| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Nastassya Saad | . okay i believe that was uh commissioner moore that seconded uh director pips |
| 00:00:06.07 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. |
| 00:00:10.49 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:00:12.65 | Director Phipps | Cheers, son. Thank you. |
| 00:00:13.70 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:00:14.09 | Director Phipps | Motion passes. |
| 00:00:15.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Item three are public comments on items that are not on this agenda. Director Phipps. |
| 00:00:20.86 | 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 the subject to be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right, Maria Hernandez or Mr. Adam Blair. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card. As mentioned, if you are on the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you'll be called upon when it's your time to speak. To raise your hand from the phone, press star nine, and all speakers will be notified when time has elapsed. Chair, I am going to look to the chamber. |
| 00:00:38.34 | Adam Blair | . |
| 00:01:13.74 | Director Phipps | For interested speakers, I have one speaker card, not on this item. I will look to the Zoom application for raised hands on this item. Going once, going twice, seeing none. Back to you. |
| 00:01:25.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Item four is the approval of the Planning Commission minutes. This is from May 28. Any discussion points, any notes from the 28, or do we have a motion? |
| 00:01:44.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Some will... |
| 00:01:45.30 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Have a second? Second. Thank you very much. Director Pips. |
| 00:01:46.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. |
| 00:01:50.90 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Cheers, son. |
| 00:01:58.78 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:01:58.81 | Director Phipps | Yes. Thank you. Motion passes. |
| 00:02:00.70 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Item five, our communications. Director Phipps, any communications from staff this evening? |
| 00:02:06.02 | Director Phipps | No communications this evening, but happy to be here. Back to you. |
| 00:02:12.03 | Nastassya Saad | And we are happy to have you. Anyone from the commission have any communications? |
| 00:02:18.56 | Fred Moore | None. Well, I would just like to apologize to the commission and the public for the technical issues in the last meeting and the prior meeting. So thank you for hanging there with me and getting through it all. And I apologize. And I'm glad to be here in person. |
| 00:02:31.96 | Nastassya Saad | And I was my communication is welcome to Commissioner Moore in person. We're very happy to have you here and welcome to the commission. And we're grateful for your service. So thank you very much. I don't have any other communication items either. So with that, we will move on to our business items. Item 6A, we have the review for the fiscal year 2025-2026, the capital improvement program for consistency with the general plan. Thank you very much for being here this evening. |
| 00:03:01.13 | Kevin McGowan | Good evening, Chair Saad. I'm Kevin McGowan from the Department of Public Works, and good evening, Commissioners. Glad to be here this evening. And I do have a short presentation for you this evening about the City's Capital Improvement Program for 2526. Next slide, please. This evening, we'll be requesting the Planning Commission to receive a present from staff on the Capital Improvement Program. And in years past, as in years past, adopt a resolution finding the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 2526 to be in compliance or substantial conformance with. the Sausalito General Plan. Staff has also attached a large document to your packet, which is the detailed capital improvement program for the next fiscal year. The information provided tonight is based on our presentation to City Council on May 20th, 25. Some of the specific details of that document or the one that you have in front of you may be changed slightly in the next budget, which our finance director is working on with the rest of staff to present to the council next week. Next slide. |
| 00:04:17.00 | Kevin McGowan | we go uh sausalito is committed to managing our infrastructure from 21 miles of roadways and more than 30 buildings as well as our storm drain systems and our stair systems that allow the city to function as intended in order to maintain and manage these assets, a capital improvement program is utilized to document the needs as well as assist the city with funding improvements. Next slide. The intent is of providing these services is to address the resident safety, support our businesses and comply with the goals and standards identified in by the city council and within the general plan and other studies. Next slide. Sausalito has been dedicated to improving our infrastructure for many years with the extension of Measure O, which is now known as Measure L. Our council has dedicated funding to support infrastructure management by dedicating two project managers to our staff. In the last year, City received a facility assessment study, which also detailed the needs of both public and leased infrastructure owned by the City. All these efforts culminate in the annual capital improvement program, which is used in conjunction with the annual budget. Next slide. The city also moved forward with other studies, such as the, as I mentioned, the facility assessment study, storm drainage study, geologic hazard study, and the pavement management study to further document deficiencies of our infrastructure with the intent of dedicating resources for improvements. Next slide. While the city hired two full-time project managers a few years ago, the magnitude of this year's capital improvement program will require additional project managers to address the proposed projects. The cost of these part-time project managers is also included in the capital improvement program. Next slide. There are large benefits to investing in the city's infrastructure. Improvements to streets benefits those using the roadways, but other improvements to stairs, storm drainage systems in our buildings will reduce the city's liability and benefit the public. Next slide. The Capital Improvement Program is a fluid document with costs changing as individual projects get developed. The CIP is utilized to develop a list of possible improvement projects and estimates the amount of funding needed to support these projects. The CIP also prioritizes improvements with the intent of providing recommendations to the council to allocate funds in conjunction with the annual budget. Sausalito's five-year capital improvement program is updated annually. and is included in the annual budget. Next slide. The city's finance department has been diligently examining the city's accounts to determine the annual amount available for capital improvement programs. On May 20th, 2025, staff estimated approximately $25 million would be available for capital projects. This amount... has changed slightly and was presented to the council on June 3rd, 2025. Next slide. |
| 00:08:03.70 | Kevin McGowan | As a result of the strategic planning session in January 2025, the council noted several priorities. Many of these priorities have been or are currently being addressed. For example, the city has finished the facility assessment study and has included many of those projects in the current CIP. The storm drain assessment, which is underway right now, and it includes an allocation of $450,000 in anticipation of the completion of the study, which will identify improvements to the storm drain systems. The city included an analysis of possible repairs of existing stairway systems, which parallel bridgeway from Napa Street right out here in the corner. Other stair systems are shown on the CIP as being initiated in future years. Other projects such as the geologic monitoring plan, sidewalk program, and future improvements associated with ADA transition plan, our ADA transition plan, are included in the CIP. Next slide. A couple more to go here. The city is currently working on more than 25 active projects. Some of these projects are moving to the construction phase and will require allocations of funding to come. complete. A total of $11 million is estimated to be needed for these active projects. That's not even including the new ones that we're proposing. Important projects such as the bridgeway improvements from Napa to Johnson Street right out here in front will be ready to bid in the next few weeks, as well as the 25 at 2025 street resurfacing, which includes a bid alternatives and additional streets with the intent of complying with the Council's directive to address more street repairs. Next slide. |
| 00:10:03.29 | Kevin McGowan | Based on council's April 15, 2025 direction, a total of 19 new projects have been added. Staff estimates an additional 5.6 million will be needed to support these projects in the next fiscal year. One of these projects, Coloma Street Pedestrian Improvements, has a grant fund such that the allocation needed from the local sources is much less than the actual construction. Next slide. So a couple other pictures of projects that we intend to move forward with. I won't run through all of these, but some ones of importance have to do with fixing a dock system or a walkway system out on Humboldt Street, as well as repairs to Bridgeway out in front of Lot 3. Next slide. Our next steps related to the CIP include integrating the capital improvement program with next year's budget and refining the scope of the projects and budget to implement each project individually. Keep in mind that this is a dynamic. document, which will change throughout the year. As an example, Our police department secured a grant for new parking equipment, such as license plate readers, new parking ticket machines, and others. This funding is, this is funded by a grant, and we have just recently added this to the capital improvement program. Federal grants take a long time to administer. And since we are in the first steps of the project, we are not sure when the federal funding for the project will become available. It could be next year, it could be the year after, but we're including it in the program nevertheless. Next slide. There we go. Last one. Lastly, this is very dynamic process. As I mentioned, our intent is to identify capital projects before they become emergencies and place them on a list so that we are organized, or at least our city is organized to address them. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution finding that the capital improvement program for fiscal year 2526 is consistent with the Sausalito general plan. And that concludes my presentation. |
| 00:12:19.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Director McGowan, for your presentation. We appreciate it and all the information. Going to turn it over to the commissioners for questions. Commissioner Luxembourg, do you have any questions for Director McGowan? |
| 00:12:31.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Director McGowan, an excellent job both on your presentation. I was very impressed with the detailed summaries. The individual project sheets were very, very helpful. Infrastructure is a critical need, and I think you've identified and compartmentalized them, and some of them are two or three years away. But I agree with you that being organized about it is the only way we're going to address a huge backlog in infrastructure needs. I don't have any questions. I do have a couple typos that you might want to correct for the future. They're very minor. Page 121 of page 227, it's the ice house replacement window, but the description describes the fishing pier next to the trident. So that was just a cut and paste issue, I'm sure. And you now got 228 pages, so you may want to change it to be 121 of 228. But other than that, I was very impressed with the document. And I think this is great for the city of Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 00:13:36.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Marlott. Uh, |
| 00:13:42.22 | David Marlatt | No, I have no questions. Again, I'll just echo Commissioner Luxembourg. It's a great presentation, very comprehensive, and good to see that these things are being prioritized and planned well in advance. Thank you. |
| 00:13:54.79 | Fred Moore | Commissioner Moore. The question is a little esoteric. It's obviously there's a lot of projects here proposed existing and so forth. Is there a role that you see the Planning Commission playing in either vetting out some of these projects about saying maybe that project should be a future project? And there's one project they're converting the Casnew Park into a community garden. Are you looking for the Planning Commission to take a role in that? Or is that something with existing and proposed projects more staff driven and city council driven? |
| 00:14:26.11 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. Most of them are staff and city council driven. However, we will need your input on several important projects coming forward. One in particular has to do with the design of parking lot one downtown. We're going to try to bring that back to council and ask them what direction they would like us to move forward with. But as that project has developed, and schematics are developed for the project, we'd like to bring it to you to get your input and find out how we should need to look at this, not just from kind of resurfacing a parking lot, but a bigger picture. In other words, looking at Sausalito as this area being the central hub of the downtown, and how do we want it to look in five years? How do we want it to look in 10 years? Cheers. And so that's where your input would be very important. |
| 00:15:16.01 | Director Phipps | Yeah, if I may dovetail off of that, I think the commission minus Commissioner Moore, perhaps Commissioner Merlot as well, may recall that the commission had the opportunity to provide recommendations and comment on the proposed Ferry Landside Improvement Project. This was actually via design review at the time. There have been some minor code changes that have been reflected since then. However, that's just one relatively recent example of the commission being able to participate and provide comment on design for these kind of more higher level projects. Yeah. |
| 00:15:53.40 | Fred Moore | There's a last question then. So I understand that obviously some projects will come before the commission to get input or whatever as staff and you determine appropriate. But with respect to the overall 228 pages of various projects, you don't foresee that commission going through one by one and making a comment on those. It's really something that as an individual in the city or another individual residence, they would maybe provide comments to the staff about, hey, why don't you add this project as a potential future, or maybe you need to reconsider looking at this in the future because it may not have the support. Exactly. |
| 00:16:27.98 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. |
| 00:16:28.72 | Fred Moore | I understand the correct. |
| 00:16:28.77 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, you're welcome to look at the huge document. It's a little bit big just for me, and I prepared it. But we welcome everybody's input, from the members of the public to yourselves. If we are moving in a direction where we want to look at, and I'll just pick parks, more parks in certain areas or improvements to our existing buildings. We'd love to get the input so that we can include these things in future CIPs. And I don't know if you if you would have noticed, but since my time here, we when I first started, we had a small capital improvement program and we continue to add to it. We continue to keep that list going so that we give the council the ability to pick and choose which projects they feel are the most important to move forward with. |
| 00:17:21.59 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:17:21.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:17:21.83 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:17:23.36 | Nastassya Saad | Vice chair, no comments. I don't have any other comments as well. Otherwise, thank you very much for the comprehensive report. And we will now open it up. If there are no more questions from the commission, we will open it up for public comment. I believe we have one speaker card for this. Director Phipps, do we have? |
| 00:17:46.92 | Director Phipps | Yes, we do. If I may, before we jump in, I just want to touch on the magnitude of this CIP relative to the size of our city. This is a relatively large endeavor for a city of our size. And I think that, as some of you folks mentioned, the goal here is to address some infrastructure deficiencies and to address some of the deferred maintenance. So I just want to applaud Kevin for the future of Sausalito's infrastructure and the work that's going to go into this for a city of our size it's considerable And with that, I have Carolyn Revell, speaker card. Carolyn, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:18:27.49 | Carolyn Revell | very much. I'm Carolyn Revell representing Sausalito Beautiful. As you review the CIP for conformance with the general plan, I'd like to highlight green infrastructure, specifically trees and parks. Though most CIP items relate to traditional infrastructure, the general plan does include landscape as infrastructure. For example, the community design element states, include landscaping and maintenance of landscaping as part of the infrastructure budget as a necessary and basic community service. There are similar statements in the sustainability element. The general plan also states, identify opportunities to expand the tree canopy along city streets and in parking lots. A Bartlett tree expert study in 2018 found that the Cal repairs along downtown Bridgeway and Princess Street, have fire blight and should be replaced. The city, in coordination with Sausalito Beautiful, has replaced eight of the trees. And we continue to coordinate closely with DPW to replace several more this year with $60,000 from the 2024 budget. We hope that you will support $60,000 in the next year's budget. 25-26 budget. I believe I saw that as listed. and in future years, perhaps also 60,000 rather than the 30,000. The longer we spread the project out, the more expensive it becomes, and we end up with a ragged streetscape of uneven-sized trees. So I think a priority in downtown is really quite important with the ferry landing and Tracy Way and so forth. City parks are also critical parts of green infrastructure. Sausalito Beautiful supports the completion of Dunphy Park Phase 2 and the initiation of a parks master plan in FY25-26, rather than 20... 27, 28. We think a parks master plan, an assessment of demographics and usage at our smaller parks, should precede allocation of funds for improvement. There are some suggested parks, as you mentioned, Casno Community Garden and Mary Ann Sears Park. Maybe those should be lower priorities after we do an assessment of what we really need. We're working with the members of the Park and Rec Commission to complete a parks inventory, which could feed into a parks master plan. So we thank you for your recommendations and for the hard work of Mr. McGowan and the work that you do on behalf of our town. Thank you. |
| 00:20:52.63 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much, Carolyn, for your comments. Thank you for being here. No additional speaker cards. Just looking to staff to see if we got any in the last minute or so. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. Seeing none, back to you chair. |
| 00:21:07.33 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Director Phipps. All right, we'll just bring it up here. Just to remind the Commission, we're here to deem this consistent with the general plan objectives. There are many policies listed in the resolution. Commissioner Marlott, do you want to start discussion or potentially make a motion? |
| 00:21:29.18 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you yeah well I think I would start with a motion to approve the draft resolution as presented. I don't have any objections that maybe some discussion about proportionally how much of this is reactive work versus proactive and conformance with the general plan might be worth a little bit of discussion, but otherwise i'm fully supportive of the resolution. Thank you. |
| 00:21:50.78 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:21:54.19 | Fred Moore | I can second the motion, but also as a point of clarification, I just wanted to confirm that we're not necessarily approving all these projects or the order in which they're presented. We're just approving in a global sense the conformancy of this project with the consistency with the general plan. So all the fluidity of the document will change over time with the city council, et cetera. |
| 00:22:14.37 | Sarah Hoffman | I'm not sure. |
| 00:22:14.44 | Nastassya Saad | THAT IS. |
| 00:22:19.30 | Nastassya Saad | That is correct. We are here just to approve that it's consistent with the general plan, not the individual projects. Commissioner. |
| 00:22:26.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:22:27.03 | Nastassya Saad | and Bruce. |
| 00:22:27.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I just wholeheartedly support the motion. |
| 00:22:33.14 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair. |
| 00:22:34.64 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, thank you, Chair. I don't think there's any question that the document complies with the city's general plan. General plan is pretty general, and these are all very much civic responsibilities and civic infrastructure projects. I appreciate the comment about the trees. I do appreciate. think that the city is spread a little thin and some of the more obvious maintenance issues may not be an improved capital improvement but you know tree maintenance tree trimming there's a lot of parts of our city where I think we put a tree in and then we don't take care of it so I think that not really an issue for the capital improvement plan but continuing to keep our streets looking nice with the trees is something I think I very much support but I also wanted to make a comment that it kind of comes off of what Commissioner Moore said a little earlier. I mean, This is, you know, one of the slides up there that Kevin had talked about, like, this is a planning document. This is a planning process. And this is the one time we get to touch it and we're the planning commission. It seems a little weird that we don't have a lot more to do with this in terms of a more public dynamic of understanding what this massive document is, maybe delving into pieces of it so that people have more of an opportunity. Members of the public can comment on it and participate in some of these decisions it's you know as the director said it's a massively complicated document and there's a lot of money being uh targeted for things we certainly need but you know there probably are some disagreements and some you know thoughts about what should come first and whether something should be on the list and we don't really get a chance to do it except for now, and the only thing we're doing now, as again Commissioner Moore pointed out, all we're responsible for tonight is saying that the document complies with the general plan, and that's certainly the case, and I'm going to support that motion. But I do kind of wish that there was a, that as the planning commission, we were more than just a project approval commission, and that we as a body, you know, in the future could take part in planning some of these things, not just being a rubber stamp for general Project Approval Commission and that we as a body, you know, in the future could take part in planning some of these things, not just being a rubber stamp for general plan decisions. So, but with that, I'll support the motion. |
| 00:24:45.69 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. Actually, that's a very good point, and one of that I would echo as well. But with the remit for this evening, I definitely support the motion as well. And Director Phipps stole my thunder because I was going to say it is a massive, there are massive projects in there. It's a large budget, and it's a lot to manage. And I think any resident has seen public works out and about extensively recently. So we appreciate all that is being done for the city, both from an infrastructure and maintenance standpoint. But I definitely agree with you, and I would appreciate that assistance. We're here to help. But that being said, I think we've got a motion. We have a second and we'll probably reach consensus pretty quickly. Director Phipps, can we take |
| 00:25:36.57 | Director Phipps | How do you call roll? Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Commissioner Merlot? Yes. |
| 00:25:41.02 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:25:41.33 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Janos. Yes. |
| 00:25:43.40 | Nastassya Saad | on. Yes. |
| 00:25:44.18 | Director Phipps | Motion passes unanimously. |
| 00:25:46.00 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We are now going to move on to item seven. This is the public hearing portion for the evening. Item 7A is 126 San Carlos Avenue. We have a design review permit, and we have associate planner Katie Nelson here to present. Welcome, Katie. |
| 00:26:06.05 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners, and members of the public. I'm Katie Nelson, Associate Planner, and tonight I'm presenting... In a design review application number 2025 dash 00193 for a project at 126 San Carlos Avenue. This is a request for design review permit to expand an existing detached garage as well as construct a detached workshop accessory structure next slide. The subject property is located at 126 San Carlos Avenue, also known as assessor parcel number 06512306. It is a 20,101 square foot lot, nearly a half acre, designated medium low density residential by the general plan. It's zoned R16 for single family residential uses. The property owners are the Spellman Trust, and representing the owners is the applicant, Sean McCardle. Next slide. The project involves a 950 square foot expansion of an existing 400 square foot detached garage, which will allow the installation of two car stackers and a half bathroom. It also includes a new 256 square foot detached workshop. This project requires design review under Sausalito Municipal Code Section 10.54050B7 as it involves over 300 square feet of new floor area while introducing new building coverage to the parcel |
| 00:27:41.11 | Katie Nelson | This is phase two of a two-part improvement effort on the property. Phase one, processed under zoning permit 2024-00120, included minor exterior changes like a new deck, entryway trellis, and interior renovations. This current application submitted in October 2024 covers the garage addition and new workshop project before you now. |
| 00:28:07.16 | Katie Nelson | The site includes a single family residence built in 1924 with approximately 4,854 square feet of floor area. The detached garage was added sometime between 1924 and 1956, according to the Assessor's Office, and the property abuts Harrison Ave to the rear. The average parcel slope is 26%. The existing garage is located a foot and a half from the north property line as shown by the survey. And I see we have skipped a slide, but the site plan illustrates the layout and the impact of the project. Go ahead and go to the next slide. Thank you. The main features are the 950 square foot expansion, largely westward from the existing location of the detached garage. It includes two car stackers, as mentioned, and adds an additional four off-street parking spaces. The 256 square foot detached workshop features built-in workbenches and storage lofts. The structures are carefully cited and the downward slope combined with existing tree cover helps shield the new construction from public view. Next slide. The front elevation shows the garage expanded to a total of 1,350 square feet. and the detached workshop is separated by a three-foot open uncovered breezeway. The structures will not exceed 15 feet in height, complying with the accessory structure height limit in SMC 10.44020C4. The tandem garage configuration will now provide six total off-street parking spaces. Next slide. The proposed exterior materials and finishes are designed to match the primary residence, ensuring architectural cohesion. These include the neutral stucco exterior in the color Sierra Hills, as shown on the bottom right, and gray roofing materials, as well as the trellis elements consistent with the primary dwelling entryway. Next slide. Here we see several views of the installed story poles that help us visualize the project. The natural topography of the site, which slopes downhill from San Carlos Avenue toward the rear of the parcel, helps in minimizing the visual prominence and perceived massing of the project. From San Carlos Avenue, the primary public vantage point, the new structures are largely screened by the slope itself as well as by mature vegetation at the front of the property. The roof peak elevation is only six inches above the existing street level. As a result, the project reads as low profile and unobtrusive, maintaining a subordinate appearance relative to the main house. Next slide. The zoning data table seen here confirms that the project complies with all applicable development standards for the R16 zoning district and title 10. These include minimum setbacks, high limits, floor area ratio, lot coverage and parking. Additionally, the project does not exceed 80% of the allowable site coverage or floor area for the parcel, so no heightened review findings are required. |
| 00:31:22.32 | Katie Nelson | There are two important code provisions to highlight here for this project. The first, under SMC 10.40, the first, 080B, where a side parcel line adjoins a right of way which does not contain a street and is 10 feet or less in width, the required side yard setback shall be measured from the center line of such right-of-way this property abuts a 10-foot pedestrian right-of-way excelsior lane This means that the typically required five-foot side yard setback under table 10.22-2 can be measured from the center line of Excelsior. Thus, the existing garage placement a foot and a half from the north property line complies with the required setback and is not considered nonconforming. Additionally, SMC 10.40070D1 states that where the length of a structure, building wall, or series of attached building walls exceeds 40 feet measured parallel to the adjoining side lot line, the minimum setback shall be increased at the rate of one foot for each five feet such length exceeds 40 feet. The full length of the building shall be subject to the increased setback. If the addition will increase the building length to exceed 40 feet, only the addition shall require the additional side yard setback. The full length of the addition shall be subject to the increased setback. The expanded garage's north wall totals 63 feet in length, triggering an increased setback of 4.6 feet. Both the garage and the workshop are placed six feet from the north property line, or 11 feet from the centerline of Excelsior Lane, thereby complying with this requirement. |
| 00:33:07.48 | Katie Nelson | Staff has concluded that the project meets all the required design review findings under SMC section 10.54050D. Highlights include Neighborhood compatibility through modest height, articulated massing, and hillside-sensitive design. preservation of light, air, privacy, and views via landscaping and site placement, Environmental quality with no ridgeline profile, drought tolerant plantings and minimal site grading. Lastly, safety access, safe access and circulation with a functional driveway and six off street parking spaces by utilizing the car lifts. And last slide. Based on the project analysis, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve application 2024-00193 for 126 San Carlos Avenue. and adopt the attached draft resolution for the design review permit. Staff finds the proposed project is in conformance with the required design review findings. Approval is subject to the conditions of approval listed in the attached draft resolution. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions and thank you. |
| 00:34:18.93 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Katie, for the comprehensive presentation. I like the way you did the findings with the visual breakout. That was very easy to follow. Okay, Commissioner Luxembourg, any questions for Katie? Katie? |
| 00:34:27.07 | Sarah Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:34:34.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just wanted to thank you for the presentation. No questions. Thank you. |
| 00:34:38.00 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Moore, any questions for staff? |
| 00:34:38.19 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:34:38.29 | Edward Davis | Thank you. |
| 00:34:38.30 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:34:43.16 | Fred Moore | Great presentation. No questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 00:34:45.75 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Marlott. |
| 00:34:47.30 | David Marlatt | Yes, very nice presentation. I agree. I did have one question just for everyone's clarification. The 15 foot height limit for accessory structures is measured off the ground. |
| 00:34:59.82 | Katie Nelson | It's measured from an average of the high and low points of contact. |
| 00:35:04.41 | David Marlatt | Oh, just like the- Just like regular- |
| 00:35:05.22 | Katie Nelson | Just like regular hype. |
| 00:35:08.07 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you very much. |
| 00:35:09.17 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 00:35:13.00 | David Marlatt | I didn't know the questions, I'm sorry. |
| 00:35:14.15 | Nastassya Saad | That's all right. Vice chair. The only question I had is, I assume FIRE has looked at this application. Any issue with ingress or egress for the parking for the driveway? |
| 00:35:28.64 | Katie Nelson | They have approved the application. They have conditioned that I believe fire sprinklers are required, but the existing driveway and circulation pattern is sufficient for access. |
| 00:35:39.76 | Nastassya Saad | Wonderful, okay, thank you very much, Katie. Now we will open it up for the applicant. If the applicant is here, please go ahead and approach, and we will give you 15 minutes for your presentation. You can save some of your time if you'd like until after public comment, if you could just state your name for the record, and the floor is yours. |
| 00:36:04.20 | Sean McCardle | All right, Chair Saad, thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. I don't need 15 minutes. Katie did such an incredible presentation. It really summed up the project, but I can give you a little background. Before I get started, I want to say I've lived in South Sudan since 1998, love the community. The staff right now is outrageously good. The team you guys got here is great, and I'm a huge fan of Kenneth Henry. So that being said, I've worked on three projects on San Carlos Avenue. And I've had an opportunity to work on this one. My clients purchased the building, I forget how many months ago, maybe eight months ago or so. It's been in kind of a disrepair. So we're doing kind of a phased renovation of the project. It's a beautiful old estate that goes from San Carlos all the way down to Harrison. And it's a fairly sloping lot. And we work with Adam on phase one of they're doing a kitchen and bathroom remodel and trying to get the house livable as the priority project. They're hoping to move in by the end of the year. So we're pushing forward on that. but part of the project phase two which is what we're looking at. And so we're looking at the project that's available as the priority project. They're hoping to move in by the end of the year. So we're pushing forward on is my clients are moving from Fremont and he's got VW Bug and a couple other cars. And he likes to tinker on things. He's fixing the old windows himself. So the workshop is really a tinkering studio more than a workshop. It's more like woodworking projects or fixing a car project. And then the car lifts are meant to basically store a VW Bug and another old car he's got. But we really tried to match the architecture of the garage with the house. It's a beautiful 1926 home, and we're going to paint it all consistent. It's got a kind of a shingled roof. But the idea was to kind of blend the two architectural projects and make it look like one. And only really architecture we're really doing, I have to say, is we're adding a beautiful little entry trellis on the original house, part of the phase one permit, and a little trellis on the outside of the garage. THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, PART OF THE PHASE ONE PERMIT, AND A LITTLE TRELLIS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE TO KIND OF PUTTING THE OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE to give it some scale and also there's a beautiful landscape proposal to do tie in all the landscaping of the entire project. So aside from the utilitarian aspect of having a garage, my clients are really sensitive to kind of improving the landscape, improving the house. that's a good idea. And they're doing a beautiful job on every aspect of that. I don't have a lot more to add than that, but I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody has. |
| 00:38:42.81 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you, Maria. So we'll stop the clock at 12 minutes and 22 seconds. We might have a few questions for you. Let me check with the commissioners. Commissioner Luxenberg, any questions? |
| 00:38:53.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No questions. I think you've done a great job on the design. Thank you very much. |
| 00:38:57.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Marla, any questions for the applicant? |
| 00:39:01.69 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you. And it's a very nice design, good presentation. I do have a question just to help me understand physically what's going on, because I've looked at the topo, the civil drawing, and of course what jumps out to me looking at the plan is that sort of acute triangular space behind the stacked garages and kind of what's that doing there. And I see it's pretty obvious that there's a steep slope. But do I understand correctly, or correct me if I'm wrong, the flat roof will be about four feet below San Carlos? In other words, if the? |
| 00:39:39.12 | Sean McCardle | Thank you. Yes. San Carlos is up here. 32. And it's basically going to be, you take a driveway down to the house. |
| 00:39:42.88 | David Marlatt | 1932. |
| 00:39:47.83 | Sean McCardle | Thank you. |
| 00:39:47.84 | Nastassya Saad | May I just ask you to speak into the microphone? Oh, yeah, sorry, sorry. Thank you. |
| 00:39:49.90 | Sean McCardle | Oh, yeah, sorry, sorry. Thank you. Um, Yes, San Carlos is higher. The existing garage to start with has a pitched roof. It's at 232. And that's at 15 feet right now off the driveway. Right. And basically the idea was, you know, San Carlos is higher. |
| 00:39:59.25 | David Marlatt | 232. Right. |
| 00:40:08.47 | Sean McCardle | than the, than the structure. Uh, but typically you drive down a driveway to get to the garage right now. We try to keep the entire roof line |
| 00:40:15.33 | David Marlatt | Right, right. |
| 00:40:18.18 | Sean McCardle | really, at or below San Carlos. So when you're driving by, you don't see anything. And we were pretty successful in achieving that. We have a really tight, tightly sloped 312 roof, which kind of barely gets the VW bug in there. But it's enough of a roof slope that the car will fit on the stackers inside there. |
| 00:40:37.15 | David Marlatt | Right. I noticed that from the public way, all of this is well shielded. There's a pretty imposing, very nicely built fence that's six feet tall, I guess. So this isn't so much an issue, I think, from the public point of view. But I was wondering if you're at the top of the garage, the driveway, you're looking at a design review. So you're looking down on a membrane roof. Have you ever considered maybe a vegetated roof or doing something to soften that? |
| 00:41:04.42 | Sean McCardle | I could ask my clients, but I think that the, you know, it's, it is so shielded by, by trees right now that, uh, I think it almost like goes away because we've got a really big line of trees on the Excelsior steps that are pretty significantly over the garage. Okay. Well, and then, um, and then, |
| 00:41:21.33 | David Marlatt | Okay, well, mainly I just wanted to clarify if I misunderstood something because there's numbers in the sections and elevations and little inconsistencies with the topographic information. But I think I do understand. I just want to make that suggestion to consider. Right. Since this is design review. Great. Absolutely. To consider, you know, the appearance of that roof because you'll be, as you enter the driveway, you're going to be looking down on it. Okay. |
| 00:41:35.83 | Sean McCardle | Right. Great. |
| 00:41:45.65 | Sean McCardle | That's great input. Thank you. |
| 00:41:47.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:41:47.12 | Sean McCardle | Thank you. |
| 00:41:47.62 | David Marlatt | I had no other questions, thank you. |
| 00:41:48.95 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:41:51.91 | Fred Moore | point of clarification regarding fire. Is this fire sprinklered or not? Is the garage going to have sprinklers? |
| 00:41:58.15 | Sean McCardle | We are going to sprinkler the garage, yes. Thank you. |
| 00:42:02.51 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. No questions. I, too, do not have any questions. Thank you very much. So you still have 12 minutes and 22 seconds. If you'd like to go ahead and return to your seat, we are now going to open this up for public comment. Director Phipps, do we have any speaker cards or anybody on Zoom for this item? |
| 00:42:22.72 | Director Phipps | Thank you for asking, Chair. I have no received speaker cards in connection with this item. I am looking to the Zoom application secondarily, seeing no raised hands. |
| 00:42:33.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. So you have 12 minutes and 22 seconds. If you would like to use any more of your time, you're welcome to approach the dais. If you'd like to just forego your time, we're just going to bring it up here for discussion. OK. So we've got a visual cue that the time is finished for the portion of the public hearing. We'll bring it back up to the dais for discussion. Commissioner Luxembourg, do you want to start us off? |
| 00:42:58.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I can support this project. I would just add one condition, which is our standard construction management plan condition, which says at the time of building permanent application, the applicant shall include the construction management plan with the set of construction drawings. Said construction management plan shall include contact information for the general contractor and site superintendent phasing and staging areas for equipment and materials flagging slash road closure procedures where employees will park so as not to overwhelm the surrounding neighborhood and any other information as requested by the community development director that's a standard provision we've done on all houses of this type. So I would go to move the resolution as provided with this one additional condition. |
| 00:43:56.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I'll actually see, let me look for a second before I move to Vice Chair. Is there a second on the motion? |
| 00:44:03.91 | David Marlatt | I'll be happy to second that. |
| 00:44:05.44 | Nastassya Saad | you'll second it as is with the additional condition? |
| 00:44:08.34 | David Marlatt | you Thank you. |
| 00:44:08.97 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. Vice Chair, any comments? |
| 00:44:09.15 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:44:13.09 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I just want to make sure the applicant understood that condition and is okay with it. Ready to go? |
| 00:44:20.07 | Nastassya Saad | I, too, don't have any issues with this project. I think it's a very large property, so there's really a minimal impact. I think it's reasonably designed. I can make all the findings for design review. And with that, we've got a motion and a second. So Director Pipps, can you? |
| 00:44:27.73 | Andrew Junius | and |
| 00:44:38.03 | David Marlatt | I would make one quick comment, and I do support the design, but I think this issue of the height of an accessory structure, and this is just, and we have so many examples of ways that our municipal code could be written and titler, and so I'm not questioning the interpretation of it, but when we look at the accessory structure, it says 50 feet in height. You go to look at what it is height, it says see building height. Then you go to another section of the code to find out what does building height mean and then you have to average things so as presented to us this proposed workshop area appears to be 18 or 19 feet tall on one edge but then if you average it I get it but there's no documentation that we would otherwise expect if it was a new home of you know how was that average calculated I Take it on faith that staff has looked at that But I think I just want to point out this is another example why we need to look at our codes and you know Streamline and for consistency and clarity |
| 00:44:39.70 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. |
| 00:44:59.86 | Sarah Hoffman | What is it? |
| 00:45:21.99 | Sarah Hoffman | you know, |
| 00:45:37.38 | David Marlatt | Otherwise, I'm all in. |
| 00:45:40.13 | Nastassya Saad | appreciate that. Do we want to just look to Assistant Planner Katie to comment on that? Just before we move to take roll. |
| 00:45:52.26 | Katie Nelson | Sure, I can comment on that. Yes, I did perform the calculations, and I'm completely on board with you. I agree. There's a... There's a lot of little Easter eggs that you have to chase down in the code. Yeah, this is an opportunity for feedback and improvement in the future. So thank you. |
| 00:46:12.56 | Director Phipps | If I may, too, tip of the hat to you, Commissioner Merlot. It is a pleasure to work with somebody for such an understanding of Sausalito's local code and with somebody who has such an eye for detail. Appreciate it. I look forward to Commission's future feedback on potential opportunities to amend code and do omnibus amendments. We've discussed this in the agenda setting committee with Chair, Vice Chair. Agree with Associate Planner Nelson. This is an excellent opportunity to dig into it. So thank you, and we're open to Commission feedback. Happy to have you on board as part of this team. Thank you. |
| 00:46:50.65 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you, staff. Director Phipps, can you take roll for us, please? |
| 00:46:54.92 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Vice Chair Juniors. |
| 00:46:56.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:46:59.57 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 00:47:01.34 | Director Phipps | Chair Saad? Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:47:02.41 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you all. We are now going to move to item 7B. This is 74 Cloudview. This is for a variance and zoning permit. And we have Adam Blair, our assistant planner, here to present when ready. |
| 00:47:22.88 | Adam Blair | Right. Thank you, Chair Saad. Good evening, commissioners, members of the audience. As always, it's a pleasure to present for y'all this evening. I'm Adam Blair, assistant planner with the community development department. And the application before this evening is requesting approval of a variance in a zoning permit to legalize the unpermitted conversion of approximately 214 square feet. of lower level crawl space into a bathroom and finished storage area at 74 Cloud V Road. As noted in the staff report for this item, this unpermitted conversion was carried out by prior property owners at some point between 1999 and 2024, when the property was most recently sold. |
| 00:47:59.06 | Nastassya Saad | May I just ask you to pause? Is there an accompanying presentation? I think they're just. |
| 00:48:03.02 | Adam Blair | We're getting there, Chair. |
| 00:48:04.12 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 00:48:06.35 | Adam Blair | I'll hold till the sides are up. Thanks. |
| 00:48:53.82 | Nastassya Saad | Excellent. Thank you, Maria. |
| 00:48:57.18 | Adam Blair | Thank you. Before we proceed to the next slide, I would just like to note, pursuant to Sausalito Municipal Code 10.50.020, subsection E, The Planning Commission shall review and approve the zoning permit portion of this application, which is a permit that's typically processed administratively. as part of the entire proposal, since the zoning permit is bundled with the variance application, which requires Planning Commission review and approval. Next slide. So here's a sitemap showing 74 Cloud View Road. The parcel is identified by assessor parcel number 065-182-01. The parcel is located in the R-1-6 single-family, medium-low-density residential zoning district, per Salcido's zoning ordinance and general plan. The lot is a 5,594-square-foot substandard downhill-sloped and landlocked parcel with access provided via an access easement, which spans from Cloudview Road. It's down in kind of the southeasterly corner of that diagram. It crosses over private property 66 Cloudview Road can be seen just to the southeast of the property and it runs up to 74 Cloudview Road. Next slide. All right, so applicant Bruno Cantor on behalf of owner Sarah and Tim Hoffman is requesting approval of a variance, which is requesting relief from floor area ratio. Development standards to permit an increase in floor area ratio from 48% to 52%. This is part of the legalization of that conversion of lower level crawl space. The zoning permit portion of this application is requesting approval for the actual legalization of the conversion of the approximately 214 square foot lower level crawl space into the bathroom and finished storage area. The request is brought forth since the existing property one currently exceeds the maximum allowed floor area ratio, which is 45% per Sausalito zoning ordinance. And then, as mentioned previously, the space proposed for conversion was illegally converted sometime between 1999 and 2024. So the space has already been converted, and this application is requesting to legalize the conversion of that space. Next slide. |
| 00:51:08.28 | Adam Blair | So digging a bit into the background, 74 Cloudview Road consists of an existing three-story single-family residence, which was constructed in 1959. Remodel work has been carried out on the property over the years, with notable work being a study and family room remodel in 1980, a bathroom and bedroom remodel in 1989, and a lower-level family room addition project in 1999. Next slide. Moving forward to 2024 in July of 2024, the unpermitted conversion of the lower level crawl space into a bathroom and finished storage area was identified by staff, the review of a separate and unrelated permit application. You could see in this image to the right, which is from the 1999 family room addition permit. The existing crawl space is called out with two arrows in the top right side. So it comes up to a point there and then Jags a bit to the left. Upon receiving this news in August of 2024, the property owner submitted an application for a zoning permit to permits this converted space. During the review of this application, staff identified that a variance is required to the property exceeded the maximum allowed floor area ratio. In September 2024, a variance and zoning permit application was filed with the community development department. And then in March of 2025. The application was deemed complete by all reviewing departments and was scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing date The application went before the Planning Commission on May 14, 2025. where the application was continued to a date certain of June 11th, 2025, tonight for your review. Next slide. Moving to the zoning data table, as noted in the staff report, while the property does comply with some of the development standards in Sausalito's zoning ordinance, such as number of dwelling units, maximum building height, and maximum impervious surfaces, due to the substandard nature of the parcel, as well as its orientation with the house, the property fails to comply with a number of development standards. including minimum parcel size, minimum setbacks, building coverage, maximum floor area ratio, and off-street parking. The only aspect of this project or of the site that's being impacted by this proposal is floor area ratio, hence why a variance is requested for relief from floor area ratio development standards. The other aspects of the property which are noncompliant are not being impacted as a result of this project and hence their existing noncompliant. Next slide. All right. So the variance, as mentioned earlier, is requested for relief from floor area ratio development standards due for a proposed floor area ratio increase of 214 square feet or going from 48 percent, as noted in the. row there. to 52%. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Because of the lot size, the lot is substandard as well as landlocked and steeply sloped with a 43% downhill slope. This is substandard and smaller than many parcels in the R-1-6 zoning district. And the proposed conversion of space increases the utility of the existing single family residence. It's contained entirely within the footprint of the existing residence, so poses zero impact to step forms, mass, bulk, and density of surrounding homes. And in addition, the approval of the requested variants would increase the safety of the structure and potentially the surrounding neighborhood. Since retroactive building permits which would follow which would follow this application if it gets approved would assess the converted space for any potential structural slope related health and our life safety issues. Next slide. moving to the zoning permit portion of this application. The zoning permit is requested. to facilitate the legalization of the converted 214 square feet of lower level crawl space into the bathroom and storage area. As noted previously, the space was converted illegally at some point between 1999 and 2024 by previous property owners. Staff recommends approval of the zoning permit since the retroactive permitting of this existing space. would not only legalize the space, but it would also allow staff to step in and ensure the space is compliant with applicable zoning regulations and to ensure compliance with applicable building code requirements. As mentioned earlier, no exterior changes are proposed as part of this project. The space is contained entirely within the envelope of the existing residents. Next slide. So with that being said staff recommends the planning commission approve application 2024 dash 00185 for 74 cloud view 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 Salsalita Municipal Code 10.68.0508 through F, which pertains to the variants and salsa to miss municipal code 10.52, which pertains to zoning permits. With that being said, that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. |
| 00:56:20.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Adam, for the presentation. Can I just ask you quickly to start? We did receive some public comment. I think I counted seven, which include two from the previous hearing. Did you receive anything further? Is everything on the agenda? |
| 00:56:37.29 | Adam Blair | Yeah, all the comment that was received was included on the agenda. No comments were received past the 12 p.m. cutoff time today. |
| 00:56:43.62 | Nastassya Saad | Wonderful. Thank you for confirming. Okay. Commissioner Marla, would you like to ask questions of staff? |
| 00:56:49.91 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you and thank you Adam for the presentation. Just one clarification Is it correct then that no one from the building department as of this day has looked at the property is visited to inspect or assess otherwise? |
| 00:57:03.31 | Adam Blair | Building is aware of this case, but there has not been an inspection performed by building as of this point. |
| 00:57:08.86 | David Marlatt | OK, thank you very much. |
| 00:57:11.39 | Nastassya Saad | Can I ask? Well, I guess I may. I'm the chair. I'm going to ask. I'm so used to asking. I'm going to ask a follow-up question on that. So from your presentation and to Commissioner Marlott's question, if we were to approve this tonight and then it goes for building to inspect, if they find any issues structurally or otherwise, can you just shed some light on what happens next? |
| 00:57:13.93 | David Marlatt | I was going to ask him. |
| 00:57:34.83 | Adam Blair | Yeah, so when they apply for retroactive building permits, assuming this application gets approved, it would be reviewed by building, likely by engineering as well. The space would be assessed for any health, life safety issues. If there was any sort of impact to the slope, engineering may catch that during their review, and so design modifications may be required for them to make the space safe from a structural and health and safety standpoint. So it may require modification, but it would, again, approving this application would get building involved in terms of assessing the space and ensuring that it's constructed in a manner that's structurally sound and safe from a health and life safety standpoint. |
| 00:58:14.95 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, and this is not to put anything out there, otherwise it's just a general question. Denying this application would then do what for this applicant and this property? |
| 00:58:27.52 | Adam Blair | So if the application were to get denied, the space would need to be brought back into compliance, the property. So that would result in that existing space that was converted being, I guess, turned back into space that is not considered floor area per Sausalito's municipal code. It could even extend further to if they did not want to change that space back, then other space in the property would have to be modified to allow the property to come back into compliance. |
| 00:58:56.88 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:58:56.90 | Director Phipps | Okay, thank you for clarifying. And if I may just dovetail off of that, appreciate Assistant Blair's comments and response. I think I'd just add, if there was a denial this evening, the first thing that staff would want to do is create a process of collaboration with the applicants and to see, because if we don't take any action that is collaborative, staff's ultimate final action would be code enforcement related, right? And I would like to not go there. I'm sure the applicants would agree with me. So we would want to work collaboratively to ensure or perhaps propose an alternative solution to the project that is before you this evening, perhaps one that may be more amenable to the Planning Commission. Thank you. |
| 00:58:59.56 | Adam Blair | Yes, please. |
| 00:59:21.74 | Sarah Hoffman | Bye. |
| 00:59:21.89 | Edward Davis | Yeah. |
| 00:59:21.94 | Sarah Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:59:39.35 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for the clarifications. Commissioner Luxembourg, any questions? |
| 00:59:45.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No questions, thank you. |
| 00:59:47.28 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Moore, did I ask you yet? |
| 00:59:50.20 | Fred Moore | I appreciate the questions about the permitting. So if I understand your question correctly, if this is approved, there will be some inspections because there were some public concerns about no inspections occurring before, but that would be mitigated by having an inspection occur if this is approved. |
| 01:00:06.61 | Adam Blair | Correct. That would be triggered by the building permit application process. |
| 01:00:10.39 | Fred Moore | And another comment from the public was concerned about an easement and use of an easement. We have nothing to do with that tonight. That's not part of the application. It's not part of our consideration. |
| 01:00:21.07 | Adam Blair | Correct. No part of this project pertains to the, I assume it would be the access easement they'd be referring to. There's no, I guess, no aspect of that access easement is part of this proposed project. |
| 01:00:31.48 | Fred Moore | Thank you. And just finally, just to reiterate whoever's listening, if this project just remained as it was and nothing went forward, it would be nonconforming in a number of zoning issues because of the small size of the parcel and that this improvement for the FAR variance is all within the existing building structure. So if you walk by there tomorrow, no one has any idea this was increasing the size of the property in a way that is obtrusive to the neighbors. |
| 01:01:01.45 | Adam Blair | Correct. That's all within the building envelope. And correct. The aspects of the project or of the site, such as building coverage, et cetera, would be existing on compliant. Those would not change. |
| 01:01:14.16 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Vice Chair. |
| 01:01:18.71 | Andrew Junius | you chair um so adam so you said that the building was constructed in 1959 and the and the ordinance today with respect to floor air ratio is a 45 so 0.45 far and the building um calculates out to 0.48 so is it not that this is that critical but is it pretty obvious that the the building predates the existing ordinance and was built as a 48% you know FAR and the ordinance came at a 40 which turned it into a nonconforming structure from the minute the ordinance came into effect probably that's what happened. |
| 01:01:25.67 | Nastassya Saad | Correct. |
| 01:01:54.98 | Adam Blair | Right. Good question. Likely so. I haven't reviewed past iterations of our zoning ordinance, but that may likely be the case. Great. That was my only question. Thank you. |
| 01:02:04.66 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:02:06.08 | Nastassya Saad | I don't have any questions. Thank you, Adam. At this point, we will call up the applicant. You will have 15 minutes to speak. Welcome back. If you can please state your name and address for the record, and you and your applicant team can tag team, and you are welcome to reserve some time for rebuttal against public comment if you so wish. |
| 01:02:28.37 | Sarah Hoffman | Thank you, Jaisad, and thank you for having us again. I'm here with my husband, Tim Hoffman. We're the homeowners at 74 Cloudview. We did leave the baby with a sitter tonight because he hasn't learned how to not disrupt public meetings yet. So I can see my slides up there. If I can go to slide two, So we moved to South Salido about a year ago to raise our family after living in San Francisco for 10 years. In 1999, the prior owner created this family room you can see essentially by infilling what was an outdoor deck underneath the main building. And when we moved in, we didn't need this much space for a secondary family room. So we wanted to put up an interior. just to create a nursery and an office space for when I'm working at home. Next slide, please. What we discovered when we applied for a permit for that project was that the prior owner had essentially, as Adam said, added a bathroom and storage area in a crawl space without obtaining a permit. Now this unpermitted work was not disclosed to us on the seller disclosures. They'd represented everything had been done to code at the property and we had no reason to know otherwise. Next slide, please. And so this is a picture of the rooms, which were built entirely within the existing permitted footprint of the building. They line up to where their foundations are on the plans, which Bruno can talk about later, our architect. And when the city flagged that these rooms were unpermitted, we acted immediately to apply for a permit to remedy that situation. Right. And we're here today because, as Adam said, It turns out our lot is legally non-conforming and we need variants to be able to retain this bathroom. and to tell you a little bit about why this is quite important to us. This is actually the only bathroom on the same level as where we have the nursery. Otherwise, it's going up and down stairs to deal with bathing, childcare needs. And it's really quite important for the functionality of our home. So if I can briefly address the variance criteria on the next slide. So first, exceptional circumstances, the code explicitly recognizes small lot size as a situation that can justify variance. Second, practical difficulty. After the last hearing, we did have discussions with planning staff. We've tried to work out if there's another way around this problem. we weren't able to come up with anything that wouldn't involve having to chop bits of our house off somewhere else. And so if the variance is denied, we'd likely have to take out that bathroom, convert the floor to an unfinished floor and lose that functionality in our home. Third, preservation of a substantial property right. Other properties that have standard size or larger lots are able to develop to this square footage that we're asking for today. Then next slide, please. There'll be no impact to neighbours or properties. As far as we can tell, these rooms have been there for 20 years and there's never been any impact on neighbours. No slope instability we're aware of. and legalising these rooms won't change the outdoor appearance of the building at all. And finally, we're not asking to have any special privilege We're just asking for this variance, which will be in harmony with the general plan, promoting the creation of housing that's suitable for families as is needed in South Saleto. Now, next slide, please. So at the last hearing, we did hear concerns from members of the Commission that this variance might create a harmful precedent. And we do hear that concern. We moved to South Salido because we love the community. We love the character of our neighborhood. But I did just want to highlight Grounding this variance doesn't bind you to grant a variance even for an exact same situation in the future. And second, we didn't create this hardship. I know at the last hearing there was concern that someone might just do the work without a permit, then ask for forgiveness rather than permission and come to you for a variance. But it's pretty well established that if you've created the situation necessitating a variance, you can't then come and ask for that variance. And so I just wanted to reassure the Commission on that. Next slide. And then at the last hearing, there were also some questions around whether a variance should even be granted from floor area ratio requirements. And I did a little bit of digging, spent some time with past reports, and this is in the letter I submitted. But there are a handful. There are some cases in similar situations where... often involving people who have infilled or enclosed a crawl space and need a variance for their increased square footage. And if we can flick to slide nine. And then also slide 10. So these are just some of the properties that were depicted on that table. And as you can see, granting variances hasn't created mega mansions in these neighbourhoods. And all of these variances get mostly involved in closing some sort of space underneath the house. Next slide. Finally, I will introduce our architect, Bruno. Actually, sorry, before I do that, I did want to address a comment from the Commissioner before that if the building department comes along and they say, you need to do these structural improvements, you need to fix something to make sure this is up to code, we of course want to do that. We want our house to be safe. We want it to be code compliant. That's why we're here today and we're committed to bringing it into full compliance. Now, I will hand over to Bruno for a couple of comments. |
| 01:08:14.63 | Bruno (Architect) | Good evening, commissioners. I would like to start by saying we did work with Adam Blair and the staff to look at potential alternatives here to reduce the square footage of the home. But doing that by removing this otherwise very important space for the owners did not seem feasible. Last time we were here, we talked perhaps we could look at, for example, the primary closet, bedroom closet as a place. Could we take area away from this? But in doing that, To do that really effectively, you're tearing house walls and roof off to remove the space. I mean, really remove the space, not to mention that Adam has brought up and Sarah as well. What we're also trying to do here is improve the life safety aspects of this project. And for example, the primary closet is actually a means of egress to get out of the building. So these are some of the considerations we were thinking about as we looked at the project. I've inspected the area in question and I will say right off this wasn't some big a project or build out that the previous owners did. Um, the bathroom and closet. is completely within the existing building envelope. And the foundations are very likely what was there already from the building, you know, circa 59 or 1999 when the remodels were being done. And there's likely no real excavation. You know, we have the required. head clearances in the space. And that's just by the nature of the slope of a lot. And So that's really important to say. The Hoffman's really didn't create this situation. They're just trying to improve it. And I ask that you look at to improving this variance, which really doesn't impact anyone except the Hoffmans. Thank you. |
| 01:10:39.30 | Nastassya Saad | Go ahead and stop the clock. Put 6.49 on the clock. So if you'd like to reserve your time, thank you very much. You can return to your seats. We appreciate it. Actually, no, you cannot. Please come back. I'm sorry. Please come join us. We're going to have questions. Sorry to make you go back and forth. Commissioner Luxenberg, do you have any questions for the applicant? |
| 01:11:01.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No questions for the applicant at this time. |
| 01:11:03.52 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Marlott. |
| 01:11:05.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No questions. |
| 01:11:06.98 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:11:07.47 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Moore. No questions. |
| 01:11:08.51 | David Marlatt | No question. Thank you. |
| 01:11:09.12 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair. I too don't have any questions, and I appreciate the new information. Thank you. Now you may successfully return to your seats, and We will, sorry, I'm gonna just take a note. And we will open up our public comment, Director Phipps. |
| 01:11:30.57 | Director Phipps | Yes, hearing some public comment from the right of way outside. I'm not sure that that's formal though. So I'll look to the chamber for interested speakers. I haven't received any speaker cards. Looking to the Zoom application, I do see one raised hand. That is the hand of, oh, now two. I will call them in the order that they were raised. Edward Davis, you'll have three minutes. Thanks for being here. |
| 01:11:46.04 | Edward Davis | Thank you. |
| 01:11:51.98 | Edward Davis | Thank you very much. And thank you for your diligence and hard work. I'm very impressed by the. Oh, can I start my video? I could try that. Yeah. If you'd like. Oh, hi. So I'm Edward Davis. And so I've lived in Sausalito for 27 years and I'm actually in the house that's directly adjacent to 74 CloudView. And in 1999, when I was still in medical school, I witnessed an extraordinary amount of excavation and digging, an extraordinary number of buckets filled with soil. No one was talking. It was very secretive. And I always wondered what it was. It was around a corner where I couldn't see it, but I heard it. And I saw the the dusty clay soil of Sausalito wafting in the warm air. So I witnessed this. And and in the last meeting, it occurred to me that this extreme excavation, this digging out that gave that nice height in those rooms was taken out of the ground, creating instability. Now, I wanted to, and once I figured this out, and I estimated it's about 1,070 cubic feet of soil, And to say, I think that the contractor just said, well, it's likely that nothing really was dug out and nothing really happened. I witnessed it. And I'm here to tell you that. And it's for the safety of 74 Cloudview and also the four homes that are directly below it. And you've got almost a 45 degree slope. You know, in a town, we know there's underground water that that flows through Sausalito. And we've known these situations have been dealt with. They've caused loss of life. And my issue is my my hope would be that that basically, first of all, it's inspected and it doesn't matter that it hasn't moved in 20 years because it could be 20 years in a day and that whole thing could come down on a 45 degree angle and we would all be devastated. Um, mostly the person, the person's living in 74 cloudy. It's very dangerous. So my idea is I'm really hoping that the first order of business is to make sure that it's safe, have it inspected. because the point is the area might have to be filled in with caissons anyway. So I think just getting it inspected as soon as possible is absolutely ready to go. And the last thing I want to say, you know, about... You know, you know, you know, the point is, is that You know, it's not great because the whole thing is the real estate broker told me when I saw the house that there's unpermitted work in this house in no uncertain terms. And when other people walked in, that was the first thing they said to those people. So the point is, the owners knew what they were doing when they bought this. It has to be corrected for public safety. That's all I have to say. Thank you. |
| 01:14:52.97 | Director Phipps | Thank you very much, Mr. Davis, for your comments. Next speaker is Anthony. Anthony, welcome. |
| 01:15:02.82 | Anthony Howley | Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, Can you all hear me okay? I am driving, so no camera for me right now. I apologize. |
| 01:15:10.26 | Director Phipps | Yes, we can do that. |
| 01:15:10.67 | Anthony Howley | But I lived. Excellent. Thank you. I live in the neighborhood of one profit. Hello. I have been following, so I listened to Tentative, to everything that was just said. I just want to voice my support for this. Everything sounds extremely reasonable. makes sense. This is something that the Hoffmans came into that they were aware of. are only trying to correct this and make everybody while continuing to utilize the space that they were sold. |
| 01:15:34.83 | Sarah Hoffman | you're going to be a |
| 01:15:34.90 | Edward Davis | Thank you. |
| 01:15:34.93 | Sarah Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:15:37.35 | Anthony Howley | So again, I voice my support. I believe everything is okay. Really. And I just want to echo everything else I've said prior to the or excuse me, prior to me speaking. |
| 01:15:55.13 | Director Phipps | Is that it, Mr. Howley? I'm going to take that as... |
| 01:15:59.64 | Anthony Howley | Thank you. |
| 01:16:02.19 | Director Phipps | Very good. Thank you for your comments. Thank you for being here. Chair, that does it for raised hands in the Zoom app. I'll give it back to you. |
| 01:16:10.81 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. And with that, I will give it back to our applicant. You still have six minutes and 49 seconds. If you would like to respond to public comment or make any further statements, this would be your time. |
| 01:16:29.80 | Nastassya Saad | If you do want to speak, I just will ask that you come to the microphone just so everyone on Zoom can hear you as well. |
| 01:16:37.12 | Bruno (Architect) | I'll just say that on the elevations of the drawings, you can see the side of the building we're working about and how that area meets pretty much at grade. So there wasn't any extreme excavation for this project. And we've already discussed that the building inspector will be involved to see if there are any structural issues that we need to be concerned about and remedy. |
| 01:17:03.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. So we'll go ahead and close that portion of the public hearing, and we'll bring it back up to the dais. Commissioner Marlon, would you like to get us started with some thoughts this evening? |
| 01:17:16.81 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Well, as as I stated during the last time when we saw this two hearings ago, I would support the variance. I think that the applicant in their letter cited two two projects that came to mind for me as well that we approved unanimously as a commission. just last November at 118 West and Central. And conceptually, I don't really see the difference. I totally understand and agree that we're not bound by any precedent, but I do believe we have a duty of consistency for the benefit of both staff and applicants in how we treat these cases. And then I also look at the intent of the FAR. So, you know, and does this meet the intent of the floor area ratio? So floor area ratio is something that many, many cities have, and its intent is to limit the bulk by whatever criteria they see as appropriate, and that's to create a certain mass and bulk limitations for the general well-being, let's say, of the neighborhood or the community. This variance application does not propose to have any impact on the intended purpose of a pluriorary ratio. It's a logical infill of an existing space. It may or may not count against us in our total quota of FARs or variances or something like that. I don't really see why that's important. I think we should look at this on its own merits and be consistent and I would support the variance. Thank you. |
| 01:17:41.07 | Sarah Hoffman | Yes. |
| 01:18:58.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:19:01.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I'm going to disagree a little bit with Commissioner Marlott. Variances are supposed to have a high bar, and they're supposed to be rarely used, and consistent with the findings of the state statutes that are required. I want to clarify a couple things that I disagree with the staff report on. The fact that this is landlocked is somewhat irrelevant. If the lot was on a street, it would have the FAR as the same issue. The landlocked nature doesn't in any way affect that. The slope of the property doesn't in any way affect that. So those are not basis of for findings for this variance. If the substandard lot, however, is a clear criteria for that. So, for example, this site is supposed to have a minimum of 6,000 square feet, which they don't have. If they were to have 6,000 square feet, they could get 2,700 square feet of space. I agree that that would be a reasonable variance to give them because it's a substandard lot. What I'm taking issue with is the additional space beyond the 2,700. They have gender 2,700. |
| 01:19:52.94 | Sarah Hoffman | For example, |
| 01:20:22.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | When pursuant to Commissioner Marlott's comment about 6, about 118 West Street, which is a little different situation, but also 626 Sausalito Boulevard, if you look at those, if those were 6,000 square foot lots, they're not exceeding the 2,700 square feet. That's the number that I'm concerned about. I'm not concerned that we grant a variance here to get them to the 2700. I'm concerned for going higher than that. So that's my issue with this. At the last meeting, Director Phipps said they could figure out a way so they can keep the bathroom and help with the nursery. And I think there are ways. I don't I'm not sure what the staff was looking at as far as ways but this bottom level space has exterior doors they could simply put an ADU call one of the rooms in ADU add a little tiny kitchen and they could not rip out any space and in this in this project where they would lose no space, the city, pursuant to the general plan, would get an additional unit, which is good from the general plan point of view. Doesn't hurt anybody, doesn't cause them to rip anything out, but doesn't have us exceeding the FAR from the 2,700 square feet. We did not do that on 626 Sausalito or 118 West Street. I don't know. I don't think we did either on 82 Central, but I recused on that one. So that's my thought that I could grant a variance to 2700. Don't think we should go greater than that. And I think there's a way for them to keep all the space without having to grant the variance. That's my thought. |
| 01:22:10.16 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:22:16.80 | Fred Moore | I appreciate those comments. I have a tendency to agree with Commissioner Barlott about the situation. The FAR is a very difficult situation, especially with the, I mean, they're already over the FAR right now existing if we didn't do anything. So I have a tendency to support the planning staff for the resolution for the comments. |
| 01:22:38.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. |
| 01:22:40.89 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Sheriff. I also support the variance and can easily make the findings. I would agree that the variances and the variance process is not to be taken lightly, but I also think in many ways variances are kind of a, a case in equity, essentially, you know, what's the right thing to do here? And the right thing to do here is to let this go, is to allow this to, to, you know, remain as is with the building permit inspection or the building code inspections that have to happen. But, you know, let's look at the history here. The building, the home, it looks like it looked like in 1959 in terms of the volume. It was it's the same same envelope that was built. The minute the existing ordinance came in, it was a nonconforming structure. And are we shocked that somebody put filled out the space within the walls that they bought? I mean, you know, it happens. I do think it's unfortunate that You were apparently or you, you know, there's a possibility you were misled with respect to the. |
| 01:23:38.86 | Edward Davis | you |
| 01:23:39.33 | Andrew Junius | about whether the work was permanent or not, Not going to comment on that. You might have an action against your seller. Thank you. But the bottom line is this is not some massively, you know, massive variance that that is grossly, you know, inappropriate or out of scale with the with the code. We're talking about hundreds of feet here, not thousands of feet. And again, the building's already there. The space is built. It seems like, you know, it just doesn't seem like we should be, you know, going to the mat on the details. Um, I, I, I, I too don't really like to grant variances, but every variance is a different situation. There really is no legal precedence here. There's lots of different similarities and, and consistency issues that I agree with. We need to try to be consistent, but again, every case is different. Um, this is the, this does have the classic, um, hardship situation and extraordinary circumstances of the smaller lot. That said, it's not that much smaller than, you know, it's still almost a 6,000 square foot lot. I mean, you know, so, but again, the ask here is so small. small and it's and it harms nobody. I just think it's a pretty obvious equitable procedure here to grant the variance and I'm ready to proceed. |
| 01:24:53.53 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. And I want to... Thanks, staff, and the applicant. I do appreciate the new information that this presentation had and questions that were able to be answered. And I do appreciate Commissioner Luxembourg's point. I do understand your point, and I was on the fence last time, so I sympathize with that, and I, too, am not... I don't take variances lightly, and that's why I couldn't make the findings last time. but I think with the that and I too am not, I don't take variances lightly and that's why I couldn't make the findings last time. But I think with the discussion and the updated staff report and new information, I'm gonna go ahead and be able to support this this time as well. I don't think we have a motion on the floor, but I'd be happy to make one if no one else is willing, but I will look to the commission to see if anyone would like to make a motion for this project one way or another. |
| 01:25:48.17 | Andrew Junius | I will move to approve. |
| 01:25:50.80 | David Marlatt | We'll second that. |
| 01:25:52.66 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Director Phipps, can you take roll please? |
| 01:26:02.35 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg? No. Commissioner Merlot? Yes. Commissioner Moore? Thank you. |
| 01:26:07.85 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:26:07.86 | Director Phipps | you |
| 01:26:07.90 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 01:26:07.91 | Director Phipps | Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Assange. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 01:26:10.75 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you very much. And the final item on the agenda is adjournment. |
| 01:26:18.88 | Andrew Junius | Move to adjourn. |
| 01:26:20.02 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I take that as consensus. Thank you very much, everybody. Good night. |
| 01:26:24.22 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public. Have a great evening. |