| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Nastassya Saad | you Thank you, Director Phipps. I'd like to call the Wednesday, May 14th Planning Commission meeting to order. It is 633. Director Phipps, can I turn it over to you? |
| 00:00:14.44 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you very much, Chair. Good evening to you, Vice Chair Junius, who is actually not present this evening. Let the record show. Other planning commissioners, staff, and members of the public, this evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street, as well as at the Quinta de Contre Library Room, located at 5120-491 in Tabuaco, Portugal, and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. With that, I will move to call roll. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:00:42.81 | Unknown | and the |
| 00:00:56.04 | Director Phipps | Here. Commissioner Merlot. Here. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:01:01.17 | Adam Blair | year. |
| 00:01:02.94 | Director Phipps | Please let the record show. Vice-Chair Junius is not present. Chair, Hassan. |
| 00:01:07.53 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 00:01:07.55 | Nastassya Saad | Here. |
| 00:01:08.22 | Director Phipps | We have quorum back to you chair. |
| 00:01:10.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I'm looking for an approval of the agenda. |
| 00:01:17.12 | Director Phipps | So moved. I'd like to make a slight modification to that, if possible. Due to some recently uncovered information, thank you Commissioner Luxenberg for your attention to detail. Staff are now recommending that item 6D, that's 324 Sausalito, be first moved to item 6A, and also continued to a date certain of June 11 in order to allow adjustments to the record based on this new information, and allow new and current commissioners to review the record on this project in its entirety. In addition to allowing all commissioners to have sufficient time to review this new info. So with that, that's my recommended change this evening. And of course it's up to the commission to make the ultimate decision. |
| 00:02:11.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Phipps. Can I just confirm with you for the date certain, has that been confirmed with the applicant? |
| 00:02:22.42 | Director Phipps | I'm not certain, and I'm looking to the planner on the project to see if he has any confirmation. |
| 00:02:34.37 | Adam Blair | Good evening. Could you repeat the question? |
| 00:02:36.41 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you, Adam. I was just, if it's a date certain for June 11th, has that been confirmed with the applicant? Are we confident on that date? |
| 00:02:45.69 | Adam Blair | It has been discussed with the applicant. I personally will not be available to do the May 28th hearing. So that is the date that's been discussed, but there was not a confirmed date per our previous correspondence. |
| 00:02:59.38 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you very much. Looking to the commission for feedback. |
| 00:03:04.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Conversation. |
| 00:03:05.13 | Nastassya Saad | conversation. |
| 00:03:05.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Director Phipps, as you know, I always have attention to detail. If we move that to 6A, at that point in time, we will not technically have a quorum. So because I'm assuming Commissioner Marlott is going to accuse himself, and the law requires us to have three members in person in order to operate. So we would have to close the meeting at that point. So would it be better to leave it at the end of the meeting when we will have to close the meeting for a lack of a form? |
| 00:03:41.43 | Director Phipps | My kind of initial feedback on that would be we won't be engaging in a discussion on the item because we will have moved that item to a date certain or a date uncertain based on a council decision this evening. I believe we would still be able to take public comment on the item. I will defer to legal counsel, Attorney Otto, if she's on and would like to provide any additional information. |
| 00:04:08.40 | Attorney Otto | So, okay, I was just looking at how many people, have only three commissioners in the room, and I believe you are correct, Commissioner Luxembourg. So I do think that we should leave it at the end of the agenda. We'll lose quorum and the meeting will just be continued. That'll move to the next meeting. And then at that point, it'll need to be continued to the date certain. |
| 00:04:31.23 | Director Phipps | Once again, Commissioner Luxenberg, thank you for your attention to detail. Thank you, Attorney Otto, for the clarification. I think with that, I will modify my recommendation to remove the changing of the order on this evening's agenda, but still recommend the item be pushed to a date certain of June 11. |
| 00:04:48.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I also wait, so I'm sorry, say that again. I was thinking about what I was gonna say and I lost my translation. |
| 00:04:57.08 | Director Phipps | Sure, happy to, Commissioner Luxenberg. Staff's recommending that the commission move to approve this evening's agenda with item 6D, move to a date certain of June 11th. continued to June 11th. |
| 00:05:13.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the agenda will say that. Thank you. |
| 00:05:16.07 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:05:16.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:05:16.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. my life. |
| 00:05:17.67 | Director Phipps | the agenda that you will approve |
| 00:05:19.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | would say. |
| 00:05:20.69 | Director Phipps | will be approved in that spirit. |
| 00:05:22.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So what I would also suggest is, so that item stays on the agenda? |
| 00:05:30.83 | Nastassya Saad | It stays on the agenda. |
| 00:05:32.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So what I would suggest is we modify the public comments for items not on this agenda and allow any public that wants to speak on that particular item, because at that point they won't be able to, that we allow them to do it during item three. because if we close the meeting before that item, there won't be public comment. |
| 00:05:59.03 | Director Phipps | I'd have the same concern that you brought up earlier in doing that and I will defer to legal counsel. |
| 00:06:05.69 | Attorney Otto | Yeah, the item is on the agenda. So I appreciate the spirit of what you're trying to do, that can't happen for the same reasons that you stated at the beginning of the item. |
| 00:06:17.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. I'm just trying to solve issues. |
| 00:06:20.51 | Attorney Otto | I know you are. Thank you. Appreciate it. |
| 00:06:23.13 | David Marlatt | Can I ask a follow-up question just kind of on that same purely procedural? Because obviously I am not part of the discussion of the item itself. If we move this to 6D and the meeting closes for lack of a quorum, what is the purpose of a continuance? Doesn't the item just automatically roll over to the next hearing? Do we need the continuance? Because we won't have a quorum, so we can't consider the item anyway. |
| 00:06:46.53 | Director Phipps | You will consider the item now with quorum, and that decision will be based on a decision of a majority of the commission if it passes. But I understand your question. This will avoid, continuing to date certain, avoids an additional public noticing requirement. It also gives some clarity to members of the public as to when we'll be hearing this item next. |
| 00:06:56.89 | Sandra Bushmaker | We do. This is a great question. |
| 00:07:07.73 | David Marlatt | But we won't have a quorum for that item. |
| 00:07:10.65 | Director Phipps | Well, I imagine we will have a quorum on June 11th. |
| 00:07:14.78 | Attorney Otto | But Shirmalot, if I could suggest that once hypothetically, once we have no quorum, I'm assuming that we will not have a quorum that arrives since you'll have to recuse yourself. What happens is the item, the meeting would be called at that point for lack of a quorum present in the room. That item would be continued to the next meeting at that meeting on that agenda staff will be recommending it will go to June 11th, I believe, is what will be how this will play out. |
| 00:07:42.85 | David Marlatt | more staff may be prepared to present on the next meeting. In other words, tonight, we're not going to make that determination. |
| 00:07:48.97 | Attorney Otto | Correct. Thanks. You will not make that determination tonight, but yes. |
| 00:07:53.15 | Unknown | All right. |
| 00:07:53.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:07:53.49 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:07:53.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Not to get into the weeds again, but since the only change we're making to this agenda, doesn't Commissioner Marlott have to recuse in order to make that change? Wouldn't we be safer here not to change the agenda at all and then just... That's what I understand is we're not changing the agenda. |
| 00:08:12.56 | Attorney Otto | I'm suggesting we're not changing the agenda. The agenda is going to continue as proceeding based off the rule that you stated, which is unique to Sausalito, that you have to be present in the room. Um, I'm sorry, it's not unique to a Sosleto. You have to be present in the room. We're going to just allow the agenda to continue as it is. The item will fail to be able to move forward because it will not have quorum allowed in the room. It will go to the next meeting and at that point it will be determined how it will be handled. |
| 00:08:40.30 | David Marlatt | I don't know. |
| 00:08:40.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. Okay, thank you. And yes, it's a state statute, I believe, yes. |
| 00:08:44.79 | Attorney Otto | Yes, sorry. |
| 00:08:45.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:08:47.04 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. So with that, looking for an approval of the agenda. |
| 00:08:51.90 | David Marlatt | Thank you. All right. I'll move to approve the agenda. Thank you. |
| 00:08:54.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:08:55.22 | David Marlatt | Second. |
| 00:08:55.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Fish. |
| 00:08:57.08 | Director Phipps | commissioner luxembourg |
| 00:08:59.49 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:08:59.63 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:09:00.01 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot? Yes. |
| 00:09:01.40 | David Marlatt | No more. Yes. you |
| 00:09:03.05 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:09:03.09 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:09:03.59 | Director Phipps | Chair Saad. Yes. |
| 00:09:05.01 | David Marlatt | I have it a hard time. Thank you. |
| 00:09:08.32 | Nastassya Saad | Item three is for public comments on items that are not on this Agenda, Director Pipps. |
| 00:09:14.11 | Director Phipps | This is the time for the commission to hear from citizens regarding matters not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes the commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct that the item be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right. That's Matthew Mandich and Maria Hernandez. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you'll be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine and each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. Thank you. |
| 00:10:07.87 | Director Phipps | seeing one raised hand, I believe. |
| 00:10:14.13 | Sandra Bushmaker | Sandra Bushmaker Good evening, Commissioners. I just wanted to bring to your attention that the zoom links on your agenda were not hot links. We could not click on them and automatically go into the zoom application, which has been my experience. Just wanted to bring that to your attention. So I had to manually Open a Zoom application, manually type in the numbers. But we've always had hot links in the past. Thank you. |
| 00:10:43.61 | Director Phipps | If I may respond to that just briefly, I believe that that link issue has been fixed. Thank you. Any other raised hands in the Zoom application? I'm not able to see from where I am. Nope, seeing none. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:10:59.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Phipps. Item four is the approval of Planning Commission minutes. These are for Planning Commission minutes from April 23rd. |
| 00:11:10.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll make a motion to approve subject to amendment to the motion on line 10. At the beginning of that meeting, although the tape started maybe 10 seconds later, Chair Sott opened the meeting and turned it over to Mr. Mandage for the general introduction. But the meeting notes say that senior planner, Matthew Mandage, I forget the exact wording. Let me get it here. a senior planner, Matthew Mandage, I forget the exact learning, let me get it here, called the meeting to order, which he can't do. So I wanna get the minutes corrected, if we could do that. So my amendment is Chair Saad called the meeting to order at 6.30 rather than senior planner Matthew Mandage. |
| 00:11:11.12 | Nastassya Saad | I'll make. |
| 00:11:43.06 | Sandra Bushmaker | So, |
| 00:11:56.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | With that, that's a motion. |
| 00:11:58.35 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Looking for a second. |
| 00:12:01.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Excuse me. |
| 00:12:01.55 | Director Phipps | second the motion. |
| 00:12:02.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Pips. |
| 00:12:04.44 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:12:13.37 | Director Phipps | It looks like Commissioner Moore is frozen. and looks like we just lost Commissioner Moore. Attorney Otto, wondering how we should handle this? Thank you. |
| 00:12:29.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:12:29.47 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:12:29.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:12:29.59 | Director Phipps | you |
| 00:12:29.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We still have a quorum in the room, but just a note that Mr. Moore was not a Commissioner Moore was not at that meeting, so he would not be able to vote on that motion anyways. |
| 00:12:29.89 | Director Phipps | Bye. Yeah. |
| 00:12:41.87 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:12:41.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:12:42.02 | Director Phipps | He may have reviewed the record. |
| 00:12:44.35 | Attorney Otto | He still would be eligible to vote on the minutes without doing it, might we give him a second to see if he can get back on since this is his first meeting? Although you are correct that you can take the vote without him being present in the room. So it is at the commission's discretion. |
| 00:13:04.75 | Nastassya Saad | I prefer 30 seconds and then we move on, please. |
| 00:13:36.19 | Nastassya Saad | Just in the interest of timeliness, may we move forward. Thank you. |
| 00:13:40.12 | Unknown | of the... |
| 00:13:40.43 | Director Phipps | We are at 30 seconds now. So yes, let's move on. I will. |
| 00:13:44.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. |
| 00:13:47.19 | Director Phipps | Restart the vote. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:13:51.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:13:51.83 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlon. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:13:54.62 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you very much. Item five, our communications. Director Phipps, do you have any communications from these staff? |
| 00:14:01.03 | Director Phipps | Well, I did have one communication item this evening, and the goal of that item was to introduce our new commissioner, who we just lost on remote attendance. So I think I'll keep that introduction very brief. You have a new commissioner. His name is Fred Moore. I'm very pleased to welcome him as the newest member of the commission. He has over 45 years of experience in land use planning and real estate development and is a former city of Tustin zoning appeal board commissioner. We very much look forward to working with him and I'm very excited to leverage his experience and expertise and background to provide valuable input and discussion points and to make meaningful decisions for this city along with the rest of you. I will leave it at that. And perhaps we'll give Mr. Moore an opportunity at another meeting if he's able to, or right now if he's able to rejoin, but I'll give it back to you, Chair. |
| 00:14:33.97 | Sandra Bushmaker | him. |
| 00:14:58.52 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Yes, we welcome him wholeheartedly. I wish he was able to attend. Perhaps he will rejoin us. So welcome, Commissioner Moore. Anyone from the commission have any other communications that they wish to discuss? No. Thank you. I don't have any communications either, so we will close communications and open it up for public comment. Director Phipps? |
| 00:15:28.49 | Director Phipps | Looking to the chamber for interested speakers. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. Seeing none, back to you. |
| 00:15:37.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We will now move on to the public hearing portion of the evening. Item 6A is 64 Lincoln Drive. This is a design review permit. Our principal planner, Kristen Tyke, will be here to join us. I just have to... I'm remiss to quickly go through the Commission on ex parte communications. Commissioner Luxembourg, anything to declare? |
| 00:16:00.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is this for all the items or just this one? |
| 00:16:02.51 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, at this point, let's take them one at a time. |
| 00:16:05.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I visit and discipline no ex parte communications. |
| 00:16:10.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Marlott. |
| 00:16:12.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | no expertise. |
| 00:16:12.98 | Nastassya Saad | No. Thank you. I also have no ex parte communications for 64 Lincoln Drive. I'll turn it over to you. |
| 00:16:13.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:16:18.71 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you very much. Good to see everyone tonight. So this application is for a minor addition at the rear of a condominium unit. The subject sites and existing rectilinear 7900 square foot lot with a very modest 16% average grade. It's located in the Marina Vista subdivision. |
| 00:16:27.40 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. THE END OF |
| 00:16:38.30 | Kristin Teiche | This subdivision is largely developed with two to three units on each lot, some of them sharing abutting walls with the building on the adjacent lot. Um, the residential units have been subdivided in condominiums, as I mentioned, and that allows individual ownership of the airspace inside the building and then shared use of the lot. The subject site contains two residential units, 64 and 66 Lincoln, as you can see on the site plan. The applicants requesting design review approval for 436 square feet, rear addition. It's an office and bathroom behind the ground story garage. partially below the floor above and extending out the rear. the unit. You can see it shaded on the site plan there. Due to the uphill slope at a lot, the rear extension is somewhat sort of tucked into the grade and it's pretty low in elevation. The flat roof above would serve as a rooftop deck for the, First floor that's already there. The new stairway and deck is proposed on the new stairway off the deck is proposed on the easterly side. And as you can see, it's outside of the view easement that's that encumbers this parcel. So they have respected that. The project summary table in the staff report demonstrated that the project complies in all aspects with zoning did not trigger at a higher level of design review. It's well below the floor area. Generally staff found that the proposed addition is modest in scale. Its placement is well integrated into the basement and rear of the home. It's not immediately visible to passers by or adjacent residences and it's small scale and low height. ensures it will not impact privacy, light, air, overwhelm surrounding residences or obstruct views from the public or private areas. So we have recommended approval of this based on the findings and conditions provided for you in the attached draft resolution. |
| 00:18:35.99 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much for the presentation. |
| 00:18:37.91 | Kristin Teiche | We can scroll through the plans if you'd like to see the elevations at all. |
| 00:18:41.91 | Nastassya Saad | I think we most probably would. Let me first turn it over. Commissioner Marla, any questions for staff? |
| 00:18:48.33 | David Marlatt | Will the applicant also be making a presentation? |
| 00:18:51.04 | Kristin Teiche | I believe he's here. |
| 00:18:52.71 | David Marlatt | OK, I do have maybe some minor questions, I think, for the applicant. Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:18:57.59 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:18:59.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I want to thank you for the presentation, and thank you for also modifying the draft resolution to include our standard conditions. |
| 00:19:08.56 | Kristin Teiche | Sorry about that. I was not aware we had finalized that, so I didn't use it. |
| 00:19:13.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | OK. And I have no more other questions at this time, Chair. |
| 00:19:17.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I also don't have any questions. Appreciate it. Sure. We will now invite the applicant up for a 15-minute presentation. If you would like to make a presentation, just go ahead and please. It's up to you. I'll just have to have you come here to the microphone, because I'm assuming we're going to have questions. You do have 15 minutes on the clock, regardless. And you're welcome to make any statements or give a presentation of any kind. |
| 00:19:46.90 | Doug Malani | not prepared for presentation, but willing to answer any questions anybody has. |
| 00:19:51.19 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 00:19:51.20 | Director Phipps | And Chair, if I may, just want to call out, it looks like Commissioner Moore has just rejoined. Commissioner Moore, welcome. |
| 00:19:55.17 | Doug Malani | you |
| 00:20:00.86 | Director Phipps | Very good. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:20:01.88 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Just for the benefit of Commissioner Moore, we just saw the brief presentation from the staff report from principal planner, Taiki. So we are just about to speak with the applicant. Thank you. |
| 00:20:16.30 | Attorney Otto | Chair Sat, I apologize for interrupting. I don't know when Commissioner Moore joined. If he missed that presentation, we need to repeat that so that he can participate in this item. |
| 00:20:16.36 | Nastassya Saad | Cheers. Yes. |
| 00:20:26.66 | Fred Moore | I did see the majority of the presentations, and I've read the staff report and all the attachments as well. |
| 00:20:33.00 | Attorney Otto | If you could identify where you, did not see the presentation and we could just have them quickly update you. We just need to make sure you saw all of the information. I appreciate that you read all the materials, but we just need to make sure that the record shows that you have had the same information as everybody else. So I appreciate staff just giving you a quick update on where you joined in. Previously. Kind of catch up. |
| 00:20:57.25 | Fred Moore | at the last two slides she showed. |
| 00:21:01.99 | Nastassya Saad | So then, apologies. This is not normally our MO with all these technicalities. I'm going to have to ask principal planner Taiki to come back and please briefly redo the presentation for the benefit of Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:21:19.24 | Kristin Teiche | No problem. I'll just sort of touch on the highlights again. |
| 00:21:20.62 | Nastassya Saad | I hate |
| 00:21:24.76 | Kristin Teiche | The existing site is 7,900 square feet with its 16% average grade. It's in the Marina Vista subdivision. It is a condominium unit where it shares the site with one other property. The applicants are requesting design review approval for 436 square foot addition at the rear and basement level of the unit. due to the uphill slope, the rear extension is somewhat tucked into the grade. You can see the addition on the site plan there. It's shaded. A flat roof would serve as a deck above. The railings and finished materials will all match the existing unit or complement it. And the project summary table in the staff report identified that everything complies with zoning. Generally, staff found the proposed addition is modest in scale. It's well integrated into the unit. It is not immediately visible to any passers-by or adjacent. properties. Thank you. The small scale and low height ensures that it will not impair views or overwhelm the site or adjacent properties. And we have recommended approval subject to the findings and conditions provided in the draft resolution. |
| 00:22:39.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you again. |
| 00:22:40.44 | David Marlatt | it. |
| 00:22:40.81 | Nastassya Saad | . |
| 00:22:41.03 | David Marlatt | I did have one question for staff. It just occurred to me. I just wanted to confirm, is the trigger for design review because the addition exceeds 300 feet? That's the answer. |
| 00:22:43.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:22:43.26 | Edward Davis | Thank you. |
| 00:22:43.58 | Nastassya Saad | to go to the church. |
| 00:22:43.97 | Kristin Teiche | Thank you. |
| 00:22:49.57 | Kristin Teiche | Mm-hmm. It's over 400. The space that they have in the basement behind the garage is crawl space with dirt floor. |
| 00:22:57.20 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:22:57.23 | Kristin Teiche | It doesn't count as floor area. It doesn't have enough ceiling heights. |
| 00:22:57.27 | David Marlatt | It's a good thing. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. |
| 00:23:02.48 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Thank you. We are going to ask the applicant to please come back up and I'm gonna ask you to just please state your name and address for the record. You're welcome to forego your 15 minutes. I imagine we do have some questions for you. |
| 00:23:18.48 | Doug Malani | So my name is Doug Malani. I'm my son and daughter-in-law. It's their unit. I'm just I'm doing all the legwork because they both work full time. All right. I live in San Rafael, 31 La Crescenta Way. And a major reason for this project is my daughter-in-law works from home quite often. And she's an exercise buff. And she would really like to get her treadmill out of the dining room. And they would use the additional storage. My son's the owner of Mellow Motors. And so he's often involved with mechanical stuff. So then his garage, you know, having the bathroom and the shower downstairs makes it a lot easier than going up to the third floor to clean up. And they're just looking for extra space to work, work out and store stuff. |
| 00:24:08.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We'll stop the clock at 14 minutes and 12 seconds. You have plenty of extra time. Otherwise, I'm going to open it up to the Commission just for some questions, if you could be so kind to answer them. Commissioner Marlott. |
| 00:24:21.41 | David Marlatt | Actually, no other questions. My previous question was answered by |
| 00:24:24.60 | Nastassya Saad | Wonderful. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:24:26.96 | David Marlatt | question. |
| 00:24:27.35 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Moore, do you have any questions for the applicant? |
| 00:24:31.95 | Fred Moore | No questions. |
| 00:24:33.00 | Nastassya Saad | OK, I too have no questions. So thank you very much. Feel free to return to your seat. You do have 14 extra minutes in case you want to use that time after public comment. Thank you. So, Director Phipps, can we open this up for public comment, please? |
| 00:24:49.89 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Looking to the council chamber for interested speakers. Seeing none, looking to the zoom application for raised hands. Seeing none. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:25:04.42 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I'm going to bring that back up here. If the applicant is going to forego their remaining 14 minutes, I'll take a nod. Thank you. OK, so we are going to move it back up to the dais for discussion and hopefully a motion. I'm going to look to Commissioner Luxembourg. Would you like to start us off on this one? |
| 00:25:26.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, this one is fairly straightforward. It needs design review. It's consistent. The materials are consistent with the rest of the building. It doesn't need any variances of any sort. It has the proper setbacks. It's not in the light near easement. So I don't see any issue with this one at this time. |
| 00:25:43.08 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:25:43.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:25:43.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:25:43.22 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:25:49.91 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:25:49.93 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:25:50.13 | Nastassya Saad | you commissioner |
| 00:25:51.77 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:25:51.81 | Nastassya Saad | Wow. |
| 00:25:52.03 | David Marlatt | lot. Yeah, I would agree, and I'd make a motion that we accept design review, approve the project. |
| 00:25:58.66 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Commissioner Moore, any commentary for us for this evening on 64-hour drive? |
| 00:26:05.96 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Well, I'll probably second Commissioner Marlott's motion, but also it has to ask the staff a question whether or not it's in our requirement and purview to inquiry about whether or not there needs to be an amendment to the condominium plan for the site for the Marina Vista Association or the CC&Rs in order to accommodate this addition. I know we have the HOA approval. But do we need to go any further than that? |
| 00:26:34.46 | Kristin Teiche | Is this on? Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, we actually have. That was one of the things that held this application up to begin with was that we had to work with the applicant to explain that they needed to amend the condominium plan. |
| 00:26:36.25 | Jenny Reinders | Thank you. |
| 00:26:36.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:36.29 | Jenny Reinders | Yeah. |
| 00:26:36.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:26:36.37 | Jenny Reinders | Yes. |
| 00:26:47.34 | Kristin Teiche | They're fully aware of it, and the conditions of approval include that they have to demonstrate that they have amended the plan and recorded it. Whether or not the CC&Rs have to be amended, I'm not sure, but the city does not enforce them. |
| 00:27:01.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:27:01.77 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:27:03.46 | Nastassya Saad | so i we have a motion i believe i heard a second from commissioner moore Are we, is the motion to accept the |
| 00:27:12.54 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 00:27:12.97 | Nastassya Saad | the |
| 00:27:13.30 | David Marlatt | Thank you. to approve the bill. |
| 00:27:13.70 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. Thank you. |
| 00:27:13.97 | Director Phipps | project as presented. |
| 00:27:14.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. As is. Wonderful. Thank you. Director Fitz, can we take roll? |
| 00:27:18.41 | Director Phipps | Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlon. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Chair Sond. |
| 00:27:23.94 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Yes. |
| 00:27:26.83 | Director Phipps | Um, proof. |
| 00:27:28.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We are now going to move on to item Thank you. Excuse me. 6b this is for 2015 bridgeway this is a conditional use permit zoning permit and a lot line adjustment we have our senior planner matthew mandage and if you will uh indulge me matthew we're going to go one at a time so i'm going to look for any ex parte communications um for item 6b commissioner luxembourg anything to declare |
| 00:28:03.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No ex parte communication. |
| 00:28:05.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Marlott. Nothing to declare. Commissioner Moore. nothing to declare. Thank you. I too have nothing to declare. Thank you very much. |
| 00:28:08.86 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:28:08.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:28:08.98 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:28:09.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:28:13.13 | Matthew Mandich | All right, good evening, commissioners. So yes, this is for a CUP zoning permit and a lot line adjustment or rather a lot line merger for a conversion of an office building to residential 12 unit at 2015 Bridgeway. Next slide, please. So just to familiarize you with the location here, here is the lot in question in the Spring Valley neighborhood at the corner of Bridgeway and Olive, adjacent to the Marin ship here. the existing structure does span across two lots of record, which is why the lot merger... will be required for this project, this is located in our CN one zoning district, which our neighborhood commercial zoning district, I also have an image here of the existing structure this L shape right there spanning the two parcels. Jason to the marine ship here's the bay model machine shop freds and 711 just for context there next slide please. |
| 00:29:06.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:29:07.51 | Matthew Mandich | Here's an image of the building as it exists today, just to get an idea. It's one of those buildings that residents pass by a lot and don't really notice, but certainly is there on the corner. The old restaurant sailors would be right here on the left. Next slide, please. |
| 00:29:22.52 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 00:29:22.66 | Matthew Mandich | So project summary is a conversion of an existing three-story office building into a 12-unit multifamily residential building with two affordable low-income units using the provisions of state density bonus law and the Housing Accountability Act. |
| 00:29:22.67 | Adam Blair | So. |
| 00:29:34.84 | Matthew Mandich | The permits required are a conditional use permit for seven or more dwelling units above the ground floor, which is pursuant to our commercial development table, SMC table 10.24.1. Zoning permit is also required for the change of use and for the interior and exterior remodel. The majority of the remodel being proposed is interior, and there will be no change to the height, setbacks, far, building coverage, or the existing building envelope. A lot line merger is also required to merge the two adjacent identical lots of record, which are both 6,000 square feet. Thank you. setbacks for building coverage or the existing building envelope. A lot line merger is also required to merge the two adjacent identical lots of record, which are both 6000 square feet. Next slide, please. A little bit of background here. The structure was originally built in the 1960s as an apartment building. It was known as the Vista Del Mar Apartments. In 1975, it was converted to an office building. So the proposal here in front of you today is actually to convert this office building back to its original use as an apartment building. The full application for this proposal was first submitted to CDD in April of 2021, which was also following an SB 330 pre-app. This item was continued by the Planning Commission at that time and ultimately withdrawn due to some issues with the fire and gurney access, among some other issues identified by staff. However, a new proposal was submitted via an SB 330 pre application to CDD in September of 2024. The full application followed in December 2024 and the application was deemed complete and scheduled for hearing in April 2025. Just to remind this is also a housing element inventory site, not an opportunity site, but an inventory site and we can see those two identical adjacent parcels right here in our central in our neighborhood commercial district. Next slide please. So as mentioned, this is a state density bonus law project. The neighborhood commercial zone allows for one unit per 1,500 square feet for a 12,000 square foot parcel, which is both those parcels combined. That would be eight base units. The project is eligible for state density bonus law because it is over a five-unit proposal. The proposal is for two of the eight base units to be affordable to low-income renters. This qualifies for a 50% density bonus, which half of eight base units is four. So for a total of 12 units, this affordability level also complies with our chapter on residential uses and commercial zones, which requires 20% affordable units in mixed use districts, which this is. So the total of units proposed eight plus the the four bonus units equals 12, so 12-unit building, and that includes those two low-income units. The parking required by the zoning ordinance for this project would be 22 spaces. However, state density bonus law allows for 1.5 spaces for two-bedroom units and one space for one-bedroom or studios. So that is a requirement of 16 spaces for this project using the state density bonus law. However, the proposal provides for 17 spaces. The applicants are also using one of the three concessions afforded to them by state density bonus law and that concession will be used for ground floor residential, which is traditionally prohibited in commercial zones. Next slide, please. So here's just a breakdown of the zoning table here for you. We have the ordinance requirements on this side, existing conditions, and the proposal. I'm just going to work through these quickly. Maximum area, 5,000 square feet by the ordinance. We have two 6,000 square feet square foot lots. Those are going to be combined to a 12,000 square foot lot, so that does comply. As mentioned, one dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet. Current use is an office building. However, the proposal is for 12 residential units via state density bonus law. This also complies. As you can see here, the rear and right side setbacks are non compliant. However, as the building was built in the 1960s before the current zoning ordinance, it is a legal non conforming building. Maximum building height is under our 32 foot max and that will not be changing building coverage and far will also not be changing. The building does comply with the building coverage required by the zoning district. However, the existing floor area is over what the ordinance requires. However, again, this is a legal nonconforming building parking, as we just discussed, ordinance would require 22 spaces. The existing building actually has 21 and that will go down to 17 with the new proposal pursuant to state density bonus law. Next slide, please. |
| 00:33:41.57 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:33:41.76 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. So just going to walk you through some of the floor plans here of existing and proposed can see. Existing right here, the L shaped building parking lot. We're losing a couple spaces here and over here and one here as well. So that brings us down from 21 to 17. So loss of total four spaces. You could see one of the affordable units is proposed for this area right here and then another studio. So these are the two ground floor units that the concession has been requested to provide for. Next slide, please. |
| 00:34:12.81 | Matthew Mandich | Moving up to the second floor, you can see existing office space here on the left hand side, this will be converted to five residential units some one bedroom some two bedroom and there'll be one affordable unit on the second floor as well next slide please. Again, moving up to the third floor, basically a mirror of the second floor more or less, existing office space was here. This will all be converted, interior conversion to five more units on the third floor for a total of 12, five, five, and two. Next slide, please. Just provided some elevations here, not all the elevations. As you can see, existing elevations on the top, proposed elevations on the bottom. This is kind of the backside of the building here. You can see a couple windows being added to provide for the new residential units here and there, but very little change overall. Probably the most visual change will occur in the front of the building, but again, very minimal. Just some additional screening and some aesthetic changes for the remodel and for this conversion. Some new stair solutions as well to provide for the gurney access. So yeah, pretty minimal overall, pretty plug and play site. Next slide, please. Here's some of the renderings and I think the applicant applicant has a presentation to which will show more of these but think object objectively a visual improvement on what exists today, and there is a materials board included in the plan set for you as well. Next slide. Alright, so before we jump to the recommendation just want to respectfully remind commissioners that this project does qualify as a housing development under the housing accountability act which is California state law that limits local governments ability to deny reduce the density or making feasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective local development standards cannot deny this project on any subjective criteria and you could only really deny a can be made regarding specific objective written health and safety requirements can also cannot impose conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project density or render the project invisible next slide please. So with that, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve application 2024-00241 for 2015 Bridgeway and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the conditional use permit, zoning permit, and lot merger. Staff finds that the project is in conformance with all the required findings necessary in the municipal code and is also consistent with objective local development standards and the general plan. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions commissioners may have. Thank you. |
| 00:36:36.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for the excellent presentation and answering a lot of questions ahead of time for us. Matthew, I'm going to open it up to the Commission for some questions. Commissioner Luxenberg, questions for staff? |
| 00:36:48.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation. I have this project was before us with regard to these affordable units. There's some issues there, but rather than ask you this question and then ask it again to the applicant, I'm just going to ask it of the applicant. So we'll defer that one until the applicant's presentation. But pursuant to the affordable housing units, and this may be a question for our attorney, how specifically do we codify the affordable nature of it to assure that it is affordable now and into the future? Is that going to be a deed restriction, or how is that going to happen? |
| 00:37:30.89 | Matthew Mandich | So there is a condition of approval that was actually added to the resolution that was amended yesterday and provided, but I'll let our city attorney jump in on that. |
| 00:37:41.62 | Attorney Otto | Yes, it's special condition number one, which can be found on page, it looks like page 8 of 10. Okay. And I can read it if you'd like, Commissioner. |
| 00:37:52.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. I mean, I encourage staff, if you're going to change stuff, we got a whole series of emails saying that these things have been amended, and I did not get one for this. Did an email go out for this one? |
| 00:38:04.80 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, it should have. I apologize if that was not included in one of those update emails. |
| 00:38:08.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I saw something regarding CEQA, but I didn't see anything regarding conditions. So anyways, it's hard. We got a lot of email, and I saw a bunch of them, but I haven't seen this one. So if you could read that, that would be great. |
| 00:38:20.13 | Attorney Otto | Of course, pursuant to government code section 65915C1. The applicant shall ensure that the continued affordability of a low income rental units that qualify the applicant for the award of the density bonus for 55 years or longer period of time if required by the Construction or Mortgage Financing Assistance Program, Mortgage Insurance Program or Rental Subsidy Program. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall execute and record an affordable housing agreement in a form satisfactory to the city attorney, ensuring that the rents for the lower income units shall be set at an affordable rent as defined in section 50053 of the health and safety code for the statutorily required period of time. |
| 00:39:15.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I'm also trying to see the hard copy and I'm going to it now Let me just |
| 00:39:34.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And this is number one. On special. |
| 00:39:36.47 | Attorney Otto | Number. Special condition number one, And to answer your question, it is an affordable agreement that will be put in place and it's approved as a form by the city attorney. So that will ensure the 55 years of affordability. |
| 00:39:52.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. We can discuss that later when we get back to the dais. Thank you. |
| 00:39:59.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Any other questions, Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:40:02.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Not at this time. I'll save the other ones for the applicants. |
| 00:40:05.12 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you very much. Commissioner Marlott. |
| 00:40:07.28 | David Marlatt | Yes, again, more of a clarification on the state density bonus law and the conditional use permit. So the maximum number of units, of course, that they are permissible are 12 units. If, for whatever reason, code compliance down the road, structural issues, they have to reduce the unit count to 11, for example. I assume the two units that are affordable have to be affordable, and that unit that they lose is a hypothetical. It would be the market rate unit, and that would not have to come back to us as an amendment to the conditional use. So if the unit count- So we're dealing with a high- |
| 00:40:43.73 | Matthew Mandich | So we're dealing with a hypothesis that they would have to edit a unit out in some way? |
| 00:40:47.72 | David Marlatt | if they have to edit the unit out, Does that have to come back to the commission? |
| 00:40:54.33 | Matthew Mandich | I would defer to the city attorney on that. I wouldn't anticipate any units being lost. |
| 00:41:00.73 | David Marlatt | Well, I don't want to presume it's not about discussing building codes tonight either. So I'm more and less asking for process. If the unit, if it's 11 units, for example, and this could apply to any project. I'm not familiar enough with state density bonus laws and the conditional use. Does it have to come back to the commission of the amendment |
| 00:41:18.31 | Matthew Mandich | But just to clarify, the conditional use permit is only for the allowance of the seven or more units above the upper floor. So I don't think that that would. impact the conditional use permit. |
| 00:41:31.95 | David Marlatt | OK. |
| 00:41:32.65 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:41:32.69 | David Marlatt | That's why. |
| 00:41:32.97 | Nastassya Saad | this is important. |
| 00:41:33.58 | David Marlatt | was. Okay. All right. So then maybe I didn't get through completely. for it. No other questions. |
| 00:41:42.22 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:41:45.66 | Fred Moore | Again, great presentation, Matthew. I really appreciate it. One point clarification. So the Gurney issue that came up before when it was previously before the commission has been resolved with the new design standards with the staircase you mentioned. |
| 00:42:00.45 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, that's correct. And it's actually visible on one of the slides. I probably should have pointed out a little bit more. But yeah, that's, that's been remedied and SMFD is as given their okay on that and approve the project with conditions as well. So shouldn't be an issue there about gurney access anymore. |
| 00:42:16.41 | Fred Moore | Okay, great. And then with respect to the the new special condition with the Affordable Housing Agreement. Just want to confirm, so this is going to be low income, not moderate income. And then with respect to the housing agreement that the applicant needs to comply with in a form satisfactory to the city attorney, will that agreement require the city to be involved with reviewing the status of the various applicants who are going to be renting these units or is it up to the applicant and the owner of the property to ensure that they comply with the agreement? |
| 00:42:56.45 | Matthew Mandich | I'll actually defer to city attorney on that. We've not dealt with a ton of these, so. |
| 00:43:01.86 | Fred Moore | Right. And I've just seen I've just seen a variety of wines, some that do involve the city, some that don't, some that have the limitations. So I was just curious what the anticipation is for that type of agreement. |
| 00:43:02.36 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:43:12.93 | Attorney Otto | So while I have not discussed it with the city, you're right. There's various ways in which it can be done. Typically, what I've seen is where they have to provide a report annually showing that the applicants and all of the parties that are under that low income are satisfactory. So versus being on the front end, we don't typically see that. It can be done that way. But usually it's a annual report that has to show that they are in compliance. But again, those final details will be worked out through the agreement and in concert with how the city wants to oversee this project. |
| 00:43:48.28 | Fred Moore | So with respect to the agreement, is that something that Commission will be reviewing or is it up to you and the applicant and is just going to happen however it comes down between the two of you. |
| 00:44:00.66 | Attorney Otto | It's not going to be the applicant. It's going to be the city staff and the city attorney's office is going to be progressing. proposing this agreement. It's not something that comes back to the commission. It, The condition is it has to be put in this place. The city attorney's office is the one that's ensuring that it's going to be carried out. The condition is satisfactorily carried out. |
| 00:44:19.65 | Fred Moore | And I apologize for asking these questions and being new and not understanding the procedure. Um, So I'm assuming that the city does not have already a standard affordable agreement that it's going to modify for this particular site. We have to create a new one. |
| 00:44:39.01 | Attorney Otto | I don't know if the city has one or not. I know our office has them. So it's just a matter of working with that. But obviously each of those agreements are, tailored to the needs of the city and how, it's going to play out. the project and the needs of the city. So our office has one as to whether they've, it's been utilized here before I do not know. |
| 00:45:02.78 | Fred Moore | Okay, final question. So this is low income, not very low or not moderate. Is that correct? Correct. Okay, thank you. No further questions. |
| 00:45:09.89 | Unknown | I got |
| 00:45:14.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg, |
| 00:45:17.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I have a follow on question? Speak a little closer to the mic. Can I have a follow-on question to Commissioner Marlott's earlier question? Thank you. |
| 00:45:25.48 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:45:25.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:45:25.55 | Nastassya Saad | Hypothetical, no. |
| 00:45:26.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Not the hypothetical. OK. Wait, no, not sure. |
| 00:45:27.88 | Unknown | Okay. Bye. |
| 00:45:29.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think it's good. |
| 00:45:29.93 | Unknown | Commissioner Marlott had the hypothetical question. |
| 00:45:29.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We're getting this. Yes, but I think it's important because this is a standard thing we do for all projects. There's a provision in the conditions that says the project has to be designed as shown on the plans. The community development director is authorized to administratively approve minor modifications. I do not think reducing the number of the units would be a minor modification. so I would I want to make clear beyond the density law that if the design of this project changes, it needs to come back to this commission. |
| 00:46:08.78 | Nastassya Saad | Correct, but just for clarification, we've got a conditional use permit before us and a zoning permit and a lot line adjustment. So just want to remain in scope of what we're here to discuss. But I appreciate that clarification. I only have a few questions just in the interest that we haven't seen a project like this really in decades. So can you just touch on any potential HVAC, anything from the roof perspective? We know that the height is definitely not changing. The footprint is not changing. Just based on some of the public comment that we have received, which is all attached to this agenda. Can you comment on anything from the roof |
| 00:46:50.04 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, sure. Sorry for not including the roof plan there. It is available on the plan set that was attached to the agenda. And the roof is existing and not changing. There's no nothing in the plans indicating there will be additional systems placed on the roof. Even if there were to be something like a view impact or things like that, that's not a valid reason to deny the project. So I've not seen anything in the plans that would lead me to believe there's additions to the roof, but you're more than welcome to ask the applicant that in case I'm not fully clued in on future plans. But yeah, again, even if even if that were the case would not be grounds for any kind of denial or modification. |
| 00:47:29.51 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, thank you very much. And then can you also just comment on the ingress and egress? It is a very busy part of Bridgeway and traffic kind of flows down to spring at a high rate. So can we just comment on anything from fire and safety perspective? |
| 00:47:45.39 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, we had our team at DBW look at it. They didn't seem to have any issues with the turning radius or the parking spaces, anything like that. Fire also approved the project with conditions there. I didn't see anything that I remember off the top of my head. That was a was a red flag for anything related to safety or any issues like that. It already has two driveways there. The parking lots in place. It's been in use for. Many years now. I mean, the building hasn't been used for a while, but the parking configuration and the ingress egress from automobile perspective hasn't proved to be a problem in the past that I'm aware of. So I don't think there'll be any issues with that. |
| 00:48:23.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:48:23.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:23.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:48:23.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:23.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:48:23.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:24.03 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:48:24.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:48:24.07 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:48:24.29 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We are going to turn it over to the applicant now if you can |
| 00:48:30.39 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you, Commissioner. |
| 00:48:30.88 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. |
| 00:48:36.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much and welcome this evening. If you could please state your name and address for the record. And you'll have 15 minutes on the clock that we will show you. And you are welcome to reserve any time for rebuttal for public comment. But the floor is yours. |
| 00:48:50.95 | Sean Bailey | Great. Good evening. My name is Sean Bailey. I'm the architect for the project. Our project team is here tonight. I'm going to start to introduce Paul Blickman and his daughter Aubrey are here. Paul is the owner developer and also a really great builder who's been building in Marin for many decades. We have Ariel Harris, who's been helping us with some of the legal, and then Jay Baer from my office, who's been doing a lot of the heavy lifting on the design. I want to start also by thanking Matthew for a lot of hard work to get us to this point and thank the commission for hearing us tonight. Matthew covered a lot and was thorough. So I am going to be somewhat brief and hold for questions. But I'll go through a few slides here. Yeah, this is a rendering that shows some of the cosmetic upgrades we're doing. Next slide, please. So I think the biggest thing that we're hoping is perceived as a big benefit to the city and the community is it's 12 extra units without having to block views of neighbors. And Matthew touched on it. It does have an interesting history. It was originally housing units. And there's something about converting it back that felt right. And I know Paul is passionate about executing it the right way. and so yeah we think we think it's very important from the get-go not trying to add a fourth story or anything that would affect neighbors. So that was sort of from the outset the path forward. and then we're hoping that trying to do something that with the look of the building that modernizes it but keeps it contextual to this area of Sausalito but freshens the look of the building that modernizes it but keeps it contextual to this area of Sausalito, but freshens the look a little bit so the street appeal is improved. Next slide, please. I think Matthew covered all this with the zoning data and unit count and parking. So I'm going to keep going on next slide, please. Next slide, please. I think we can go through floor plans. Next slide, please. Quickly here, I'll touch on this. So we're trying to preserve the shingles, refinish them. We think that's part of the look and certainly something that provides it context to the neighborhood. There is some aluminum panels that are going in between windows and then a lattice, aluminum vertical lattice at the stair towers that give it a little bit more visual interest. And then there's a few areas at the base level of refinished stucco. Next slide, please. Thank you. |
| 00:51:33.13 | Unknown (Applicant) | That's just the elevations. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide, please. Next slide. Thanks. |
| 00:51:48.03 | Sean Bailey | THE END OF |
| 00:51:51.51 | Sean Bailey | Yeah, I think that the second and third floor, they're stacked. So they're the exact same floor plate. Next slide, please. And this is kind of the last running we're going to show, but to try to respond to some of the questions we got about the unit count, I do think it's been part of the reason it's taken a few years and a lot of hard work to get us here is we did have the fire department, the building department, give their comments. So we do feel like we've done our due diligence on any potential red flags that would come up as part of that process and feel good about being able to maintain our unit count. And I know that that's Paul's goal. The other thing I'll mention is because Paul's a builder and very familiar with the process, we've talked to mechanical engineers already and all of the condenser units and mechanical equipment would be not on the roof and at the lower level, so it wouldn't affect the neighbors. And with that, like I said, I know fairly brief, but I'm going to hold there and open it up to questions. And Paul is available as well if there are any questions for him as the owner. Thank you very much. |
| 00:53:02.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We're gonna stop the clock at 10 minutes and 49 seconds that you'll have back for rebuttal. I think we do have some questions. Commissioner Luxembourg, why don't you start us off please? |
| 00:53:14.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. This was before us previously and there was a large issue which still has not been addressed and it's a code issue. So it's going to be a long question but I'll frame it and then I will look through the two questions that I have on it. So our code requires the following. The number of bedrooms for affordable units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix of the market rate units in the development. Affordable units shall be of equal design and quality as market rate units. And we raised this when you were for us two years ago. So on the plans, this is the math and the objective design standards that we have in our code. On the plan, there are 10 market rate units. And I counted that eight of those are two-bedroom units. These are the market rate ones. And two are one-bedroom or studio units. So there are two affordable units. So if you take 80% of the market rate units of the eight units, 80% is 1.6. So we either are required to have one two bedroom or two two bedrooms but we have to have at least one bedroom if we're rounding down if we're rounding up we need two two bedrooms On your plans, which are inconsistent with one another, you have in your attachment B, it says the affordable units are proposed for the ground floor. So that's the first problem. On page two, it says the affordable units are identified in the plan set. So now they're in the plan set, so we talk to the plan set and don't have to worry about the document that describes the density bonus, but that should be corrected. On sheet A0.1, the chart says unit 1.1 and unit 2.3 are the affordable units. That was the little chart you had on one of your slides, but that's only a studio and a one-bedroom, so obviously that's incorrect because we need at least one, if not two, two bedrooms. On sheet A0.5, there are three units that are marked as affordable, and those are units 2.3, 3.4, and 1.1. On sheet 2.0, on another sheet, 2.4, I'm sorry, A2.4 unit, I'm sorry. On sheet, I've got the wrong number. But on another sheet, I think it's, I'm not sure which one it is now, 3.4 was not identified as affordable compared to what that other sheet says. So I have two questions. First, are you proposing a simple one? Are you proposing two units or three units? |
| 00:55:58.46 | Sean Bailey | Sure. Yeah, it is two units. So apologize for the if there's graphical errors, one of which is on the lowest level and one of which is on the level above. |
| 00:56:07.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so the one on the lowest level, what I'm going to suggest, and I want to know if you're acceptable of this, on that additional condition that we have that says you have to codify these, that's special condition number one, I'm going to recommend that as you have on your plans that the unit 3.4, which you say is affordable on your plans, on of them and 2.3 so that's one two bedroom and one one bedroom i'm not suggesting both two bedrooms and these are the smallest of those but you do need at least one two bedroom because uh you you would not meet our code for affordable housing so uh so would you be acceptable the adding to that condition will be a number two under special conditions to have unit 3.4, which is identified on your plans as affordable, and unit 2.3, which is also identified as affordable, as the two affordable units, and then the one on the first floor could be a not affordable unit or |
| 00:57:10.90 | Ariel Harris | Good evening. My name is Ariel Harris and I am the land use counsel for the applicant. Commissioner Lexenberg, thank you for your question. The applicant would not be comfortable with that condition in terms of a legal response to the question, which I'm sure the city attorney will also want to opine on. The way that the language is written in the city's code pertaining to sort of the equivalency of units affordable to market Um, if you interpret the code. in an objective way. There is nothing in the code that would lead you to the result that you are suggesting from a legal perspective. There are three unit types and there are only going to be two affordable units. And so what we've done is we've selected two of the three. one studio and one one-bedroom. Nothing in the code from an objective perspective legally mandates that a two bedroom be required. That is the applicant's position, and certainly we would ask for the city attorney to respond as well. |
| 00:58:14.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're suggesting even though we identified this issue last time and even though you submitted a set of plans that clearly identifies unit 3.4 as an affordable unit. At this late hour, you want to take out that affordable unit? |
| 00:58:28.82 | Ariel Harris | um, |
| 00:58:29.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's what you're suggesting. |
| 00:58:30.15 | Ariel Harris | If there is an error in the... |
| 00:58:31.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Look at the drawings. So you tell me why you think that you're bothered to submit this We identified this issue that we had trouble with the one in the first floor at the last meeting So I was comforted to see that you brought back this item 3.4 on the second floor as an affordable unit and We're not changing the under the density bonus law. We're not I'm not suggesting we're changing the number of units in any way form or matter all I'm suggesting is you're designating one is affordable and I mean I guess if you could give us a pro forma and show how that you can't possibly do this but the idea as we indicated two years ago that you're gonna shove this one on the first floor in the back, which seems highly inappropriate. I don't see why you wouldn't meet what's already. I'm saying you have three in there and I'm allowing, suggesting we'll have a condition that takes one of the three out and leave the two that make the most sense and do also comply with our design, objective design standards. |
| 00:59:35.74 | Nastassya Saad | Are we able to get the plans from a visual perspective so everyone can be on the same page, including the public? And may I also ask attorneys. |
| 00:59:43.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And we're going to cheat A, 0.1. |
| 00:59:47.07 | Ariel Harris | And may I just clarify that To the extent that there is a page, a sheet in the plan set that states a third unit will be provided, that is a typographical error. Every other aspect of our application, everything we have provided to staff, including the statements in the staff report, are consistent in stating there will only be two units, and that is what is necessary to allow for the density bonus that is being used. |
| 01:00:12.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm just just so we can short so I'm not suggesting you provide the three units all I'm suggesting as As we asked back two years ago that unit 3.4 and 2.2. B though be those two units That's that's what we're suggesting and I think that's appropriate We don't want to feel that we're sticking the affordable units in the worst possible place in the building That just would be inappropriate and I'm sure financially you can make this work, but let's look at sheet a 0.5 |
| 01:00:12.75 | Ariel Harris | I'm not. |
| 01:00:28.54 | Sandra Bushmaker | I think |
| 01:00:42.60 | Nastassya Saad | Let's give staff a second to get the plans up. And at the same time while we're getting the plans, may I also ask Attorney Otto to weigh in here on the conversation? |
| 01:00:59.78 | Sean Bailey | We got an A0.1. |
| 01:01:02.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | A 0.5. |
| 01:01:04.44 | Sean Bailey | So that is the egress diagram and that is a, I apologize, that is a graphic error that I think that's the only place that shows it affordable. That was never the intention. It was always the first two levels. I'm looking at A0.1, the unit matrix in it. |
| 01:01:18.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, you realize this is what we asked for two years ago. We indicated that we needed to have this one on this floor. That was part of what we said in order to meet this code requirement. |
| 01:01:28.64 | Ariel Harris | With respect, we were both part of this two years ago. It was actually requested at the very end prior to the hearing. due to the fire gurney issue. for this item to be continued. We were not present for the hearing. There was no action taken. There was no recommendation. I understand the comments at the time raised this very issue. I do remember that. However, it was never There was never an opinion, a legal opinion by the city attorney. We were not present and there there was no public hearing conducted. I do want to make that clear for the record. Um, you're, you are raising a legal question. I'll state my position, then I'll let the city attorney respond. And you cited to, you know, we should be required to provide a pro forma. I want to respond to that. So there's two items here. One is a legal interpretation of the city's code with respect to the equivalency requirements for affordable and market units. Our position is that if you interpret that objectively that it is It does not lead to a single result, which is the result that Commissioner Luxenberg is requesting. And so therefore, it cannot be legally required. In terms of- |
| 01:02:39.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you clarify that a little bit? It says affordable units should be equivalent to the bedroom mix. So my simple math, I was just using math. It wasn't an opinion. You have eight units that are two-bedroom, and you have two bedrooms that are one or studio. So there's a total of 10 units, and 80% of those are two bedrooms, so how is the affordable units shall be the equivalent of the bedroom mix? I'm making it real simple. It's just one two-bedroom and one one-bedroom, or even one one-bedroom, one two-bedroom, and one studio, But how can you say that when your predominance are two bedrooms, that in order that it says equivalent to the bedroom mix? So how could you, I can't even, I'm not a lawyer, but I can't even imagine the plain words are simple, it's straightforward. |
| 01:03:39.20 | Nastassya Saad | I'd actually really like Attorney Otto, sorry, pardon me, to just weigh in here just to help set the stage |
| 01:03:50.27 | Attorney Otto | So this is the first I'm hearing about this whole argument. So I apologize. I'm kind of catching up. uh, While I'm seeing what you're saying in the code, The applicant is proposing two ground floor units. even to the extent that let's say we're going to apply this, I'm only seeing one concession. |
| 01:04:12.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | session. |
| 01:04:13.07 | Unknown | So there's |
| 01:04:13.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:04:13.62 | Attorney Otto | Thank you. |
| 01:04:13.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:13.66 | Attorney Otto | Thank you. |
| 01:04:13.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | One is a ground four. They're not proposing two ground four units anymore. That's an error in their other document. So that's not what they're proposing. |
| 01:04:13.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:14.03 | Nastassya Saad | There's no. |
| 01:04:14.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:14.47 | Ariel Harris | Thank you. |
| 01:04:14.50 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:04:14.64 | Unknown | for. |
| 01:04:15.38 | Ariel Harris | I'm not sure. |
| 01:04:15.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:20.86 | Ariel Harris | There's two ground floor units proposed. One of them would be identified as affordable, and then the other affordable unit would be on the first floor with the other units. |
| 01:04:32.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But your density thing says two ground floor affordable units. I was just wanting to make sure that that isn't what you're proposing. |
| 01:04:37.26 | Ariel Harris | that is what you're I don't believe that is true again |
| 01:04:41.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So look at your look at your density bonus document We only can deal with what you submit. I mean, you know, and that says they will be on the first floor |
| 01:04:49.48 | Unknown | And that says... |
| 01:04:55.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:55.42 | Sean Bailey | Thank you. |
| 01:04:55.46 | Unknown | See you. |
| 01:04:55.83 | Sean Bailey | Thank you. |
| 01:04:56.01 | Unknown | you |
| 01:04:56.03 | Sean Bailey | Thank you. |
| 01:04:56.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:57.82 | Sean Bailey | I think maybe it's most useful. |
| 01:04:59.20 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry, may I ask you to speak into the microphone just so everybody can hear? |
| 01:04:59.22 | Sean Bailey | you |
| 01:05:03.88 | Director Phipps | And feel free to direct me to go to whatever page you'd like. |
| 01:05:10.90 | Sean Bailey | A 0.1. Good. We have a table there. the top middle residential unit matrix up |
| 01:05:20.28 | Unknown (Applicant) | Uh, residential. |
| 01:05:23.38 | Sean Bailey | Yeah. Thank you. I believe that clearly shows what we intended with one affordable flat on the ground floor and one affordable one bedroom on the second floor. And that's what the floor plans show. And if our EDS chart shows something different, then I'm just clarifying what our intention is, so. |
| 01:05:39.53 | Doug Malani | Thank you. |
| 01:05:39.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, the. |
| 01:05:39.87 | Doug Malani | Thank you. |
| 01:05:43.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, this was your intention two years ago, and at that meeting we raised the issue that it was inconsistent with this code. And I'm amazed that we've gotten this far. When it was clearly stated to you at that meeting, even though it was continued, that this was going to be an issue, and you had two years to address this, and I think it's terrible that you're going to try to, as we said at that meeting, shove this affordable unit back behind the elevator. We said that at that meeting. You heard it at that meeting. And you're here today. We're not talking about changing the number of units. All we're talking about is doing what you have on your EGIS plan or whatever plan you're calling it to meet that. And we'll take out the one on the first floor, keep the two on the third and the second floor. I'm sure you can make the numbers work, and we're not changing the density. We think it's a good project, but we don't really think that low-income people should be treated differently than others, and if you've got 80% of your things as two bedrooms, you should have at least one of the, technically you should have two, but I can see one of each. That would be fine fine But I don't see how you can sit here and argue this math or whatever I mean if you're gonna hide behind some legality and just think about the right thing to do here |
| 01:06:59.08 | Nastassya Saad | I still would really appreciate Attorney Otto's opinion here based on the code that Commissioner Luxembourg is raising. quite specifically about the low income type of unit |
| 01:07:19.89 | Attorney Otto | So, uh, |
| 01:07:26.18 | Attorney Otto | My thought is, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, we've only used one concession, correct? And they have three concessions that they have available to them? |
| 01:07:36.26 | Director Phipps | That's correct. |
| 01:07:38.35 | Attorney Otto | So my concern is that even if we can apply, even if we assume we can apply our code as it's applicable. The applicant is entitled to concessions and that any pushing of this, I think, creates some problematic for the city. because density bonus law is there to allow them to use this. They have the concessions. So even if we just assume for the argument's sake that they have to do this, they would then request the concession and we would have a very difficult time to enforce against that. because we do not have any healthy safety reasons in which to say so. And together. |
| 01:08:22.29 | Nastassya Saad | Director Pips, can you kindly comment here for us, just for a little guidance of this conversation? Because we have a lot to go through here. |
| 01:08:28.11 | Director Phipps | Certainly. I generally agree with Attorney Otto's feedback. I think the applicant has flexibility to apply the remaining concessions and or waivers as appropriate to address Commissioner Luxenberg's concern. I do appreciate the discussion related to the objective nature of that statement, but regardless of our ultimate conclusion on that discussion, if we do agree that it is an objective standard, they're able to waive that requirement. I'd also just like to say this is an inventory site in the city's housing element. The applicant is taking advantage of state density bonus law. The city has committed to building affordable housing on this site. And staff is personally excited to support the application. |
| 01:09:02.08 | Sandra Bushmaker | So it's important. |
| 01:09:23.09 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I'm going to, let's just put a pin in that part of the conversation, just because I also want to give some of the other commissioners a chance here to have a discussion. Do you have any other different line of questioning, or even on the same, but can we ask another question? Okay. |
| 01:09:40.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, no, I'll bring it back up obviously when it comes back to the dias. Uh, but I do have a following question of, uh, attorney Otto if so, if we, |
| 01:09:45.23 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 01:09:45.65 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 01:09:53.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | if they have a concession to take out the affordable unit, I mean, I'm very unclear and well, I guess when we get to it on the dais, I'll be looking for a legal opinion separate after this meeting before we take a vote on clarification on what concessions are allowed and why not, because it just seems inappropriate to me. Thank you. |
| 01:10:14.56 | Attorney Otto | Just to be clear, I'm not saying that a concession could be to take out an affordable unit, that the whole reason why they have density bonus is because they have the two affordable units. So just so |
| 01:10:27.57 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I don't think the, just to dovetail off that, thank you, Attorney Otto, I don't think the applicant intends to remove any units from this project. The discussion that we've had here is clarifying that the applicant is committing to two affordable units, and as Senior Planner Mandich described in his presentation, the math works out. |
| 01:10:46.20 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, and just to, on behalf of Commissioner Luxembourg, he is also not suggesting to remove any affordable units. He's simply talking about the mixed type of what units will be affordable. So I just want to clarify the record there, but we're going to move on from this topic. Commissioner Marla, do you have questions for the applicants? |
| 01:11:07.60 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you, and thank you for your presentation. I just did a couple on a totally different line. In terms of materials, you're proposing wood shingles, which I guess is just replacing what's there or keeping within that same look. Have you considered or would you consider something more fire resistant, such as a fiber cement shingle or fire retardant, this being in a WUI district and, of course, wildfire being a major concern of all of us? |
| 01:11:36.51 | Sean Bailey | I think the intention was for cost reasons to try to reuse the current shingles, but I know there are a lot of good fiber cement products out there. And, you know, I could talk to the owner about that, but. |
| 01:11:49.70 | David Marlatt | Well, you're okay. This gets into the building code, but this is going to trigger some sort of a seismic upgrade with shear wall and is it realistic that the existing shingles will remain Or have to be resheathed anyway, just to achieve the five days chip sheathing that you show in your detail. |
| 01:12:00.94 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 01:12:00.96 | Sean Bailey | I have to be honest. |
| 01:12:07.56 | Sean Bailey | Tell me the, the woo you're talking about. |
| 01:12:09.65 | David Marlatt | Yeah, or even just be consistent with the details in your drawing. |
| 01:12:12.45 | Sean Bailey | Yeah, I can, yeah, I guess I can't promise up here we're going to change the material palette. I can talk to the owner about it. I totally understand the fire concern and yeah, but I, Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:12:27.32 | David Marlatt | I was just asking if something like that was considered. I mean, obviously, that doesn't speak to the affordable density bonus, but as a design element, a dominant design element, and being concerned with fire resistance, there are products available with that same look, which are fire resistant. |
| 01:12:42.17 | Sean Bailey | Thank you. |
| 01:12:42.20 | David Marlatt | you |
| 01:12:42.23 | Sean Bailey | Yeah. |
| 01:12:42.47 | David Marlatt | I can understand that. So I hope that's something you'd consider. My other question too, and this kind of I don't want to get into building code issues, but just something to understand whether or not you've thought about or addressed is along the back side of the building, the distance to the property line is four foot six inches, so under five feet. Have you, I guess, with the fire department or the building department addressed that distance in terms of the... |
| 01:13:06.84 | Sean Bailey | fire rating |
| 01:13:06.86 | David Marlatt | Fire rating. Fire rating and the presence of operable windows. Is that something that's being addressed? |
| 01:13:13.99 | Sean Bailey | Yeah, we are aware that it's within the five feet and triggers that fire code stuff and that we'll have to deal with it. Yes. |
| 01:13:20.95 | David Marlatt | Okay. And again, another reason why the sheathing of the exterior is probably going to come off. |
| 01:13:26.31 | Sean Bailey | On that side, yes, within the five feet, it will have to, yes. |
| 01:13:29.59 | David Marlatt | Thank you my other questions well you identified also that there would be no mechanical no condenser units up on the roof, which is very nice to hear But I don't see them in the plan either and then I'm not expecting it to be in the plan But just conceptually, where would they be located? |
| 01:13:45.84 | Sean Bailey | We had to lose a parking spot due to a new transformer. And there's an area there that we've indicated with our mechanical engineers. And I know we'll have to put a mechanical plan together as part of the building process, which we're prepared to do. |
| 01:14:05.04 | David Marlatt | Okay, but that's not on this set of plans at this time, which I understand we're not looking at mechanical plans. |
| 01:14:10.74 | Sean Bailey | It is not at this time, no. Thank you. |
| 01:14:12.89 | David Marlatt | So would that would that cause one more parking space to drop out? |
| 01:14:16.72 | Sean Bailey | No, we do not need to lose another spot. Okay. |
| 01:14:20.67 | David Marlatt | Okay. Thank you, I think that's all my questions. |
| 01:14:23.67 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Moore, questions of the applicant. |
| 01:14:29.54 | Fred Moore | Just to follow up a couple of questions. Obviously, I'm excited about the project. That's the walk by that vacant building for years. And so it would be good to see some people in there and especially the opportunity for affordable housing. So I'm excited that you've come back with with a proposal. just to confirm. follow up on Commissioner Marlott's question. So, The condensers are coming off the roof, which was a concern from the adjacent neighbors. You're going to put them on the ground floor, but you're not exactly sure where they're going to go or they're going to go in the place where you've lost the parking. |
| 01:15:02.99 | Nastassya Saad | I'm terribly sorry to interrupt you. I just want to remind the Commission that we're here for a conditional, this is not design review, we're here for a conditional use permit. Okay. And a lot line adjustment. So I just want to keep our questions respectfully to the purview of what's before us right now. |
| 01:15:22.84 | Fred Moore | Okay, well, then I will withdraw that. I appreciate that keeping us back on track. I guess I just wanna confirm maybe with the affordable combat that came up, So the affordable units, there's one studio, on the ground floor currently and one bedroom on the first floor. That's correct, yes. Okay, thank you. No more further questions. |
| 01:15:45.21 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. And I don't have any questions at all, either in scope. Commissioner? Luxembourg, let's still hold tight on your question. I think, thank you. I think Attorney Otto is going to continue to look into that. So you, I marked down 10 minutes and 49 seconds. So you'll be able to come back after public comment if you'd like to use the remainder of that time. Anyone from your applicant team, thank you very much for being up here with us. For now, we're going to go ahead and open it up to public comment on this item. Director Phipps, do you have any speaker cards? |
| 01:16:10.61 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 01:16:20.09 | Director Phipps | Yes, thank you, Chair. I have one received speaker card. That is the card of Jenny Reinders, and I would invite Jenny to approach the dais. Welcome. Thank you for being here. You'll have three minutes to speak. Please state your name and address for the record. |
| 01:16:20.72 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:16:33.76 | Jenny Reinders | Hi there. My name is Jenny Reinders, and I grew up and now currently live in the building right next door to 201.5. I want to talk about parking and traffic safety and the long-term impact on our neighborhood. When 2015 was built in the early 60s, it was a very different time. Some of you may remember that cars are a luxury. The original building had a swimming pool, that's how little parking they cared about or needed. Obviously, nowadays, most of us have, most families, the average is have two cars. Proposed plan is 19 bedrooms. That would mean possibly 19 cars. And that would fit on top of that you're going to have some guests and. service vehicle needs, and that's going to increase your parking needs also. And also, you know, we're hoping that sailors will be replaced by another restaurant. I'm kind of dismayed not to hear any thought about how this is going to impact us. Olive Street was always the preferred parking area for the building when it was offices, because we have the advantage of being able to turn left to get back out onto Bridgeway and head north. from the building, you can only head right because of the median. But now Olive Street is more and more full, especially at night. And so your tenants of 2015 are going to end up parking... Where, Upspring? |
| 01:18:14.66 | Jenny Reinders | Second, traffic. I'd like to know what the city can do for us. It's already dangerous. Neither. The speed limit is 35 on that stretch. which let's face it, realistically, a lot of people are doing over 40. Neither Olive Street nor the entrance to 2015 are real visible. from Ridgeway and people crest the hill and they see that green light, And they don't care how many times you tap your... Break. and how you've had your blinker on forever, they're still gunning it. And it's kind of a white knuckle situation a lot of times. I understand that We need housing desperately. And I understand that this is a legal ability to develop. But- Nobody's talking about how it is going to impact our neighborhood and how is it going to impact the tenants who live there? I have everyone here gone and looked at that, those two bottom rooms. Those were always storage rooms that I remember when I was young. No one ever lived them because they are underground. The back wall is four fifths below grade. Um, Do they even really qualify for egress? One of them, the one that faces the alleyway has a small window. But a fireman Couldn't get you out of the middle, man. All done. |
| 01:19:37.83 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Appreciate you being here tonight. |
| 01:19:39.40 | Adam Blair | here. |
| 01:19:39.57 | Unknown | Yes, man. |
| 01:19:39.79 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 01:19:41.51 | Jenny Reinders | Thank you for your time. |
| 01:19:42.37 | Director Phipps | That does it for received speaker cards. Chair, looking, hoping we can... |
| 01:19:48.78 | Jenny Reinders | Thank you. |
| 01:19:51.08 | Director Phipps | Ring the alarm. Very good. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands, Sandra Bushmaker. You'll have three minutes to speak. Thanks for being here. |
| 01:20:00.16 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, I have a question that's probably addressed to the city attorney. is the calculation for affordable housing is 20% for projects that are over five units, five units or more. That to me comes out to 2.4 units. How does the city deal with a 0.4 unit? Or do you just round down? Or you round up or you make a smaller unit or how do you handle that? Thank you. |
| 01:20:31.09 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments, Sandra. Seeing no additional hands raised, I will give it back to you, Chair. |
| 01:20:38.52 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Phipps. I'm going to turn it back to the applicant. You do have 10 minutes and 49 seconds remaining. You are welcome to... Continue presenting or comment however you'd like. Respond to public comment or anything else you might like to use your time for. |
| 01:20:58.93 | Ariel Harris | Yeah, make it brief. So it sounds like there were some legal questions and a design question. So I'll address the legal first. And then I'll let Sean address the design question as to the ground floor units. So as to parking, just to reiterate, for those in the public who are listening, this is a state density bonus law. project. There's a provision under state and city bonus law pertaining to the parking Um, While it might not be something that everyone is in agreement over, the state legislature has decided that with respect to parking, this is one of the sort of incentives under the state statute that allows us to reduce the number of parking spaces based on the affordable units that are provided. And so that is not something that the city has discretion to require us to provide more parking. With respect to traffic safety, this project is exempt under CEQA. There has not been presented any information pertaining to how this project would create any new condition that would impact traffic safety. So as a matter of law, that's not an issue. And then the ground floor units, I'm gonna let Sean speak to you. One last item was Ms. Bushmaker raised a question about the affordable housing. Can see how that would be confusing when you're calculating The percentage of affordable units, it's based on what's called base density. And the base density is tied to zoning. And so here the base density is only eight units, not 12. And that's how you get the lower number of units of two. |
| 01:22:30.90 | Sean Bailey | Yeah, just quickly on the egress window, we're well aware that we have to meet that to get a building permit. One of the lower level units opens to the courtyard parking lot, has a natural light and egress, and the other one opens to the side yard, and we're well aware we have to meet that egress window comment. Just wanted to state that. Thank you. |
| 01:22:50.49 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I'm going to go ahead and close the public I'm going to close the session and we're going to bring it back up to the diaspora discussion. I am going to hope that attorney Otto is somewhere close by for us. But that being said, start off the discussion. Commissioner Marlott, would you like to get us started? |
| 01:23:14.88 | David Marlatt | Well, I'd like to hear Attorney Gallardo's also opinion about the issues that Commissioner Luxembourg has raised. Generally, I'm very supportive of what Commissioner Luxembourg's position, but also understand the possible futility based under the ability of the applicant to request waivers and |
| 01:23:40.60 | Attorney Otto | Before I answer that question, could staff answer for me, what is the mix? I know we have, it was up on the screen, but I wasn't able to pull. How many two bedroom units do we have versus how many one bedroom market rate units do we have? |
| 01:23:55.02 | Director Phipps | I'm going to share a screen so you can observe. |
| 01:24:03.18 | Director Phipps | And apologies, let me know if there's any issues with viewing the information. |
| 01:24:07.01 | Sandra Bushmaker | viewing. |
| 01:24:13.15 | Attorney Otto | Yeah, let me take a screenshot of this and give me a few... I would like to take a minute to look at this just before I respond. So if we could continue on with the other questions, I'm still listening, but I would like to take a look at this before I answer. So I can answer in a thoughtful manner. |
| 01:24:29.89 | Director Phipps | Okay, I'm happy to provide some color to that as well, just to summarize what's on the table. First floor, we've got two units that are both studios. One's affordable, one's market rate. Second floor, we have five units, four two-beds, one one-bed, one affordable flat, which is the one bed. On the third floor, we have five units, four two-beds, one one-bed, all market rate. |
| 01:25:05.24 | Attorney Otto | If we could still give me a few minutes, I need to look at this. Thank you. |
| 01:25:08.24 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Okay. Let me, Commissioner Luxembourg, pending this portion of the conversation, do you want to give us some general thoughts on the rest of this application? Just conditional use permits, lot line adjustment? |
| 01:25:26.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. |
| 01:25:26.49 | Nastassya Saad | conversation. |
| 01:25:27.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. I was very excited about this project because I think it is an excellent use for this property. I said that two years ago I'm saying that this evening This affordable housing issue is the first affordable housing project we've had And so the idea of putting one on the first floor behind the elevator and on the second floor where it was We indicated two years ago. It's still bet was a bad idea then. It's a bad idea now. We have a code that has certain requirements that the city attorney is looking at at the moment. There's been no request for a concession to the affordable units. It would seem to me that a concession for the affordable units, which is the basis for the housing density long, whether that's legally right or not right, it's morally wrong we have a good project here and all I'm suggesting is on one plan we got three units take out the one on the first floor put the one on the third floor and that would be a simple addition to special conditions as a number two which just doesn't ace those two units as as affordable I'm sure that the developer could work that out. The parking issue, I think, is mathematics. It is what it is. So the laws allow for that much parking. Parking will be an issue, and maybe I don't know whether the city's, the public works department's going to have to look at permits for Olive and other streets due to the influx of additional cars. Changing the two bedroom from the studio to the two bedroom on the third floor, if low income people have less cars, which may or may not be true, that might actually help reduce the amount of parking impact. The design is not really before us, but I think what they've got makes sense at this time. So those are my thoughts at the moment. |
| 01:27:21.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxembourg. Commissioner Moore. General thoughts? |
| 01:27:29.22 | Fred Moore | I'm in support of the Staff's recommendation regarding the conditional use permit, zoning permit, and lot line adjustment. Thank you. |
| 01:27:37.89 | Nastassya Saad | Can you move slightly over so we can see your full? Thank you. That's perfect. Is that better? |
| 01:27:37.93 | Fred Moore | Give me a finger. |
| 01:27:43.18 | Fred Moore | better. |
| 01:27:43.66 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, much better. Thank you. |
| 01:27:45.49 | Fred Moore | I think my camera is moving on this computer without me moving. Sorry about that. So I would support the staff's resolution as prepared, even though I would probably suggest we change the May 9th, whereas to May 14th. Other than that, unfortunately, we are hamstrung with the parking requirements because of state law. as well as I think we'll wait to hear back from attorney Otto regarding the equivalency |
| 01:28:11.61 | Sandra Bushmaker | Well. |
| 01:28:17.03 | Fred Moore | provision whether or not the applicant's attorney is correct or we need to discuss it further, but I'd support the resolution by the staff. |
| 01:28:26.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Moore. Commissioner Marlott, are you still waiting for attorney Otto before weighing in? Do you have any other comments on the conditional use permit or the lot line adjustment? |
| 01:28:39.55 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Well, nothing that I would form into a motion or a condition. I hope that they'll take the suggestion to consider different materials. But I understand that's not directly before us. I just hope so. And I do have some concerns about how they're going to address the egress windows. And I know that's not what our jurisdiction. However, should that come back and change the unit count because they've got to make compromises, it's a concern that I have. |
| 01:29:09.12 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I'm going to just kick it off from my own opinion that I'm very supportive of this application. It is something that Assistant Senior Planner Mandich had mentioned. It is part of our housing element. This was an apartment building to begin with. I think it's incredible that it is not changing in scope or size. I think that you have the opportunity to do that, and I appreciate that you're not, and keeping it within the framework with respect to the neighbors. I think that ingress and egress make sense. I've looked at the plans. I don't have any concerns on the conditional use permit or the lot line adjustment at all. I can make the findings there. I think I'd be curious to hear what Attorney Otto says, but just as a general point of conversation, with respect to some of the public comment, I wholeheartedly understand the concern for parking. I personally share it. I think a lot of these state laws are great on paper and maybe not 100% in practice, but this is where we are. And with that, I actually have to thank the applicant for giving one more parking space than they are even obligated to give. I share the concerns on parking, but you know, our hands are tied there and 16 are required. And to give the 17 is appreciated because to the public comment, it is a tight area and it is, it is going to impact. There are a lot of people and almost everybody drives at least one vehicle here, but I just want to go on record that the 17 is appreciated, especially for the neighborhood that we're looking at. So Attorney Arnaud is back. I'd love to hear her final thoughts. So ideally, we can get a motion and make a decision. |
| 01:31:11.60 | Attorney Otto | My final thoughts are basically what I said before, that even assuming in reading this that even if we could enforce it, Karen Hollweg, That because they still have two concessions remaining they would simply request that and we're back in the same position that this is where they proposed. And under state density bonus law and Housing Accountability Act, I don't see a way that the commission can enforce making them make a two bedroom. They would simply ask us, tell us that they can't financially do it. And we would not be able to enforce that under density bonus law. I get it's frustrating, but again, we're constrained by state law on this. The density bonus law constrains the city as to what it can do as far as conditions. |
| 01:31:54.24 | Nastassya Saad | And with that, I just want to out. ask for your guidance in our conversation. That I don't want us to be in any legally compromising position based on the conversation that we're having here at the dais. Would it be your recommendation then that we to do. Would it be your recommendation that we no longer discuss the mixed use that Commissioner Luxembourg is bringing up about potentially changing what units are affordable. We all agree that there are two affordable units, and to his point, right, not only make it for the studio and the one bedroom, but have a two bedroom. Should that conversation cease? Can you guide us there? |
| 01:32:41.93 | Attorney Otto | I am seeing that it is a probably a futile conversation because even if that came to the Commission's conclusion, that the applicant would then simply request that as a concession and we'd be back to staff's recommendation at this point. So |
| 01:32:55.94 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:32:56.83 | Attorney Otto | because it would be my recommendation That if they ask for that concession, you'd have to grant that. So I think it's an exercise in futility. And I'd like to be economy of the commission's time and not waste your time and frustrate you. When ultimately, at the end of the day, I have to give you a different answer than what you may like to hear. |
| 01:33:16.76 | Nastassya Saad | Director Phipps, we are going to make a comment. |
| 01:33:19.09 | Director Phipps | Yeah, and thank you, Attorney Otto, for your feedback. This is precisely why staff is recommending approval of this project today. Staff's interpretation is that the language that Commissioner Luxenberg pointed out is not sufficiently objective to warrant requirements to meet that eligibility. So that's staff's position. And you've heard from the attorney that even if it is not the case that that language is not sufficiently objective, there would be ways around it. So, again, staff's recommendation this evening is that the Planning Commission approve the resolution before you approving the conditional use permit, the zoning permit, and the law line adjustment. Thank you. |
| 01:34:00.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Director Phipps. I am going to look back to Commissioner Luxembourg to see if we can finalize this portion of the conversation, and then I'm going to look for a motion. Thank you. |
| 01:34:12.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. I heard two different things. I know everyone sort of thinks it's the same, but I heard two different things. If they have already asked for three concessions, this would be a fourth. So because it's true that they can ask for another concession on another project and we will get other projects, and if they use up their three conditions, then in that case, on a future project. So I would like to request that they request tonight to amend their application to ask for that concession. If it's going to be a concession I want it in writing and that they want to be on record that they can't provide what the code requires this. The code is clear. And so I don't agree that just because they can ask for it means that we don't require them to ask for it. At least they're on record that they couldn't make the affordable unit, an equal amount of affordable units. So I would like them to request that. And as far as I'm concerned, pursuant to Ms. Otto's recommendation or opinion, that that is not part of their package at the moment. And if they want to ask for that, then we have to live with it, I guess, is what I'm hearing. But it's not in there. I don't want to just ignore it just because we think they're going to ask for it, then make them ask for it. |
| 01:35:38.41 | Director Phipps | Just to clarify, the applicant has three concessions available to them. They're using one, so there are two remaining concessions. And I would just state no action from the city is taken. due to the non-objectivity of that language, Commissioner. So again, I'm just going to repeat staff's recommendation this evening as the Commissioner approve. |
| 01:36:03.03 | Nastassya Saad | but if I could just one second. Go ahead, Attorney Otto. |
| 01:36:09.46 | Attorney Otto | I want to just to clarify, while here we have not exceeded the number of concessions, there's only one that they've asked for. They're entitled to up to three. Even if this applicant had three concessions at this point, this commission would still have to consider an item as a waiver. So I just want to make clear. that concessions and waivers while they have different titles fundamentally do the same thing. for future kind of education. |
| 01:36:36.12 | Nastassya Saad | I think the city's position is quite clear that they are not viewing the portion of code that you're calling out as objective. Is that correct? Brandon, Director Phipps is nodding. Correct. |
| 01:36:51.49 | Director Phipps | Correct. This is not sufficiently objective to support a requirement by the city to meet that language. |
| 01:37:00.34 | Nastassya Saad | OK, so with that, if |
| 01:37:02.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask for a clarification about that? I don't understand how the number of bedrooms of the affordable units should be equivalent to the bedroom mix. I don't understand how that is not completely objective. There are things in our code that are subjective. That is not one of them. It is very clear. And so if they want to get a concession, then they get them on the record that they don't, you know, this is the way they think about affordable units and they don't want to make them equal to others. But at least we have the, if we have to accept it because it's a concession we have to accept, at least it's on the record that they felt that they couldn't provide the appropriate bedroom mix as clearly stated in our code. |
| 01:37:02.18 | Nastassya Saad | I'm excited. |
| 01:37:48.65 | Unknown | I... |
| 01:37:49.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That was a question of director. Okay. |
| 01:37:49.04 | Unknown | That was a great question. |
| 01:37:51.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | How is that not objective? |
| 01:37:55.38 | Director Phipps | I'm not sure I'm interested in engaging in that discussion. I think that staffs given our opinion and our recommendation. It is up to the commission to make their final decision. |
| 01:38:04.55 | Nastassya Saad | I think, yes, I don't want to keep going. I understand your argument. I think it's on record. I think the city's been quite clear. I think it's worth trying to make a motion, if you'd like. I'd invite you to make a motion based on what you see fit. |
| 01:38:20.86 | David Marlatt | Can I ask one more clarifying question on this process? Because I'm very sympathetic, in fact, with Commissioner Luxembourg's position on this and that the city should, the commission should go on record, even understanding the possible futility of it. I understand that. But going on record, if a concession is required after this hearing, we'll pass this project, after this hearing, if a concession is required or requested, that's up to staff to grant that at a ministerial level. So if that's true, because in fact there are documents that they've presented, there's a table that says two, but there are plans that say there are three affordable units. The documents are already inconsistent. And I would support a motion with the conditions suggested by Commissioner Luxembourg that at least we go on record doing the right thing, which would be the second and third floor units being affordable, understanding the possible futility of it, but it also allows this project to move forward. And I do support the project wholeheartedly, like I think all of us do. But I think we should be on the record to do the right thing. And I don't think it's that hard because their own documents point us in that direction. Their own documents show three affordable units and there are not. |
| 01:38:22.94 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:39:33.31 | David Marlatt | So I'm- |
| 01:39:33.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'd like to make a motion as you request. |
| 01:39:34.02 | Nastassya Saad | you Can you just give Attorney Otto a chance |
| 01:39:36.11 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:39:36.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:39:40.68 | Attorney Otto | As I'm sitting here, my concern is that I do not believe that this is as objective as it should be. I understand that we understand what we think it means, but it is not objective in the sense of every single person entering this room will say the same answer. It is not You have to have two parking spaces, you have to have four feet of setback. This is not that type of objective standard. And while I respect the Commission and what you have to do, my concern is that trying to enforce this and having the planning Commission say this could potentially get us the city into some. Having HCD. you. not happy with the city and doing this, especially since it is, as I've said, even if you could make the argument of which I don't think it is as objective as it should be, Even if we could, it becomes a concession. So I think this is something that again, is an exercise in futility and potentially has some legal implications for the city from HCD. |
| 01:40:41.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Attorney Otto. I think you might be making a motion. I just would like to join the discussion. I'm not supportive of any motion that includes making a change to their mix of affordable units. So with that, feel free to make your motion. But I do think it's going to become legally concerning. Thank you. |
| 01:41:03.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I hear the legal concern. I think that HCD would be ecstatic if we had a two-bedroom low-income unit because our housing element requires affordable units of all things, including for families. So I think that HCD would be the last people to object to this. So I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to recommend that we approve this project with the following amendments, and people can chime in or not get seconded. And the first is condition number three, where it says the project shall be designed and constructed on a shown in the set of plans titled 2015 Bridgeway dated January 24th, we received January 30th 2025 attachment 3 I want to add to that any changes to the any major change and modifications to these plans shall return to the Planning Commission that's the First Amendment The second one is under special condition number one, there will be a number two, and it will indicate the following, that as shown on sheet A0.5, unit three, I don't know. Unit 3.4 and 2.3 shall be the affordable units provided for this project. I realize it might be an exercise in fertility, but if it's in there, maybe the applicant will say, oh, we can make that work. Maybe they won't, but at least it will be there. Anyways, that's the motion. I don't know if there'll be a second. Thank you. |
| 01:42:49.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:50.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. to capture those. |
| 01:42:52.10 | Matthew Mandich | Can I just jump in really quick? I know it's a little nontraditional at this point in the hearing, but I just did want to make a quick point that the inclusionary ordinance that Commissioner Luxembourg is quoting from is from Section 1040 of our code, which is the inclusionary ordinance for multifamily constructions in the city. However, we do have a separate ordinance for residential and commercial, and this is very much a residential and commercial situation. That's 1044-190. Commissioner Luxembourg is quoting out of 1040-140, I believe. There are different requirements for residential and commercial. For example, residential and commercial requires one to five units to have one affordable, and there's also a 20% affordability requirement for over six units. Those are not the same inclusionary requirements that we have in 1040-140, which require 15% affordability for builds of four units plus and don't require any for builds below. So we're really talking about apples and oranges here when it comes to the inclusionary housing. So I've just been looking into that a little bit because this is one of the reasons that this was not even really really an option discussed in the staff report or anything because it's just really two different sections but just want to put that on the record. |
| 01:44:03.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | My motion doesn't refer to any sections of the code. It just identifies the units that are already in our package and already on a plan that's included. So I'm just suggesting those are the ones. They had three. They'll let them take the one out. It's on their plans. It's in this package. We're approving these plans. That's where I said any major changes would have to come back to us. But this is on the plans on our plan on the plans that they submitted and there are errors in them That can't be responsible for their errors But if it's an exercise in futility at least I agree with Commissioner Marlott. We're on the record here and And for future projects, there'll be a clear understanding that Affordable units should be treated with the same respect as the other units |
| 01:44:50.68 | Unknown | There's emotion. |
| 01:44:51.06 | Nastassya Saad | on the floor. |
| 01:44:51.60 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:44:52.03 | David Marlatt | I second that motion. |
| 01:44:54.09 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Are there any other motions, Commissioner Moore? |
| 01:45:01.60 | Fred Moore | Well, I think it would the protocol be that we have to vote on this motion since it's been seconded. |
| 01:45:05.98 | Director Phipps | You're able to propose an alternate motion, Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:45:11.18 | Fred Moore | Well, my motion would be that we accept the staff resolution as written with the modification to reference May 14th rather than May 9th. And to acknowledge the fact that it was a typo with respect to the plan references that section three point set unit 3.4 is not to be an affordable unit. |
| 01:45:31.80 | Director Phipps | And just a procedural detail, we will hear or consider the alternate motion first. |
| 01:45:39.58 | Nastassya Saad | Correct, and I'm gonna second Commissioner Moore's motion. So with the protocol, Can you please take role, Director Phipps? |
| 01:45:53.06 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Commissioner Luxenberg. No. |
| 01:45:55.68 | Nastassya Saad | Oh. |
| 01:45:55.86 | Director Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Merlot. No. Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:45:57.81 | David Marlatt | know. |
| 01:46:00.30 | Director Phipps | Yeah. Vice Chair, or excuse me, Chair Saad, |
| 01:46:04.23 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:46:05.40 | Director Phipps | Okay, that's the two-two. I believe that that's a no action. I'm looking to attorney Otto for consensus. |
| 01:46:12.77 | Attorney Otto | It is no action because we are missing a commissioner. It could be continued at this thing, but we cannot have this item be denied. we need to either reach a consensus with the Commission, how we can get to this point, or the item should be I'd recommend continue to the next meeting. |
| 01:46:31.93 | Nastassya Saad | So we do have another motion on the floor. This is my question. Thank you. Director Phipps, may I ask... |
| 01:46:33.83 | Attorney Otto | Thank you. |
| 01:46:40.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. we do have another motion on the floor that would be commissioner luxembourg's motion |
| 01:46:46.86 | Director Phipps | Yes, I will call roll. Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Commissioner Merlant? Yes. Commissioner Moore? No. Chair Saund? |
| 01:46:52.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 01:46:54.56 | Nastassya Saad | know. |
| 01:46:55.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:46:55.16 | Nastassya Saad | Now, |
| 01:46:55.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:46:55.33 | Director Phipps | action. |
| 01:46:55.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:46:55.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. So, all right. |
| 01:46:58.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll make an alternative motion. Please. Let's continue this item to the next meeting and have the city attorney's office clarify whether or not, if they want to do this as a concession, that it would be added to the application so that at the next meeting when we consider this, we can see that the concession is there. And further, that the drawings that are here are amended so that if they want just those two units on the first and the second floor, that they make all the drawings consistent with that and the density bonus statement consistent with that. |
| 01:47:00.26 | Nastassya Saad | Please. |
| 01:47:00.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:36.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And that's the motion. Thank you. |
| 01:47:37.13 | Director Phipps | Just to be clear, this would be continuing the item to a date certain of May 28th. Correct, Commissioner Luxenberg? Thank you. |
| 01:47:42.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:47:43.24 | Director Phipps | Okay. |
| 01:47:47.85 | Nastassya Saad | Is there a second? |
| 01:47:52.69 | David Marlatt | I would have hoped we could find a path forward tonight. |
| 01:47:54.46 | Nastassya Saad | I think we can. I think it's possible. Let's try one more. Let me just give it a fair shot. Is there a second to Commissioner Luxembourg's motion? |
| 01:48:06.46 | David Marlatt | at this time for me. |
| 01:48:07.44 | Nastassya Saad | Not at this time. Okay. So that motion is going to die. I'm going to appeal to my colleagues. that are here in the room with me, since we're the ones that are at odds, that based on specifically what senior planner Mandich has just stated as the final argument on the objective code, it does seem like we potentially went down the wrong path. with the respect to the argument that Commissioner Luxembourg had made originally. I think the clearest thing that I heard this evening came from Matthew Mandich. So if I can ask you to consider what he has stated around the, and I'm sorry to put you back on the spot, but 10.10, can you please clarify one more time for us? |
| 01:48:56.53 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:49:05.15 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so it's 10.44190, which concerns residential uses in commercial districts. And then we have an alternate inclusionary housing ordinance, 1040-140. Thank you. |
| 01:49:16.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can we bring those up on the screen? |
| 01:49:16.86 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Yes. |
| 01:49:26.80 | Director Phipps | You'll have to give us a moment. |
| 01:49:28.35 | Nastassya Saad | No worries. While that's happening, I would say that that code, 10.44190, does negate some of the basis for this conversation. And with respect to that and the City Attorney's position, I would like us to just be conscientious of what we're looking for. In principle, I understand 100% what Commissioner Luxembourg is saying, but I don't think that would be a basis here to hold our conditional use permit and the lot line adjustment that's before us so I am gonna look to I guess Commissioner Luxenberg and Commissioner Marlott to consider consider a motion that approves this as is as staff recommended so that we can approve or Not deny, but we can put something on the floor here that gets us to where we need to be. |
| 01:50:25.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think it's troubling that we're trying to look at code on the fly at a meeting. This is, I think, not a good thing. I would make a motion that we approve the lot line adjustment and continue the other items to the next meeting so we at least can look at this. I mean, this is crazy. This is going to set a precedent. We're going to have more of these projects under the housing element. I have no issue with the lot line adjustment, so we could approve that this evening. And then we can address the other issues once we can see this in writing. We haven't had the city attorney chime in that this is the code. This wasn't what was in the staff. We have a staff report that doesn't say this. We have the applicants' drawings in error and we want to rush this through tonight I realize that we're going to prove this whether we do it now or at the next meeting but but doing it and not crossing all our t's and dotting our i's I'm just appalled so anyways that's my motion is to approve the lot line adjustment probably won't be second in but approve the lot line adjustment and defer the remaining items to a date certain of May 28th |
| 01:51:36.69 | Nastassya Saad | Well, I have somebody from the applicant team nearby. If this does end up being continued, would you be amenable to our next meeting is in two weeks on May 28th? And that way with your agreement, we can continue to a date certain. Otherwise it would be a date uncertain if we, |
| 01:51:59.56 | Ariel Harris | Yes, we would prefer a date certain to avoid the re-noticing requirement. And I do believe the applicant team is available on that date. If I might make one additional comment. |
| 01:52:08.52 | Nastassya Saad | Unfortunately, I'm sorry you cannot at this time. I appreciate it, but we appreciate the Mesa. And just from the avoidance of doubt that Commissioner Luxembourg is asking both the staff and applicant for essentially a cleanup of some of the inconsistencies that we're seeing. So is there a second to Commissioner? Luxembourg's motion to approve the lot line adjustment and continue the. and continue the conditional use permit for this project. Cheers. |
| 01:52:47.78 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Could I offer an amendment? Can we maybe break this down in pieces and maybe amend the current motion just to approve the lot line adjustments? |
| 01:52:48.15 | Nastassya Saad | Good afternoon. I'm not. Bye. |
| 01:53:00.20 | Fred Moore | period. And then let's see if we can pass that motion and then we can see if we can come up with another motion regarding the conditional use permit. |
| 01:53:07.97 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to have to defer to attorney Otto on that process. |
| 01:53:15.00 | Fred Moore | I think it would be- |
| 01:53:15.22 | Nastassya Saad | it would be bifurcate this um attorney auto so we we have a motion to approve the lot line adjustment and then take the conditional use permit separately |
| 01:53:27.52 | Attorney Otto | So while there's no legal reason why you could not do that, I guess I'm having the trouble and the struggle with this is a conditional use permit to allow ground floor residential. And that is what's proposed. We're talking about a, to be clear, I don't believe that the language that was previously discussed on the mix. is significant. sufficiently objective for us to be able to enforce that. I'm having concerns that what we're asking them to do is just an exercise in fertility again, One, I don't think it's enforceable. I've said even if it is enforceable, they can ask for a concession. So we're gonna end up back in the same spot. To answer your specific question, legally, yes, you can bifurcate and take one action on each of these items that's done or each of these actions that's done all the time. We would need to break up the resolution to be able to accommodate that. I don't know what that necessarily accomplishes because you're not going to take action on this conditional use permit and the zoning permit, it's all gonna have to come back at the next meeting anyway. So I don't know what breaking it up does for moving the project along. |
| 01:54:42.99 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. I'm gonna go a different direction here. |
| 01:54:45.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a follow-on question? You're saying that you don't think that section is significantly objective. The staff is saying that section of the code doesn't apply to this project. So I'm not sure which it is, and that's why doing this on the fly upsets me. Either it's one thing or the other thing, but if we don't even know what code provisions we're talking about, the staff report isn't it didn't identify that because it wasn't requested at that time and and we have inconsistent drawings I don't I mean the reason to do this is we can clean this all up in the in the public record will be clear and the decision we make on the 28th will be clear and we can adopt a lot line adjustment so at least they can get that to the, you know, to the county assessors or whatever they need to do. So at least that part is all done. I mean, that would be the logic. |
| 01:54:46.89 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:55:39.84 | Nastassya Saad | So I'm going to just... I think at this point we're going to go unfortunately line item by line item. I would like to understand what part of the conditional use permit findings because I think at least I'm hearing consensus on the lot line adjustment. So I'm going to just speak for all of us that we don't have concerns on the lot line adjustment. So may I ask you to kindly bring up staff the findings and can we please look at theseally use permit findings and I would like to note From any commissioner who has an issue. We've got one two three |
| 01:56:15.95 | Jenny Reinders | or... |
| 01:56:18.16 | Nastassya Saad | Eight, nine, there are nine findings that we have to make on the conditional use permit. I'm going to start, I'm just going to start moving us along. So A, the proposed use is allowed with issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to chapters 10.20. through 10.28 of the Sausage Municipal Code, and 10.46 for conditional uses, and 10.44 for specific use requirements. So are we able to make finding A? |
| 01:56:53.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not able to make finding a that's the issue because it's a zoning issue. Okay. |
| 01:56:55.34 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 01:57:01.06 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Moore, are you able to make finding A? |
| 01:57:03.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:57:03.68 | Fred Moore | Yes. |
| 01:57:05.08 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Marlott. |
| 01:57:12.05 | Nastassya Saad | you're looking i'm going to say that i i'm i'm able to make finding a are you able to make finding a commercial marlott |
| 01:57:20.69 | David Marlatt | Yes, I believe I am. |
| 01:57:22.54 | Nastassya Saad | So the proposed use is consistent with the general plan, purposes of zoning ordinance, and the purposes of the applicable zoning district. This is finding B. Any concerns on finding B? |
| 01:57:33.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I'm not in until we had a clarification between Mr. Man just said and what city attorney said regarding which code section in the zoning is applicable. I believe the housing element, fair housing, part of the housing element would find that relegating the affordable units, the way of being, Oh, is in this project is inconsistent with our general plan. so I can't make finding B. |
| 01:57:57.73 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Moore? |
| 01:57:59.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can make. |
| 01:58:00.29 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:58:00.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | support |
| 01:58:01.03 | Nastassya Saad | of the |
| 01:58:01.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Finding B, yes. |
| 01:58:01.96 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:58:02.50 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:58:02.54 | Nastassya Saad | Shreemal. |
| 01:58:03.02 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:58:03.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:58:03.28 | David Marlatt | Yeah, I cannot support Finding B. |
| 01:58:06.08 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so that's where we're going to also diverge. Proposed use together with applicable conditions will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare of the city. any opposition to finding C. |
| 01:58:23.70 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:58:24.31 | Nastassya Saad | The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. |
| 01:58:30.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can't make... |
| 01:58:30.75 | David Marlatt | And... I'm surprised. |
| 01:58:31.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:58:33.62 | Doug Malani | Yeah. |
| 01:58:33.84 | David Marlatt | I agree. I cannot make Finding D. |
| 01:58:35.41 | Fred Moore | Okay. Can we elaborate on the grounds that you guys are not able to support Finding D? |
| 01:58:46.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Again, we've got a difference of opinion from the city attorney and the staff on what provisions do and don't apply. It appears there's an objective standard that the city attorney is saying not objective, but I don't see how it's not objective. The staff is saying that's not the right provision. So until we get clarification and all of this cleaned up, I'm uncomfortable that this does not meet the zoning ordinance, and therefore that's my issue. Okay. |
| 01:59:14.95 | Fred Moore | But if I understand your objection, it's the fact that you want to have the affordable unit not on the ground floor. You don't believe that the zoning ordinance of the city allows an affordable unit to be on the ground floor based on equivalency standards as you interpret the number of two units on the ground floor. units, two bedroom units. |
| 01:59:37.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. And the, yeah, the equivalent, what should be equal equivalent for affordable units that the one on the ground for does not do that because there's no two-bedroom units. I haven't really thought at length about the fact that they're looking for, they're getting a concession to even have that unit on the first floor. But, yes, my issue is specifically with that they don't provide a two-bedroom unit. Our housing element specifically says that we need fair housing and housing for families. And so by specifically going out of the way and all that on this project, when we have a provision that requires that, although it's unclear whether that now provision applies, that's my issue. |
| 01:59:38.17 | David Marlatt | it. |
| 02:00:22.70 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Pivoting again. I can see we're most likely not going to reach a consensus because we do not have a forum. Attorney Otto, did you want to say |
| 02:00:33.92 | Attorney Otto | I just didn't mean to interrupt. I just wanted to clarify that I am not disagreeing with staff. I was simply responding to the section that you said you asked about, Commissioner, and was responding to that. I wasn't necessarily searching through your code to see what all could apply. This was brought up at the meeting. I'm trying to respond at the meeting in a timely manner. So I'm not disagreeing with staff. Staff is far more familiar with the ins and outs of all the code and what they've utilized for this. I just wanted to clear it up on the record that I was not disagreeing with staff. And I don't think we're staff and I are out of alignment on how these things should be interpreted. |
| 02:01:09.53 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you, Attorney Otto. So I think then at this point, I'm going to look back to Commissioner Luxembourg for the continuance to a date certain of May 28th, because without a five-member session here, we're divided unless Anyone else can make another motion? |
| 02:01:32.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was okay with Commissioner Moore's motion to approve the lot line adjustment first, and then we'll deal with the continuance for the rest of it. But I put it in one motion. He was suggesting that we first approve the lot line adjustment. I don't have a problem with that. But if we want to get something done tonight, maybe that helps these folks. They can go register that with the county and get that part of it done, and then we're only dealing with the others. |
| 02:01:59.26 | Nastassya Saad | At Tornado, I know I just, for the avoidance of doubt, we can bifurcate this and do one motion at a time. |
| 02:02:06.50 | Attorney Otto | You can absolutely do one motion at a time. I also had an alternative suggestion if it pleases the commission. Since I've opined that they could request even even assuming that that section that has been previously discussed by Commissioner Luxembourg did apply, which again I don't think we can enforce it. If we reopen the public hearing, we could allow the applicant to opine whether they would request that as a concession, and we might be able to shortcut this tonight and not have to continue this matter, but that's just an alternative obviously the discretion and pleasure of the commission. |
| 02:02:45.55 | Nastassya Saad | I'm not comfortable with that, only in the sense that we've since given them the words that we've essentially made a call on their behalf that they're going to request this concession. So I don't know if we, you know, leading the witness here, we're at the part of the meeting where we are. I don't think we need to reopen the public hearing. I don't know if I'd be comfortable with that either. I'm not comfortable with that, but I appreciate it. I think we are just we're headed where we're headed. So I think we should bifurcate this. I think we should go ahead and I'm going to look back to Commissioner Moore for your motion that |
| 02:03:08.18 | David Marlatt | public hearing. |
| 02:03:08.97 | Unknown | you can see. |
| 02:03:09.04 | David Marlatt | comfortable with that. |
| 02:03:09.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:03:10.22 | David Marlatt | with the |
| 02:03:25.34 | Nastassya Saad | bifurcated and take one of these at a time. So we've got the lot line adjustment. if you're so kind to remake your motion to approve the lot line adjustment, see if we can get a second. |
| 02:03:41.89 | Fred Moore | I moved to approve the staff's recommendation resolution dealing with a lot line adjustment for this project ID 2024-00241. |
| 02:03:52.98 | Nastassya Saad | Is there a second for the lot line adjustment? |
| 02:03:55.78 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:03:55.81 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:03:55.85 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:03:55.97 | David Marlatt | I'll second. |
| 02:03:56.91 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Any discussion on the motion for the lot line adjustment? Seeing none, Director Phipps. |
| 02:04:04.07 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Commissioner Merlot? Commissioner Moore. Yes. Vice Chair, excuse me, Chair Sanz. |
| 02:04:14.43 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:04:15.73 | Director Phipps | motion passes. |
| 02:04:16.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:04:18.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll make a motion that we continue the remainder of this to the date certain of May 28. |
| 02:04:23.64 | Nastassya Saad | And I think, do you want to add, though, because I don't disagree with you on the confusion on these plans, is do you want to add anything around cleanup of the plans and documentation? |
| 02:04:36.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would strongly encourage staff to clean up which sections do and don't apply to this project regarding this affordable housing. And I would encourage the applicant to clean up their drawings and their density bonus documentation so that the final record, which eventually will be in the resolution, are consistent with whatever they're proposing. I would strongly encourage them to add to that if they want a concession for this item to ask for it, just so that we're not at this situation later on saying, well, they could ask for it or not ask for it. If they want to ask for it, let them ask for it. I would encourage them to do those things, but I don't know that we can direct them to we can encourage them to clean it up. I don't know that we can direct them. |
| 02:05:23.45 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, I just want to make sure on record they understand why we're at a continuance. I am just going to look back to the applicant in the audience one more time for a confirmation that the May 28th date is a certain date that you are able to attend, and then I'm going to ask staff the same thing. Yes, so applicant is good. Director Phipps looking to staff to confirm the May 28th is acceptable to you as a date certain. |
| 02:05:51.27 | Director Phipps | Yes, the regularly scheduled meeting of May 28th for the planning commission is a meeting that we will all be in attendance at and we are able to accommodate that the moving of that item. |
| 02:06:00.69 | Nastassya Saad | Excellent. Thank you. So we have the motion on the floor. Do I have a second for the continuance of the conditional use permit? |
| 02:06:07.61 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:06:07.64 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:06:07.69 | Director Phipps | Yeah. |
| 02:06:07.96 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:06:08.01 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:06:08.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Director Phipps, can you please take roll? |
| 02:06:10.75 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes, Commissioner Merlot. Yes, Commissioner Moore Here's on. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 02:06:20.75 | Nastassya Saad | So thank you very much. That concludes item 6B. We are now going to move on to item 6C. This is 74 Cloud View Road. This is a variance and a zoning permit. We have assistant planner Adam Blair with us this evening to present. When you are ready, we will turn it over to you. And I think we need to get your presentation up on screen. |
| 02:06:51.72 | Adam Blair | and- Thank you, Chair. I'll just wait on the slides to come up. |
| 02:07:04.85 | Adam Blair | All right. Good evening, commissioners, members of the audience. I'm Adam Blair, assistant planner with the Community Development Department. The item before you this evening is an application requesting approval of a variance and a zoning permit to permit the conversion of approximately 214 square feet of interior lower level crawl space into a bathroom and finished storage area at 74 Cloudview Road. But just like the note for the record that pursuant to sauce little municipal code section 10.5 0.020 subsection E. The Planning Commission shall review and approve the zoning permit, which is typically an administrative permit. As part of the entire proposal, since the zoning permit is bundled with a variance application, which requires Planning Commission review and approval, I would also like to note that the interior lower level crawl space that is being proposed for conversion was converted without permits to a bathroom and finished storage area at some point between 1999 and 2024 by previous property owners. So this application is to retroactively permit and legalize this converted space. Next slide, please. The slide's not up. |
| 02:08:18.95 | Nastassya Saad | We're active listeners. We heard you. |
| 02:08:32.48 | Director Phipps | Mr. Blair, what slide would you like us to go to? |
| 02:08:34.28 | Adam Blair | Slide two, please. Perfect. Thank you. So here's the sitemap for 74 Cloudview Road. The parcel is identified by assessor parcel number 065-182-01. The parcel is a 5,594 square foot substandard and landlocked parcel with access to the property provided by a shared access easement from Cloudview Road, which spans over private property. You could see 66 Cloudview just below to the right. Just past that is Cloudview Road. And so you would cross that easement over or I guess past 66 Cloudview to access 74 Cloudview Road. The parcel is located within the R dash one dash six single family medium low density residential zoning district per Salsolito's zoning ordinance and general plan. Next slide. Project summary, so applicant Bruno Counter, on behalf of owners Sarah and Tim Hoffman, are requesting approval of a variance and a zoning permit to permit the conversion of approximately 214 square feet of interior lower level crawl space, into a bathroom and finished storage area. The variant is requested for relief from floor area ratio requirements to permit an increase in floor area ratio from 48 percent to 52 percent. The zoning permit is to facilitate the actual conversion of that lower level crawl space into that bathroom and finish storage area, which would be new floor area for the site. And the request is brought forth since the existing property one currently exceeds the maximum allowed floor area ratio, which we'll discuss later in the presentation. And then to the space proposed proposed for conversion, as mentioned earlier, was illegally converted sometime between 1999, which was the last remodel permit the city had approved for this property and 2024. And next slide. So digging into the history and background a bit on the residents, the existing three three story single family residence was constructed in 1959. A number of remodels were conducted over the years since the residence was constructed, including a study and family room remodel in 1980 bathroom and bedroom remodel in 1989. And in a lower level family room addition in 1999, uh, next slide. Moving forward to July 2024, an unpermitted conversion of existing lower-level crawl space into a bathroom and finished storage area was identified by staff through review of a unpermitted related building permit for the site. You can kind of see in this older site floor plan, which is from the last 1999 permit. The top right corner where the two arrows are was labeled existing crawl space. The family room is to the left. That space that is labeled the existing crawl space was converted into the bathroom and finished storage area. Upon receiving this news, the current property owners submitted and filed an application for a zoning permit with the Community Development Department. This was in August of 2024 to facilitate the legalization of this space. Following that review, staff determined that a variance was required for relief from floor area ratio since the property as it exists was already over the maximum allowed floor area ratio. So in September 2024, a variance and zoning permit application was filed with the Community Development Department. And then in March 2025, the application was deemed complete by all reviewing departments and scheduled for a planning commission hearing date. 10s. why we're here this evening. Next slide. So diving into the zoning aspect of the project, given that the site is both substandard and landlocked, there are numerous challenges in terms of obtaining compliance with susciliated zoning regulations. For instance, the minimum parcel size in the R-1-6 zoning district is 6,000 square feet. The property is about 406 square feet shy of that at 5,594 square feet. This would make it a noncompliant substandard lot. Number of dwelling units permitted would be one dwelling unit per parcel. There is one dwelling unit on this parcel, and that will not be changing as part of this project. So that aspect of the site is in compliance with Sausalito zoning regulations. Moving to minimum setbacks, since the parcel is a landlocked parcel, Municipal Code Section 10.40.070, Subsection B, imposes a side yard setback for the front setback, so that would increase the normal setback from zero feet to five feet required. The property has a front setback of two feet, three and a half inches that will not be affected by this proposed project since the space is all interior within the building footprint. So that aspect of the project is existing non-conforming. Same applies to the rear, right side, and left side setbacks, given the landlocked nature of the lot. Moving to maximum building height, the height is 25 feet, measured at 25 feet, seven and a half inches. That will not be changing because, again, this is within the envelope in the lower level of the building. That aspect is compliant. Moving to maximum building coverage, the site is existing nonconforming at 43% for building coverage. This is greater than the 35% allowance permitted through Sausalito zoning ordinance that aspect of the project will not be impacted by this proposed project so it's existing non-conforming Maximum floor area ratio, which is where the variance kicks in. There is an increase from 48% to 52%. since that existing crawl space would become livable space and space, which would be counted as floor area. And so a variance is requested for relief from this standard. And then similar to building coverage, the impervious surface, that aspect actually is in compliance. It was measured at 63%. That aspect will not be changing. And so that aspect of the parcel is in compliance. finally moving to park Parking, parking requirement is two spaces per dwelling unit. There's one space existing there now. The project will not impact parking, and so it will remain one space, no change, and that aspect is also existing nonconforming. Next slide. Diving into the variance aspect. So again, the variance is requested for an increase in floor area ratio for the project. It'll be going up by 214 square feet, which is that exist was the existing crawl space. Goes up from 48 to 52%, as said earlier. Again, as mentioned, the lot is challenged in numerous aspects due to its landlocked, sloped nature and substandard parcel size. It's got a 43% downhill slope. The site plan in the top right kind of demonstrates the issues. You could see the property lines are pretty tight around each side of the property, hence why the setbacks were so small. And it really poses challenges in terms of the property owners being able to make improvements to the home that could otherwise increase the utility of the residents. This proposed project would be legalizing a space that was illegally permitted and thus provide some increase in utility and more so safety because through permitting the space they would get it reviewed through a building permit and that was subjected to an inspection. So that way that work can be assessed and ensure that it was done in a safe and proper manner. This project poses minimal impact to step forms mass bulk and density, since it's all contained within the existing building envelope. Next slide. So the zoning permit aspect is to facilitate the retroactive conversion of this existing or of the interior lower level crawl space into the bathroom and storage area. As again, previously mentioned, that space was converted illegally at some point between 1999 and 2024. Staff referred to a real estate listing for the property that was up before the current property owners bought the property, and staff could see that that space had already been converted before the current property owners purchased the property. Okay. So this is something that they inherited and are working to correct Um, The retroactive permitting of this existing space, again, will be legalizing the space. The variance would allow it to fall into compliance with applicable zoning regulations for floor area. And importantly, will allow it to be assessed for compliance with building code requirements to increase the safety of that aspect of the home. And then, again, to recap, as the space is entirely within the existing envelope or footprint of the building. No exterior changes will result as part of this proposed project. Next slide. So with that being said, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve application 2024-00185 for 74 Cloud V Road and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the variance and zoning permit application. staff finds the proposed project is in conformance with the criteria listed in the municipal code sections below the first one applying to the variance findings and then for the general development regulations for zoning permits that concludes my presentation happy to answer any questions |
| 02:17:48.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Adam. We appreciate your presentation. I'm going to look to the Commission for questions of staff Commissioner Luxembourg |
| 02:17:56.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Adam, for that presentation. Can you go back to the zoning chart? Okay, so if I understand the zoning chart, this is a R16 zone, correct? Correct. So R16 requires 6,000 square feet, and you've identified a couple issues, landlocked and doesn't meet the minimum lot size. So if I'm understanding the chart correctly, if this parcel had 6,000 square feet, and you multiply that by the 0.45 It would be allowed to have 2,700 square feet. Is that correct? |
| 02:18:11.58 | Adam Blair | Correct. |
| 02:18:37.62 | Adam Blair | I did not perform that calculation, but I would imagine it would be pretty close if the lot was compliant. |
| 02:18:42.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I read that math. I'll tell you, I'll, uh, I'll accept that at 2,700 is the right number. So right now they have 26, 99, 35. So they currently have what would be allowed. I just want to confirm this. They currently have what would be allowed if they had, they didn't have a, a substandard lot. If they had a standard lot in the district, what they have now is what would be allowed there. Cause 2,700 is allowed and they have 26, 99, 35. |
| 02:19:11.84 | Adam Blair | Again, I haven't performed that calculation, but it seems like you have. |
| 02:19:15.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, all right, thank you. Those were my questions at this time, Chair, thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:19:23.42 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:19:25.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you, Adam. Just quickly, if I understand from your report, has the building department inspected or not yet inspected this property for possible code violations? In other words, might there be a certain level of demolition required after this for full legalization? |
| 02:19:41.67 | Adam Blair | Um, to my understanding, they building department has not inspected this space in particular, I'm not sure if they've done other inspections on the property pertaining to other building permits that have been obtained for this property for other minor work that they've been pursuing. It's possible that the bathroom may need some modification to comply with code. One question I did ask the building division was about the requirement for a window potentially, because I believe the bathroom as it exists, doesn't have a window. building i checked with them and they clarified that a window might not be required but that a fan would be required in the ceiling for adequate ventilation for air and so spoken with building but again they haven't inspected that aspect of the house to my understanding |
| 02:20:24.44 | David Marlatt | Okay, but the assumption is that if we approve this variance tonight, that the, that what's constructed is sufficient that doesn't require complete demolition to come up to code. Potentially not. That would be for |
| 02:20:36.97 | Adam Blair | building to the |
| 02:20:37.65 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:20:37.68 | Adam Blair | I'm not sure. |
| 02:20:37.87 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:20:37.97 | Adam Blair | Yeah, of course. |
| 02:20:39.24 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:20:40.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Moore. |
| 02:20:44.74 | Fred Moore | Adam, thank you very much for the presentation. A quick question regarding the attached conditions you have. Item six, dealing with the wild. land urban interface vegetation requirements. If we adopted the resolution along with the conditions, is that condition staying that they're supposed to cut down and remove fire-prone vegetation within 30 feet of their structure? |
| 02:21:06.74 | Nastassya Saad | Maybe for the benefit, are we able to look at that |
| 02:21:12.95 | David Marlatt | I believe that's part of the vegetation management plan that is enforced by the Southern Marine Fire Department. |
| 02:21:16.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:21:16.78 | Adam Blair | Thank you. Yeah, that's a general condition that is applied to planning projects. They might not even have to do that when they enter the building permit phase. |
| 02:21:24.49 | David Marlatt | Yeah. I can also clarify that it doesn't mean no vegetation. There are just certain species that are not allowed within five feet and then 30 feet. So there's a list basically. So- |
| 02:21:38.47 | Fred Moore | We do. I appreciate that, Commissioner Marlott. That's very helpful. But I understand it's sort of a generic condition. But if we adopted this, they would be having to traipse on adjacent property to cut down vegetation, which I'm trying to understand why that would be a condition based on this proposal. |
| 02:21:57.86 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 02:21:58.11 | Adam Blair | the issue. |
| 02:21:58.43 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:22:01.23 | Adam Blair | My understanding is that when it comes to the enforcement of that condition, that that would fall on Southern Marin fire to enforce that condition. And they may deem that that's not necessary in terms of their building permit review. So. |
| 02:22:15.05 | Nastassya Saad | I think Commissioner Moore, though, is saying if we memorialize that in the resolution, aren't they beholden to it? Maybe Attorney Otto can chime in just to see. And maybe when we get there, we can potentially make a motion that removes the condition, |
| 02:22:31.50 | Director Phipps | . |
| 02:22:31.56 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:22:31.61 | Director Phipps | to comment on this prior to attorney Otto. I would actually endorse a recommendation from counsel to remove all conditions of approval from the Southern Marin Fire District as the city of Sausalito is a completely separate agency and the fire district is responsible for implementing and carrying through those conditions. |
| 02:22:32.03 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, thank you. |
| 02:22:54.45 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so maybe if we get down that road, we can discuss what we have in front of us as potential removal. Thank you, Director Phipps. Any other questions, Commissioner Moore? |
| 02:23:07.57 | Fred Moore | No, no, to your side. |
| 02:23:09.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Um, I have a general, just totally general question here. With these types of variances on floor, |
| 02:23:22.82 | Adam Blair | area ratio. |
| 02:23:23.68 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. On floor area ratio... specific to illegal work that has been done prior. And granted, you know, We've seen these cases now that new owners are essentially inheriting problems. But what happens if a variance is not granted? What then happens with that illegal work that exists? Does buildings still inspect it from merely a safety hazard or What is the next step? |
| 02:23:55.86 | Adam Blair | good question if the variants were not to be approved I would consult with the building division to see what path forward may be necessary maybe it would warrant an initial inspection just to see if there are any health or life safety issues and then from there we could determine if another path forward I'm not sure if it would be code enforcement or maybe some other route but I would definitely consult building first to kind of chart a path forward |
| 02:24:21.29 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, I think they're important in this process just from the health and safety of residents. But I was just kind of curious in general since these are popping up now. That's the only question I had. Thank you very much, Adam. We appreciate your presentation. I'm going to turn this over now to the applicant. You'll have 15 minutes to present. May I ask who from the applicant team? Are you sure? If you can just state your name and address for the record and just kindly speak into the microphone, because we do have people on Zoom. And you do have 15 minutes. If we stop you, it won't count against your time. But you're welcome to reserve some time for rebuttal after public comment. Welcome. That's more than welcome to be here. |
| 02:25:08.39 | Sarah Hoffman | Welcome to be here. I promise he was asleep five minutes ago. So good evening, members of the Planning Commission. My name's Sarah Hoffman. I'm here with my husband, Tim, and our seven-month-old Dominic. to request your approval of our variants application. We're seeking a variance, as Adam said, to retroactively legalise the fact that a prior owner added two rooms without a permit. within the existing building envelope. We're not proposing any physical expansion of the building just to legalise what's already there within that prior crawl space. To tell you a bit about us, we're originally from New Zealand. We moved to San Francisco in 2014, but about a year ago with Dominic on the way, we decided to move up to Greener Pastures in South Salito and we fell in love with 74 Cloudview. We knew there would be a lot of work to do on the property. There was a lot of deferred maintenance. And the fact that we're here this evening shows it's been a much bigger project than we thought. Could I get the next slide, please? Yes. So when we moved in, our top priority was to add interior walls to this large family room you can see. So we could have a nursery and also my office space right next to where we were putting the baby. Uh, so in the process of getting the permit to just put up an interior wall, literally halfway down that room, we discovered that work had been performed at another part of the property without a permit, which was a bit of a shock for us. Next slide. As Adam said, it appears at some point the owner got a permit to build this family room, which you saw in the previous slide. And next slide. but at some point after performing that work, they added that area shaded in red, It's a bathroom and a storage space in what was a below-grade crawl space inside the building envelope, but they didn't get the permits to do that. And those rooms did exist when we purchased the home in 2024. Actually, next slide, please. so we can see what we're looking at. Oh, sorry, next one. You can see in that previous slide it was marketed though as a primary bathroom and the primary closet. It was represented to us as being all code compliant. And unfortunately, as we discovered, that's not the case. So we're now trying to fix that situation. Yeah. This issue was honestly really stressful when I was very pregnant and it's cost us more than $30,000 in permit fees and design professional fees to try and get this sorted out. It also did delay us getting our permit issued for Dominic's nursery to the point I was worried we wouldn't even have it done in time. And so we're here today to ask you for this variance. And if we can go to the next slide, we believe that we do meet all the criteria for a variance, as Adam explained. First, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. We've got a landlocked lot that is substandard inside. This limitation has existed ever since the house was built in 1959 and constrains the potential for us to improve and legalise these rooms. Sick. and practical difficulty and hardship. Our concern is that if a variance is not improved, we might have to actually take that room out. And that's a real problem because it's the only bathroom on the same level as where the children's room's going to be or is. And so that would mean we'd have to be going up and down stairs for bathing, middle of the night emergencies, things like that. Three, preserving property rights. If the lot was a standard legal size, we'd be seeking either no variance or a much smaller variance. I haven't done the math, as Commissioner Luxembourg seems to have. and other homes in the district do enjoy the ability to improve their homes, and we're seeking that same opportunity. Four, no detrimental impact on public welfare. The bathroom and closet, they're subterranean pretty much. They're entirely contained within the envelope. There's no light privacy view, any impacts on the neighbours. And as far as we're aware, these rooms have existed for a couple of decades without there being any problems caused to the community. And to address a point that has been raised, if we have the building department come through and say there are upgrades that need to be made to get it up to code, we'll absolutely do that. We see that as that being the next step after getting the planning approval. Basically, we're not seeking to expand new space. We're not seeking any special privileges just to legalise what's already there so we can have a functioning and co-compliant bathroom. We therefore ask for your approval of our variance request. We really appreciate your time and consideration and are happy to answer any questions. And our architect is also here to answer any technical questions. Thank you. |
| 02:30:10.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I believe we see nine minutes and 59 seconds left remaining. If you can just kindly stay up there, I think we are going to have some questions. Commissioner Luxembourg, do you want to ask questions of the applicant? |
| 02:30:22.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No questions at this time. |
| 02:30:23.68 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Marlott. |
| 02:30:25.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No questions. |
| 02:30:26.30 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, then. |
| 02:30:26.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:30:26.89 | Nastassya Saad | me. |
| 02:30:26.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:30:27.02 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:30:27.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 02:30:27.26 | Nastassya Saad | No, Commissioner Moore. No questions. Thank you. And I actually don't have any questions at this time for for you all as well. So we will keep your time. You can go ahead and return to your seat. And we will first open this up for public comment. This is item six C. Seventy for cloud view. Director Phipps. Looking to you for public comment. |
| 02:30:30.65 | David Marlatt | No questions. |
| 02:30:42.25 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:30:42.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:42.75 | Sandra Bushmaker | and, you know, the |
| 02:30:57.35 | Director Phipps | Yep, looking to the chamber for interested speakers. I have no received speaker cards. Okay, looking to the Zoom application. Seeing no raised hands chair back to you. |
| 02:31:08.56 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you very much. So, not to make you get up and down, but you do have remaining time if you would like to have any closing remarks of sorts, otherwise we're gonna close that portion and bring it back up for discussion here. |
| 02:31:27.89 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, thank you. Just for the record, the applicant is yielding the remaining for their time, for everybody on Zoom. I am going to bring it back up to the dais. And just as a point of privilege, I just want to ask attorney Otto a question, if we can get her up here. Thank you. There was a slide in the applicant's presentation that called out a potential, if the variance is denied, that they could be at risk to have to demolish the illegal bathroom and work. Can you comment on that, please, for us? |
| 02:32:11.26 | Attorney Otto | So are you asking if that's what the city would require if they don't have the variance for the FAR? |
| 02:32:14.92 | Nastassya Saad | I am trying to understand what happens if, you know, unfortunately they are in a position of surprise, but variances, you know, we've got really strict rules around variances and variances on floor ratio is really just, you know, it's something that needs to be scrutinized. And so I'm just curious that there is existing work. It does exist for however long it does. It's not at their fault. But what... I'm just curious that there is existing work. It does exist for however long it does. Not at their fault. But what could potentially happen if they don't receive a variance for this work? Is it possible it is at risk from the city to require it to be demolished? |
| 02:32:57.30 | Attorney Otto | Yes, if there's been illegal construction on a property and the city does not grant the entitlements to allow that, you know, basically to legalize that construction, then the next steps are to remove any of the illegal construction. In this case, putting it back to. consistent with the FAR as it was when the project was originally entitled, or if there's wiggle room in there, you could potentially allow a little bit but you would not be able to allow the entirety of it since the FAR has been exceeded in this point, which is why we're here today. |
| 02:33:30.86 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, and then... Assistant planner Blair had mentioned potentially it would go to You know building You know for review from a from a health and safety perspective code compliance, but Are you saying that that is? Not a possible step. I'm just Curious on a denial of a variance like really what is the next step here? |
| 02:33:57.39 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I'm happy to speak to that. Thank you, Dr. Phipps. So as far as Assistant Planner Blair's reference to working in collaboration with building, within the purview of building is also code enforcement. So in all likelihood, again, based on the decision of the commission this evening, if no approval or variance is granted, then we arrive at a compliance issue. And our code enforcement officer deals with ensuring compliance with our municipal code. How do we get there? How do we achieve compliance? I would first just want to start from a non-punitive perspective. Are there other potential opportunities or design alternatives that this applicant could propose that could come back before the commission for consideration. That's definitely one opportunity and I'd like to explore that first. Only in a kind of worst case scenario, if you will, would the city want to initiate enforcement action. |
| 02:33:58.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Dr. Fibb. |
| 02:34:55.27 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I don't disagree. It's a unique situation. I think I will hold the rest of my comments so I can let my fellow commissioners take a turn here. But that's helpful to know. Thank you, Director Phipps. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 02:35:11.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I was we need to do public comment first before bringing up did I not? |
| 02:35:16.13 | Nastassya Saad | Did I not? |
| 02:35:16.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, you did not. |
| 02:35:18.71 | Nastassya Saad | So we did. There was none. |
| 02:35:20.11 | Fred Moore | RECORDING TO BE ABLE Thank you. |
| 02:35:20.67 | Nastassya Saad | There was no public government. |
| 02:35:20.74 | Fred Moore | There was no public comment. Yeah. Well, there appears to be someone on Zoom who has their hand raised. |
| 02:35:27.64 | Director Phipps | I don't know if they were. |
| 02:35:28.02 | Nastassya Saad | I don't know if they were during |
| 02:35:29.04 | Director Phipps | This is following the closure of public conference. |
| 02:35:32.99 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, yes, I'm terribly sorry, but- |
| 02:35:35.33 | Director Phipps | I also have a receipt. I'll just say for the record, I also have a received speaker card that I received late if we if we'd like to If we'd like to reopen public comment, that is available to us. |
| 02:35:48.04 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Then let's go ahead and reopen public comment if we did receive either a late hand on Zoom or a speaker card. Director Phipps, can you help coordinate public comment again? |
| 02:35:58.11 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Seeing the hand of Edward Davis. |
| 02:35:58.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:36:02.79 | Director Phipps | on the Zoom application. Welcome. |
| 02:36:04.69 | Edward Davis | Oh, hello. Thank you so much. Can you hear me? |
| 02:36:07.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. We can hear you, yes. |
| 02:36:09.88 | Edward Davis | I might try to start the video too, if that's allowed. |
| 02:36:15.46 | Nastassya Saad | I believe you may have control. Maria, can we see if the... |
| 02:36:20.83 | Sandra Bushmaker | Just steal it from their fat. Just steal it from their fat. We don't have to do the video. |
| 02:36:24.84 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 02:36:24.86 | Edward Davis | Okay, it says unable to start video, that's fine. I did want to chime in. I've been in Sausalito for 27 years, living right next door to this house. And it is true. The previous presidents actually did build that, and I remember It was about 19. in 1999 that went in. And the previous residents were extraordinarily considerate and kept their two cars in the carport and We're really Just... wonderful and it never was an issue that there was more potential living space in there. It almost looks like an ensuite bedroom or you could put a nanny in there or something of that sort, which worries me because I think, and again, we want diversity, we want families and social media, we want everything, but I think there's been a big burden on the easement and because Well, just quickly, I'll say there's a big burden on the easement because cars are never parked in the carport like they're supposed to be. I've never seen them parked in the carport with the new residents. And in the previous residents, they were always in the carport. This is sort of shocking to look down there and seeing this easement blocked. And the other thing too is I actually went to see the house when it was for sale. And I walked in and we were surprised because it seemed to be bigger than what was advertised. And the broker let us know right away. that there were unpermitted spaces and they weren't allowed to advertise them. So So I think it was, you know, it was common knowledge, you know, that these these were built illegally and and you know the reason I mentioned the stress on the easement is because You know, it's sort of, you know, making these kind of McMansions and packing as much as we can in this incredibly beautiful neighborhood. just probably isn't a good idea. So basically they're looking to grow I have to variance for an illegal house edition. And I think it sets a problematic precedent because it does undermine the rule of law. Right? It's on either granting a variance after an illegal addition effectively rewards you know, non-compliance. And again, the broker told us You know, it was, they said, hey, look, this stuff is not permitted. You're taking your chances to get more for your money, whatever. But it sends a message that rules can be ignored and then forgiven later. on weakening the trust in the city's zoning process and encouraging others to bypass regulations. I'm. It also creates inequity among other property owners. Most of these houses are really charming and they're small, but we make it work. |
| 02:39:20.41 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments. And that does it for raised hands in the Zoom application. And I'll clarify the late received speaker card that I received is for item 6D, which is an item that may result in an automatic adjournment of our meeting due to lack of quorum based on discussions earlier today. So I think I'll leave that there. And that will do it for public comment. Thank you. |
| 02:39:40.83 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Okay, so we'll bring it, we're going to close public comment again and bring it back up here. Commissioner Luxembourg, I think you were last... |
| 02:39:49.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | speaking. Yes, I'm sorry. I saw raised hand and I thought we should take raised hands. How to start. I mean, I understand the need for the nursery and that these improvements were there when they bought the house. So these are wonderful people. I'm glad they're in Sausalito. This is the, all of my comments have nothing to do with the people in the house. Standards for Experiences are very, very high. They're theoretically... All of my comments have nothing to do with the people in the house. Standards for variances are very, very high. Theoretically, you have to have exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. And so in this particular case, if it were a 6,000-foot lot, it would have 26, whatever, 26.99 is the current square footage. If you don't include these spaces that the prior owners illegally added. And so that was just at the limit. And so I'm hard-pressed to find that these are exceptional and extraordinary. I do realize that this is a landlocked lot. Landlocked lot doesn't actually change anything. If we build a road down that driveway that's 50 feet wide and this front's on it, the square footage of their lot stays the same. The FAR stays the same. So my concern is we have an FAR requirement, and if we were to allow this change, there are two issues. One, it goes beyond the square footage that's allowed, and if it's allowed here, it's almost allowed in anywhere in the city. I mean, I could see giving a variance to the 2,700 square feet, but they already have that because that's existing nonconformant. So adding the additional square footage from a zoning point of view, and again, these people are wonderful, and I hope they keep their bathroom somehow and whatever, but I'm struggling with, and I'm hearing this comment, if we were to approve this variance, is it telling people down the road, when you know you can't get additional score foot, illegally put it in and then go request the variance later, and then they'll grant it because it's there, and they feel bad. So I think that's an issue, and maybe there's some way to recalculate the FAR in the House so that this can comply, but I'm really struggling with providing a variance for FAR because that's one of the things that will happen all over this issue of McMansions all over the place families are i want more space and they and and our lots are small and so everybody everywhere wants to build the biggest house they can and we have an far requirement that says what that is if we start varying that here or we'll vary it everywhere so i'm struggling on the variance thing i don't want them to rip out their bathroom and i do agree that this is not making the house any bigger it's not impacting the neighborhood Thank you. So I'm struggling on the variance thing. I don't want them to rip out their bathroom. And I do agree that this is not making the house any bigger. It's not impacting the neighborhood in any way. But I am worried about a precedent, so I'm not sure what to do. Those are my thoughts at the moment. |
| 02:43:07.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Marlott. |
| 02:43:10.35 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. And I do appreciate that we have to be sensitive to precedent and communicating that all prior sins are absolved. However, I sort of approach this as, what if they'd come to us without this space and asked for a variance? And would I be in favor of it or at least leaning towards it? And I think the answer is yes. I come down sort of heavily on the does no harm, which is not a specific finding, but kind of a does no harm approach. It doesn't expand the building. The building existed. It doesn't create any hardship on the community. It's just filling in some otherwise completely dead space. And I don't have, I think even if it came to us as a fresh variance without any construction, I think I would probably support it, of course, for not being asked directly that. With respect to what happens if we don't approve it, I can speak from some professional experience in these types of things in other jurisdictions and cities. It doesn't specifically mean that the bathroom itself has to be removed. It means that from the planning department's point of view, and Director Phipps can correct me, which simply, applicant, you've got a problem now. Your house is 214 square feet too big. Go find some place to remove it. And, you know, there's a large walk-in closet on the middle floor. I'm not trying to suggest anything. But they wouldn't specifically say that space has to be removed. It'd say you have a problem, solve it. And then we don't want to speak for the building department, but having been through a number of legalizations, they come in and they'll make a judgment whether they feel like the plumbing and the wiring is correct, and that's their judgment. But I... I hear what you're saying about precedent and sending messages and so forth, but I would probably have voted in favor of this even had it not been something that's been applied for retroactively, given the location of this in an otherwise dead volume within the building. |
| 02:45:16.27 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Marlott. Commissioner Moore. |
| 02:45:21.15 | Fred Moore | Very sticky situation for sure. And, um, I agree. kind of side with both commissioners prior comments. clearly setting a precedence is concerning. And we definitely, I don't think we want to do that or send a message to the public that we want to do that. However, I also sort of lean more in favor of Commissioner Marlott's position that this is within the building envelope. It's not expanding the building. It was dead space. It's been converted to usable space. So I'm inclined to support staff's recommendation. |
| 02:45:58.59 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Moore. I feel like we need five of us in general these days. I would like to echo Commissioner Luxembourg's comments. This is nothing to do with the applicant themselves, and we do welcome you to town and are very happy that you're here. But the variances are somehow becoming a little bit more common for us up here. And on floor area, I just really hesitate to move forward with a variance on a floor area with with these findings and and I know it's a frustrating and unfortunate situation to inherit a problem but I'm leaning more with Commissioner Luxembourg and and I do think that while, you know, I think not to speak for staff, but we've had discussions around variances and you could take the position that each variance is its own standalone thing and you can always adopt a variance for one location and not another. These types of very specific situations with illegal work are the flag. So I just don't think I'm going to be able to support a variance this evening, and I'm not going to agree with staff's findings. But that's another reason that I wanted to point to that question, because we don't want to put our community at risk, first and foremost. So as long as the building inspector at least be able to review from a safety standpoint, but I'm just not sure I'm going to make the findings either. So with that... |
| 02:46:39.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:46:39.21 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:47:45.70 | David Marlatt | But that's a question of staff. |
| 02:47:47.07 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:47:47.83 | David Marlatt | Thank you. So regarding, Adam, regarding the floor area that we've been given in the table, how was that presented to you? Where did that number come from? |
| 02:47:59.49 | Adam Blair | So the area. Thank you for the question. To clarify, the 48% came from, because we're pursuing this as a retroactive permit. So the 48% is the number calculated if that crawl space was left as existing crawl space. So no bathroom, no storage area. The number that comes, the 52%, is considering that that space was converted with the bathroom and the storage area. Yeah. |
| 02:48:15.31 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yeah. |
| 02:48:15.35 | David Marlatt | Sure. |
| 02:48:23.19 | David Marlatt | and the storage area. Sorry, I wasn't clear. My question is really, where did this 2699.35 come from? Was that something the applicant provided? Was that from a real estate listing? Was there some graphics provided that document that? |
| 02:48:37.88 | Adam Blair | That was from staff's measurement of the floor plans provided in the application. |
| 02:48:41.89 | David Marlatt | So staff scaled. Correct. Scaled the architect. The architect did not provide those numbers, but staff scaled those numbers. |
| 02:48:49.11 | Adam Blair | They may have provided numbers. I would have to double check their application to see if they did provide a number. I recall our numbers being fairly close. Let me see. |
| 02:48:58.60 | David Marlatt | Thank you. And the numbers are measured inside to inside of all surfaces? |
| 02:49:01.92 | Adam Blair | Interior walls, correct, yeah. Okay. With exceptions for, like, fireplaces, elevator shafts. We have some exceptions outlined in the code. |
| 02:49:09.47 | David Marlatt | Okay. I wanted to be sure that if we're not going to, if we're going to say that a floor area variance is required that we're confident that that's the case because it's quite common that people assume that the floor area of the house for FAR purposes is the entire house, including the exterior walls. |
| 02:49:20.38 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 02:49:26.12 | David Marlatt | And I didn't want to, I was afraid that I was just pulled from a real estate listing or something, which would be exterior wall area. I was trying to make this a non-issue. |
| 02:49:34.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. Yeah, if I could comment on your, I looked at it from the way you're looking at it also, if this were to come in today, but if this were to come in today and they were at the limit and this wasn't built, I would say no. I mean, it is what it is. I mean, the second you go a little over, it's like, where do you draw the line? The one complicating factor here is it's built. So, you know, maybe I would rather solve this by not approving of variance, but getting them to recalculate and figure out where, you know, something can be abandoned, I'm not sure what the answer is, but I agree with Chair Saad that variants are supposed to be extraordinary. If we're just letting people add square footages, houses are going to just keep getting bigger and bigger on lots that really can't support them. This particular case, yes, it's underground. They excavated an underground space. But unlike the first one we had this evening, it had, you know, more than adequate room to provide what that was. So that makes sense. This, unfortunately, if it was coming in clean, would not, and they wouldn't have invested money in it, and they would have adjusted. So I'm more of the favor of not approving the variance and then go back and figure it out. Not necessarily suggesting they rip out the bathroom or whatever, but figuring out how to do this another way. So anyways, those are my thoughts at the moment. |
| 02:51:11.89 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Yeah, I think we're not going to most likely solve if we deny this variance and shouldn't attempt to solve for it. But it is good to have the conversation with Director Phipps and the attorney to what happens when we want to know the risks to these folks, but I think we understand now. I am going to look to see if we can get a motion on the floor some way or another for this variance. |
| 02:51:43.79 | David Marlatt | Well, it's going to fail, but I'm happy to make a motion to adopt the staff's recommendation and approve this variance as presented. Second motion. |
| 02:51:56.71 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:51:56.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:51:56.83 | Director Phipps | Okay. |
| 02:51:57.10 | Director Phipps | ROLL. Commissioner Luxenberg. Oh, unless there's an alternative motion. I didn't mean to interrupt. |
| 02:52:01.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I was going to look for an alternative motion. I feel like there is one. Okay. |
| 02:52:07.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was just going to let this motion now pass. Alternative motion is to deny this variance and instruct staff to find a way to resolve this without granting an FAR variance. |
| 02:52:09.79 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 02:52:23.24 | Nastassya Saad | Can I ask a point of clarification on the second motion? |
| 02:52:30.62 | Nastassya Saad | Can that's okay. No, no, thank you. Not to you, but thank you. Appreciate that Is that an acceptable motion director Phipps for? Commissioner Luxembourg to Direct staff in that way. Can you just comment on that? |
| 02:52:46.73 | Director Phipps | Well, I think this is, I mean, what Commissioner Luxenberg just proposed was a reflection of the process that I think I outlined earlier this evening in talking about how this would go forward if a variance isn't granted. So I would be pleased to carry forward the recommendation in the alternative motion. |
| 02:53:08.11 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay. So in the spirit of having two motions, oh, we don't have a second. I'm going to second. I'm going to second Commissioner Luxembourg's motion. So we have two motions on the floor. Could you please take Commissioner Luxembourg's motion first? |
| 02:53:21.80 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Commissioner Luxenberg. Thank you. |
| 02:53:24.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 02:53:24.36 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:53:24.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Go. |
| 02:53:24.48 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. No. Commissioner Moore. |
| 02:53:30.42 | Nastassya Saad | you know, |
| 02:53:33.26 | Director Phipps | Share a song. |
| 02:53:34.28 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:53:36.34 | Director Phipps | I think that's a no action, correct? |
| 02:53:37.78 | Nastassya Saad | That's a no action. And then we've got. Can I propose an alternate motion, or do I have to? |
| 02:53:42.35 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:53:42.52 | Nastassya Saad | You know, could we just for the record, yes, can we first go through the roll call for the second motion on the floor, which is to your motion to approve unless you want to make an amendment to your motion. |
| 02:53:44.85 | David Marlatt | Okay, okay. |
| 02:53:55.90 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 02:53:56.04 | David Marlatt | I'd like to amend my motion. Okay, please. I'd like to amend my motion and this is getting to be a habit, but to continue this to a date certain to May 28th, when we will presumably have five commissioners. |
| 02:54:08.20 | Fred Moore | I second the amendment. |
| 02:54:12.93 | Nastassya Saad | If that's the motion and there's a second, I will look. Well, first, twofold there. So New Yorker Phipps is staff amenable to a date certain of May 28th to rehear this when we have our five full set of commissioners. |
| 02:54:36.92 | Director Phipps | Unfortunately not. The planner on the project will not be present. That is one concern I have. The other concern I have is that we just continued another housing item to that date and that agenda is already quite full. My request would be that we continue to date certain of June 11. |
| 02:54:58.05 | Nastassya Saad | If that's amenable to staff, then I will look to, I will look, can I have you come up just to the podium, please? |
| 02:55:06.42 | Unknown (Applicant) | We're completely happy with the 11th. That'll be fine. |
| 02:55:09.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 02:55:10.61 | Unknown (Applicant) | Thank you. |
| 02:55:10.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:55:10.66 | Unknown (Applicant) | I appreciate your consideration. |
| 02:55:11.82 | Nastassya Saad | We appreciate you as well. Thank you very much. Okay, so we now have a motion on the floor for a continuance to a date certain of June 11th with the With that, is there a second? |
| 02:55:25.17 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:55:26.81 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Any alternative motions? Director Phipps, would you please take roll? |
| 02:55:34.57 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 02:55:35.68 | Nastassya Saad | No. |
| 02:55:35.75 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Chair Assad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 02:55:41.67 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you very much. |
| 02:55:48.90 | Nastassya Saad | Director Phipps, can you kindly help me here on 6-D with the situation of having to recuse one of our commissioners in-house to recuse? Absolutely. Thank you. |
| 02:55:59.56 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Thank you. We are about to open item 6D. I believe one of our commissioners is going to recuse from this item. I believe that commissioner is Commissioner Merlot. Commissioner Merlot, I invite you to recuse. |
| 02:56:11.14 | David Marlatt | Yes, that's correct. This is a legacy project of my firm, D&M Architecture, and as such, I will recuse myself from this item this evening. |
| 02:56:20.12 | Director Phipps | Thank you for being here, Commissioner. |
| 02:56:22.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much for the recusal. And then may I kindly look to you, Director Phipps, then based on the fact that we do not have a quorum in. Thank you. |
| 02:56:32.08 | Director Phipps | I was going to wait for Commissioner Merlot to formalize his recusal. |
| 02:56:34.51 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, thank you. formalize his recusal. No patience, sorry. |
| 02:56:39.81 | Director Phipps | Chair, I want to bring to your attention, it seems that we don't have a quorum in person. With that in mind, we've triggered an automatic adjournment of the meeting. |
| 02:56:48.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. the evening. |
| 02:56:53.56 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:56:53.60 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:56:53.63 | Director Phipps | you |
| 02:56:53.65 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:56:54.47 | Director Phipps | Very good. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public. Have a great evening. |