacorda | Side yard setback. |
| 01:31:48.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Side yard setback. I mean, we like to make things better, but if it's existing and it can make the parking work, then we would rather make sure you have two 9x19 spaces than take away something that helps make the spaces work. So if you could, I mean, I have a feeling that you're going to have a little bit of time here. So if for some reason you do have to modify it, depending on what the commission does, dimensioning the spaces on the plan would be helpful. |
| 01:32:05.85 | Unknown | So. |
| 01:32:18.57 | Mathilde Manacorda | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:32:22.09 | Mathilde Manacorda | Mm-hmm. Absolutely. Can I go back to your previous comment about the question about the garage height? I believe that it's not a variance to increase the height of the garage. For parking, there's an exception for parking for the height requirements in the code. Which is not... I don't believe it's a variant. |
| 01:32:45.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's not a variance, but it is an exception that has to be voted on by the commission. And we have to make a series of findings, one of which is some wording that makes no sense, which is not higher than an uphill out, which it's not. But this problem completely goes away, and we don't have to make any findings if we can get it to comply. So it's an exception rather than a variance but any less exceptions and less variances we have to do the better because there's a very high standard for making all those items so that's that's why I'm raising the issue and if it's not part physically possible it's not but but it seemed to me it was a nice design idea it is a nice design idea but if it can be to code that would that might be better so it's what I was I'm suggesting |
| 01:33:10.31 | Patrice Taylor | And the less. |
| 01:33:35.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Those are my questions at this time. |
| 01:33:38.68 | Nastassya Saad | BEING ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE Thank you, Commissioner Luxembourg. Vice Chair, any questions for the applicant? Thank you. I don't actually have any further questions either. So you've got nine minutes and 20 seconds. If you'd like to take a seat, we're going to open it up for public comment, and then you'll have a chance to respond as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Acting Director Mandage, can I turn it to you for public comment? |
| 01:33:53.85 | Patrice Taylor | Thank you. |
| 01:33:53.87 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:34:02.15 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, Chair. We're now opening up for public comment. I've not received any speaker cards from the chamber. However, looking to the chamber for public comment. Seeing none. Oh, seeing one. OK, please approach the podium. And please state your name. |
| 01:34:26.05 | Patrice Taylor | My name is Patrice Taylor and I live downslope from Patty and Bob's house. And I just wanted to say that I fully approve and look forward to seeing the house renovated. It definitely has not been taken care of over the last year, so I'm very excited to have them come in and bring it up to its full potential. Thank you. Patty and Bob have been very open with me about all their plans. He encouraged my questions, introduced me to their contractor so I could talk with him as well. And I feel very confident about the job that they have planned out and about his competence and ability to bring it to fruition. So I just want to make sure you know that there is a neighbor who's fully in favor of it. Thank you. |
| 01:35:13.42 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. |
| 01:35:18.70 | Matthew Mandich | That does it for the chamber. Looking to the Zoom app and seeing one. Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 01:35:32.54 | Sandra Bushmaker | Give me a second to unmute myself. Thank you very much. for this presentation. Let me just start off by some quick things. These are a little disjointed. I've lived across the street, the red garage door that you saw in the. a number of the pictures for eight years. I have observed tenants in and out of this residence. There are yes, two cars can park in the garage. The Spencer bus pad is 1.3 miles approximately from the front door here. So it is, and it's all uphill to get there. So let's see, I have received no notification from staff. with regard to this project which was concerning since I'm immediately across the street and you'll notice in your packet to you have a letter from the landlord of this property who also lives at 319, I meant 317. With regard to having any presentations of drawings or discussions, they've all been on the fly, if at all. And that's been unfortunate because I do know a number of the news. neighbors had not seen any of the renderings or the drawings and I certainly hadn't except for one quick telephone exposure while I was taking my dog out for his morning duty. All right, so that was unfortunate because as you saw in my letter, I posted two pictures. One was the first set of, story polls which were unobjectionable. The real issue I have with the current story polls is that increase in the slope of the roof. We were first told by the applicant that this was just going to be a flat garage roof and an interior stairwell. Well, imagine my surprise at seeing the current story polls. It does impact my view, which you can see from the pictures that I included in my package. But I think that the main thing is if we could reduce that. slope on that garage roof, that would be make this project much more acceptable. I do have a Yeah. conflict or I should say I disagree with the calculations in the Sausalito Municipal Code 10.40.060, subsection B and C, with that increased slope. in the in the garage door. Ceiling. garage door at the ceiling. I would just like clarification, and I think I understand this, and I'm just confirming that the ADU uh, which was occupied with the prior tenants, is not part of this package. |
| 01:38:34.15 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you for your comments. |
| 01:38:39.73 | Nastassya Saad | acting director, manage anything, anyone else on zoom? |
| 01:38:43.71 | Matthew Mandich | at the Zoom application and seeing none. Back to you, Chair. |
| 01:38:47.48 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. We will close the public comment portion for the evening for the project and turn it back to you. You do have 9 minutes and 20 seconds. You're welcome to use it how you wish, either to respond to public comment or continue with any form of your presentation. |
| 01:39:04.59 | Mathilde Manacorda | Thank you. I just want to address that the slope of the we are open to adjusting the slope of the roof of the garage to ensure that it. Um, I think it's a really good thing to do. I think it's a really good thing to do. possibly providing a little bit more storage in that space if that is something that commissioners are open to and um if the community members are also open to that Um, |
| 01:39:41.97 | Patty Glovsky | on this. |
| 01:39:42.40 | Mathilde Manacorda | Thank you. |
| 01:39:42.42 | Patrice Taylor | Thank you. |
| 01:39:44.77 | Patty Glovsky | like to. |
| 01:39:45.07 | Patrice Taylor | Thank you. |
| 01:39:45.15 | Patty Glovsky | Add two things because you asked if there were trees that were unfavorable in the area, and I would like to add that we did talk to the arborist about that. This property has two bay trees. They come from underneath. We do not have any other trees on the property. The tree that was cut down was actually my neighbor's tree, and he gave permission because it was, the arborist said it was going to fall on the house, so we did that so that we could preserve the house. Thank you. There was one other point I was going to make that I don't recall, but... um, I don't recall it this morning. |
| 01:40:30.06 | Nastassya Saad | You've got nothing but time. We're happy to wait. |
| 01:40:32.78 | Patty Glovsky | I don't know if I'll remember. I don't know if I'll remember. That's all right. |
| 01:40:38.02 | Nastassya Saad | That's all right. Any closing comments? |
| 01:40:41.79 | Patty Glovsky | No, we've put a lot of work into it. Oh, I do remember the other comment. Thank you. In the garage, the floor. slopes a bit. One of the reasons for the The height is because it gives more space and height to the car. And that is what you want. It compensates for a slight slope in the garage space. And that is actually useful. So You have to understand part of the reason. I do know that I was told, I do know that the view from Sandra Bushmaker's house, she looks down onto the house. This does not rise above her view at all. But so the question you might have is, how much skyline is she supposed to have? I think that's the question. Because, again, her her viewing place is way up above the house. And you need to see that to understand it that how much she looks down on the house. Thank you. |
| 01:41:53.89 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you to everyone who participated. We are going to bring it back up now to the dais for discussion. |
| 01:42:02.20 | Adam Blair | Sorry, can staff make just a general clarification for the record? Yeah, thank you. Just wanted to clarify for the record that – |
| 01:42:03.92 | Nastassya Saad | that Jen for the first time. |
| 01:42:09.98 | Adam Blair | I had originally misspoke about the walking distance being from 324 Sausalito to the Spencer bus pad. I'd done this analysis many months ago, and so I was failing to recall. The measurement was actually taken from 324 Sausalito Boulevard, and it went downhill to the bus stop located on 2nd Street, and I believe that's Main. I can't remember. Yeah, on 2nd Street and Main Street was the bus stop that was used for the original calculation before the ADU was pulled from the proposal. |
| 01:42:40.06 | Nastassya Saad | And can you confirm, is that the point four that you were mentioning on record? |
| 01:42:46.10 | Adam Blair | Yes. |
| 01:42:47.17 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, bring it back up to the dais here. |
| 01:42:54.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | If I could start, I would appreciate the start. Okay, first of all, well, usually the vice chair comes second to last. We know. It's fine. So, first of all, this is an excellent project. I mean, we have a lot of questions this evening, but I don't want anybody to get the idea that, yes, these folks are trying to rectify past problems of none of their doing, and that's a good solution. I think there are some issues that have been raised that can easily be addressed I'm gonna start with heightened design review first of all I asked staff why they thought that what was the history because I've been on for four years and we've never not done. And there were two projects that they mentioned to me, one of which was on Central Avenue, which was a variance without design review. So if there is no design review, then therefore, there's no heightened design review. The second one was on West Street, which was a floor that existed that Ronin's and other problems were happening. And all they did was enclose it. It was an existing space that was there, but it was open to the air. And so they didn't change anything. They didn't really build anything. And so in that case, maybe heightened design review was appropriate for technical reasons, but that's not the same thing here. Every other case that we've had has required heightened design review. I want to, it's not our purview, but I will say it anyways. I would suggest that whatever we do on this, we strongly ask the CDD director and the city manager to waive any additional fees for heightened design review in this particular case. But the city attorney has indicated to me in an email that this is city attorney Rudin, has indicated that it should have heightened design review and therefore and and that heightened design review doesn't need additional notice provisions because there's design review and heightened design review is included within it so why I'm not sure why we charge extra for that it does take extra work I get that. But I don't think the fees should be a reason why we either have it or don't. It either is required or it's not. So on the first side, I think one thing that has to happen is we need this heightened design review. And we heard from staff that they can complete this in two days. So if we can get that done, then we can solve that problem. The garage either has two 9 by 19 spaces or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, maybe they can adjust the wall so it does, and that would solve that problem. Because if we're trying to rectify things that we're building correctly in the past, the less variances and exceptions that we can do, the better. And if it can't be done, then the city attorneys indicated we can get a finding for varying things on heightened design review if we wanted to. I think we need a landscape plan, even if it codifies what's there, even if it has very little landscaping, but at least it explains what plants are there, maybe what might be added, maybe where they're going to put in rocks or stone to meet the new 0-5 foot requirements of the fire department that the fire department told us about that are being considered. But a plan should be—it have to be fancy but I think we need a plan I think they strongly should consider reducing the height so that we don't have to even deal with this exception on this uphill problem because it seems the only reason for that exception is the shed roof on the garage. So if that can be built without doing that, and it sounds like that might be a possibility, I think that would be useful. |
| 01:43:05.36 | Nastassya Saad | We know. It's fine. |
| 01:47:12.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then the next thing is we need to I have the wording we've used on others We need a requirement for construction management plan and I have the standard one But we might want to go also Address dust and other problems that have come in on other projects I would like a re-evaluation on this whole ADU issue if they're going to build the ADU And they're building the space to do it and all we're trying to do is jump through hoops because if they build it now and then come back later it will be compliant. But we need a variance to make the square footage work but the ADU can't be built till later but then the thing is going to be compliant. So I'm like figure it out. We'll get a variance for the height on the ADU rather than taking a variance to the FAR. I mean, it seems crazy that we're doing this in two steps. If they're really intending to build an ADU, it would seem a variance for an ADU, which is a housing priority for the city, is better than giving them a variance for an FAR. But I, you know, especially if the parking isn't an issue. If the parking's an issue, that changes that. But if it is truly within half a mile and they're going to build it anyways, then going through all these steps seems a little crazy. Anyway, so those are my thoughts. I think that I'm not going to make a motion at this point, but it seems like if this could be handled in a few days and then we have a meeting in a few weeks and we can just resolve it at the next meeting. But I don't think we can write heightened design review conditions on the fly. I tried to get the heightened design reviews drafted in anticipation of this after I found out from the attorney, but that wasn't viable. So anyways, those are just my thoughts at the moment. |
| 01:49:05.03 | Nastassya Saad | for you. Thank you very much for kicking us off. Commissioner Feller. |
| 01:49:09.98 | Kristina Feller | So I would like to make a motion to continue this project to a date uncertain. And I'd like to then get into some of the specifics and comments and capture some of your thoughts. I have some of my own, but I'd like to just put a motion on the floor so we can move this forward. |
| 01:49:27.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I amend that motion to a date certain? |
| 01:49:31.61 | Kristina Feller | Well, I think we have to include the applicant, their architect, and staff on that. I mean, staff might be able to turn certain things around. But there are some additional comments that I have that would need to be potentially addressed as well if there's some concurrence here, which there might not be. But I'd like to throw them out anyway. But I would like to make a motion to continue this. |
| 01:49:55.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll second that motion in the understanding that when we get to a discussion on the motion, if we can get information from the applicant after you've identified the issues out there of when that could happen, that we maybe do it to a date certain. |
| 01:50:09.77 | Kristina Feller | Okay. All right. So we have a second on, okay. So motion and seconded. So I agree about pretty much everything that you've said. I think the issue with the ADU is that that can be ministerial, so that can be approved later. But of course, much of what they're doing is with the anticipation of doing that. So there's a certain element that they need to make sure works here. This project, this building, this residence needs a lot of help. So I really do mean it when I thanked the applicant for taking on a project, no doubt about it, particularly walking into it eyes wide open with all of these issues that became clear in this February 21st, 2022 City of Sausalito memo. So I want to put that out there as well. I'm having some difficulty with findings 2, 3, 4, and I think the 11 and 12. So 11 and 12, just to start maybe going backwards, is the – 11 is the proposed design preserve protected trees and significant natural features etc the other number 12 is is the heightened design review as it relates to two three and four number two is the proposed architecture and site design and the number three is the proposed project is consistent with the general scale of structures and then four is the proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of public views so that that goes back to sort of some of this issue with what Commissioner Luxenberg and I are talking about. So those are the areas that I have. I'm struggling a little bit. I think that the architecture is a little bit, the vernacular is a little foreign to some of the other um uh properties in that area there is a mishmash there uh very very clearly but um you know i'm not this this looks rather imposing maybe that'll be different with the landscape plan but but right now i'm not seeing how this really kind of fits the character uh in general or takes any cues from any vernacular um you know architectural ideas from from the area so those are the areas that i would that I would be struggling with. In addition to that, I would really We have had the most success with applicants when they engage with their neighbors, bar none. Every time that there's communication and an outreach and that way, there's far more success. So I would encourage the applicant to do that and staff If you want to be part of that as well, that would be great. Um, This garage is still giving me a little trouble. I'm just not seeing on the actual architectural drawings where two cars based on our parking standards fit. Now, today or last year, two cars might be there, but it might be like a mini and another small car. I don't know. But we have parking standards, so it's sort of agnostic in terms of what brand car happens to fit there. So those are some of my comments. And so I'd be interested in what everyone else's thoughts are on that. |
| 01:53:33.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Vice Chair. |
| 01:53:36.25 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Well, I'm certainly going to be in a minority of one here, but I do want to start off by saying, I mean, certainly thank you for taking this project on, but I mean, on behalf of the city, I'm, I mean, I'm sorry. I apologize for this horrific process you're being put through. three years and it took three years because the code it's like, this is the three years. Doesn't really our fault. The three years is the fact that the city's codes are beyond complicated, not the staff's fault either. We've got a code that. nobody can understand, nobody can agree on. There's obviously, you know, I can't believe we're here And we're still going to be continued because not only do we believe we have to have design review, but we have to have heightened design review. which, you know, I've said this numerous times in the past that, I don't see the difference there. The findings are the same kind of words in different forms, and it just seems like overkill and, you know, a lot of time spent on a lot of subjective, you know, design ideas and concepts. |
| 01:54:29.02 | Unknown | the |
| 01:54:44.07 | Andrew Junius | I mean, I really think in the end, You know, we really want the best project here. And I think that's what you brought forward. And the reason why you're asking for variances and exceptions that the code provides for is that it makes the best project so we could go the route of forcing you to squish your project into a much less desirable project for you and a much less attractive home by just complying with the code and you know and then then it wouldn't be anything special you created something special out of almost nothing i mean this is a i a honestly it's a strange home on one of the steepest lots I've ever seen in Sausalito. So your challenges are extraordinary. And I think. and the, you know, the, the issue about the garage and the, The single design feature that the architect has brought forward, the slope, which matches the slope of the street. I mean, that's really neat. And the fact that because a neighbor across the street doesn't want to see it, it's not blocking her view, but she just doesn't want to see the change. She doesn't want to look at something different. She doesn't want to make us look at a slightly different, larger building. We're going to squish that down and make you take it away so that we have a little less process, even though we're going to continue this for a couple of weeks or a month or whatever it's going to be tonight. I just it's so frustrating. I mean, I'm really, really sorry that you're going through this. It seems just I mean, over the top process for a single family home when the home's not getting much bigger. The area you're adding is already kind of within the footprint you've already got. It's just it's just crazy that Sausalito has these codes. and i just wish the commission was willing to use the discretion we have to get you through this and, you know, take the advice of the staff because I do believe that the variance findings here, you know, are actually more onerous than the heightened design review findings. And I could definitely make the variance findings on almost anything because you're literally building, you have a house on the side of a hill that's clinging to the side of a hill. That's one of the steepest lots I'm kind of surprised there's even a house there. But I just I mean, I just hope When this comes back, we can save the roof of your garage and we can try to convince people that that's that's the single architectural feature that you can even see. The rest of the house is so far down the hill, it's not even part of the street. So it can either be another bland, simple box, you know, bringing nothing to the street, or it can have this really cool single move that the architect. Thank you. can make um and help the building look better so i it sounds like we're going to get continued i know nobody on this panel would agree with anything i said except that it's a good project and we do want you to get back here quickly um i very much when this thing gets continued i'd like it to be continued for you know hopefully the architect will be able to move quickly and we can even bring it back in a couple weeks or in the next meeting, which actually is almost, I think, three weeks away. I'm sorry, I don't think you can come yet. I mean, so those are my comments. Really unusual project, really good design. I don't think there's any question I'd be in position to move and vote for this project tonight. But when it comes back, I hope we can save that garage. So thank you. |
| 01:57:50.10 | Patrice Taylor | I know. |
| 01:58:02.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. Just to round this out, I'd like to vehemently disagree with my vice chair, which we're always at odds. Respectfully, the thing I'm most sorry for is for your loss. First and foremost, that's a very difficult personal process. When it comes to design review and the code, Commissioner Feller said it best in her bon voyage message, we have to be equitable and fair to everybody. based purely on math this might be an oversight and we clearly have a disagreement with staff at least I think the majority of us do and staff has explained their position and we understand why it was started that way but based on a FAR I mean this this is heightened design. And with that, we can't skip that over for one applicant over another. That's not equitable. That's not fair. I do think it is a wonderful thing to take this home that has severe issues with open eyes, with illegal work, extensive illegal work. It's shocking that a thousand square feet can be illegally done over whatever period of time, it's egregious, and it's a pain project. And we do thank you for taking it up to code and moving it forward, and hopefully it will be a habitable home that you will love, and we will get you there. But there are some other missing pieces here that we'd be remiss. We'd be remiss. It would be unfair. And a construction plan and a landscape plan, these are basic things. And if staff didn't put those in there at the beginning, we're here, that's the commission's process thank you so we're here to work with staff as a collective work with the applicant to get you there and I and I think we can and I think we will at our next meeting but to move this forward today with the way that there are some uncertainties I don't have a huge comment on the on the garage honestly I think from a design standpoint it is a design feature that that I'm not opposed to but I do think to Commissioner Luxembourg's point on the on the need, variances are quite strict here. And what we're after is to not have to overreach on parts of our code when design can solve a problem. So with that, I would support a continuance. I just want to make sure, of course, that the guidance that we're giving is clear so that we can work with the applicant, figure out a date. And just to your comment, Vice Chair, no idea why this application has taken three years. So this is the first time we're hearing it. You know, it's complicated. There's a lot of design. There's a lot of work on the applicant's start, but I'm not going to comment on why it's taken that long, whether it's our code. There could be other unforeseen delays, and I don't think that is an entirely fair statement with no context. So that being said, we have a motion on the floor, and we have a second. As of right now, with the conversation for a potential date, certain or uncertain, but I have marked down and please, Commissioner Feller, as the maker of the motion, correct me. if I am wrong, but we are looking for a construction plan, a landscape plan. We are looking to staff for a heightened design review. um, The garage I'm gonna leave out there. And for the ADU, that's not part of this project right now so I don't wanna necessarily dabble in a concept around anything to do with the ADU since that's not before us. Can you comment further, Commissioner Feller, or those are your main points for? I know we have some of the findings. I don't know if you wanna look into any findings to provide more direction, |
| 02:02:03.63 | Kristina Feller | Those are the findings. |
| 02:02:08.93 | Kristina Feller | Well, again, I was having trouble making findings on 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12, which we've already talked about. Those are my comments. I think, you know, everyone sort of said their piece on most of that. And then, of course, part of that goes to the landscape plan and construction management plan, all those sorts of things. but I did, I wanted to just address one thing. And that is, I don't want to be unfair to, to one neighbor. versus any other neighbor. There's some consistency with some of the comments from the neighbors. We always take public comment into account. You know, sometimes, you know, it has stronger weight than other times, depending on what this topic might be and the relevance of what the public comment might be. But I just, but we do take public comment always seriously, no matter what it is, whether we agree with it or not. |
| 02:03:10.57 | Patrice Taylor | Thank you. |
| 02:03:10.64 | Unknown | No. |
| 02:03:10.69 | Patrice Taylor | Bye. |
| 02:03:13.86 | Kristina Feller | and so on and so forth. So I think there was more than one neighbor that had issues with views. Look, evolution is, you know, impacts to views are part of the evolution of building up a, any property in any city. So I don't want perfection to get in the way of progress, but I also want to be, equitable fair and and we all took the same oath to the same municipal codes and the same ordinances and all that kind of stuff again. Whether we agree with them or not all the time, no, we don't agree with them all the time. But that is what we have to work with. And those are the tools that we have at our discretion. And so I just wanted to put that out there I still kind of stand by my comments. that I don't have any further, anything more to add. |
| 02:04:07.95 | Nastassya Saad | Do we possibly want to bring up the applicant at this time just to check in and basically make sure that you're understanding the direction and maybe comment on a date certain or uncertain if you don't mind approaching approaching the microphone so we can yeah Thank you. So the concept right now of a continuance would be, you know, project as is moving forward. I think staff is quite clear that we're looking for a heightened design review here. But from the other aspect, some of the things that might get into that motion would be a construction plan, which we have language for, that is a standard. But a landscape plan as something that we'd like to see. clarification on the garage um but a landscape plan as something that we'd like to see. Clarification on the garage. I think you were quite clear over on that already. And just because of the comment and what you had said that you were open to, a concept around reducing that pitched roof potentially as something, as an option at least to see. |
| 02:04:32.50 | Patrice Taylor | I think. |
| 02:04:56.61 | Patrice Taylor | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:05:15.14 | Mathilde Manacorda | Yes. Um, I, I just want to say that the, I'm not agreeing to having the garage roof be flat, but that we were willing to consider, um, reducing that height in some way. That's, um, |
| 02:05:29.28 | Nastassya Saad | That's. Thank you. That's fair. That's fair. That's okay. As long as I just want to make sure we're clear on what direction we're headed in here. And with that, from a timeframe of what those would take for you to complete, staff is looking probably for a few days at least for a heightened design review findings. Can you comment on the scope for some of those other action items for you? |
| 02:05:35.93 | Mathilde Manacorda | And, |
| 02:05:52.49 | Mathilde Manacorda | So as far as the findings, we had already originally provided heightened design findings in November. So that would just be something that we would resubmit given the requirement today. As far as addressing other comments, I would have to discuss with my team and see when we would be... right? Available. Material. |
| 02:06:18.22 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. And also just for materials, usually they're material, like a material board, like included just so we can see, you know, color and the materials. Is that something you're able to provide as well? Yes. Okay, great. So our next planning commission meeting as of right now is May 14th. That is in a few weeks. Would you be able to meet that deadline? Past that, there is a May 28th, so we do have two |
| 02:06:29.36 | City Attorney Otto | Yes. |
| 02:06:29.63 | Mathilde Manacorda | Thank you. |
| 02:06:36.16 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:06:49.54 | Nastassya Saad | We do have two meetings in the month of May. |
| 02:06:54.45 | Mathilde Manacorda | Can I confirm this after this meeting through an email, after consulting? So I think then we'll have to- |
| 02:06:59.01 | Nastassya Saad | So I think then we'll have to do a date uncertain. Up here, we'll do a date uncertain, and then you can confirm with staff, and then we'd be able to agendize accordingly. |
| 02:07:11.26 | Kristina Feller | Can I ask just a quick question, a clarification? Oh, I'm sorry, Vice Chair. |
| 02:07:15.23 | Andrew Junius | I was just going to say, I think, are we clear that we're, how much time is wasted on the re-notification if we go to a date uncertain? |
| 02:07:23.58 | Matthew Mandich | The project will need to be renoticed. It's a standard task. I mean, it's not something that I would say is a hindrance for staff or anything like that. |
| 02:07:26.41 | Andrew Junius | It's a standard. |
| 02:07:33.03 | Andrew Junius | but we certainly, it wouldn't be on the 14th if we go with the campaign. |
| 02:07:36.91 | Matthew Mandich | Well, if we continued it to a date certain, it would be, if we chose the 14th as a date, yes. |
| 02:07:40.59 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, but if we chose a date uncertain, would it be the 14th? Could it be the 14th? |
| 02:07:44.71 | Matthew Mandich | If they wanted to do the 14th, we'd just have to re-notice 10 days prior to that hearing. |
| 02:07:49.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | which just for a point of information would be a week from tomorrow. Thank you. |
| 02:07:56.18 | Andrew Junius | which seems kind of fast, but you know, in terms of notice. |
| 02:07:56.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's kind of fast, but, you know, in terms of notice. Because we have an extra week in there. Normally, it would be tomorrow. Yes, correct, for the notice. |
| 02:08:01.89 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, correct. For the notices. So yes, just playing the scenario out. If we were to continue it to a date uncertain tonight and the applicant were to come back tomorrow saying they'd like the 14th, we could definitely get a notice out for the 14th. That wouldn't be an issue. |
| 02:08:13.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So as long as that decision is made by a week from tomorrow |
| 02:08:17.53 | Kristina Feller | So I would offer that we keep the motion on the floor as a date uncertain, and that the side note to that is request that staff work earnestly with the applicant and try to prioritize getting this on a future agenda the minute it's ready and available, and obviously all the noticing is done. |
| 02:08:43.18 | Nastassya Saad | So at this point, it would be at your discretion. We're going to go with a date uncertain, and I'll allow you to work directly with Assistant Planner Blair for selecting your date. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Commissioner... |
| 02:08:50.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:08:50.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:08:56.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Luxembourg, did you? Yeah, I just want to clarify. I think you, I would strongly encourage you to come back with a option for the garage. That doesn't mean that you have to give up on what you have, but you'd have, but you'd have a drawing of an option the heightened design review could be reviewed both ways. But if you don't have it there, then that could cause another continuation. So we want to avoid continuations if at all possible. |
| 02:09:26.31 | Mathilde Manacorda | Absolutely. I just want to add that our goal is to make sure that this is a nice project and a project that is agreeable to all the neighbors in the community, but also having that architectural interest and distinction from just a plain box, especially given that the only space that we can see from the street is actually the garage. |
| 02:10:00.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 02:10:04.72 | Kristina Feller | So, yeah, so at this point, unless there are any other comments, I just want to ask maybe the, either the city attorney or acting director, Mandich, based on all the feedback and notes we have, do you need that captured in a motion or are those notes in the motion, the notes separately in the motion, sufficient? |
| 02:10:29.85 | Matthew Mandich | So I'll just go ahead and answer that. I believe Chair Saad stated pretty clearly what the issues were. I think staff have a good understanding of some of the issues here, and we have the recording to go off as well if there's any things that need clarifying. So I don't believe you need to put all those items in motion. I think you can just move forward with the continuance to a date on certain. |
| 02:10:50.03 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:10:51.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I make an additional comment? Is it possible for you to explore if we could avoid a variance for, just from a legal point of view, avoid a variance for an FAR and adopt a variance for the ADU, whether that's possible? You don't have to design it, just if you could have the city attorney's office provide you information whether that's technically possible. You don't have to do it on the fly, Tuning Auto, if you don't want to. |
| 02:11:22.41 | City Attorney Otto | I wasn't gonna respond to that. I was just gonna respond to the comments. Well, I heard that we needed heightened design review. I don't know if there is a consensus on some of the other items. |
| 02:11:22.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | doesn't get a |
| 02:11:32.32 | City Attorney Otto | you wanted back several items. Do you, does the commission want all of these items just to consider the next time, or is there a specific direction you're giving beyond the heightened design review? |
| 02:11:44.01 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, there were some specific direction. I mean, the construction management plan, I believe we have a standard. Yeah, that's a standard that we just want to see included that I think was accidentally omitted. The direction for the applicant would be a landscape plan, color board, which I think are quite clear. And then we're now asking for an option on the garage based on the commission and public comment feedback. And... |
| 02:11:54.79 | Patrice Taylor | Right. |
| 02:12:16.61 | Kristina Feller | It's not just the color board, but material. |
| 02:12:17.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Detailing of those. |
| 02:12:18.03 | Nastassya Saad | Part of the... |
| 02:12:22.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Material board. Appreciate that, Commissioner Feller. And then specifically for staff would be the heightened design review findings. And that would be it. Thank you. |
| 02:12:39.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Excuse me. The layout of the parking spaces |
| 02:12:42.01 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry, and the layout of the parking spaces. Thank you, thank you. |
| 02:12:45.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then, as I just asked, a clarification from your office about whether we can vary the ADU height to allow the ADU to happen so that they don't have to have two phases of construction, which would be less costly for them. |
| 02:13:05.69 | City Attorney Otto | Thank you. |
| 02:13:07.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. All right, so there's a motion, there's a second. I think it's clear for staff and city attorney. Can we please take role acting director Mandich? |
| 02:13:15.86 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, Chair. Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Commissioner Marlott is absent. Commissioner Feller? |
| 02:13:21.92 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:13:22.24 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:13:22.26 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:13:22.27 | Matthew Mandich | Vice Chair Junius. |
| 02:13:24.01 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 02:13:24.23 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Chair Saad. |
| 02:13:25.67 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:13:25.72 | Matthew Mandich | you. Motion passes. |
| 02:13:27.17 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you to the applicant. Final stages are adjournment. So moved. |
| 02:13:35.42 | Unknown | Thank you, Commissioners. |
| 02:13:35.56 | Nastassya Saad | Commission. |