| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:55.73 | Nastassya Saad | I'd like to call the, excuse me, July 11th meeting of the planning commission, July 9th, I'm all over the place. I'd like to call the July 9th meeting of the planning commission to order. And just before turning it over, for roll call. I would just like to take a moment to say that we have a few items this evening and I would just like to kindly remind members of the public and applicants and everyone on Zoom as well, just and up here at the commission, general decorum. I think we have a lot of public comment that we expect and everyone's going to have a chance to speak. We've also read all the public comment available, but I just want to make sure that we are all acting in decorum for the duration of the hearing, which will allow us all to be heard and respected and have an efficient meeting as well. So with that, I'll turn it over to Assistant Manager Fitz. |
| 00:01:52.69 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much, Chair Saad, and I appreciate that reminder. Good evening to you, Vice Chair Junius, 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 and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. And with that, I will move to call roll, Commissioner Luxenberg. Present. Commissioner Merlot. Present, Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:02:21.66 | Andrew Junius | here. |
| 00:02:22.34 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Vice Chair Juniors. |
| 00:02:23.42 | Andrew Junius | THE FAMILY. THE FAMILY. |
| 00:02:23.59 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | And, |
| 00:02:23.65 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:02:23.67 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. Chair Saad. |
| 00:02:24.89 | Nastassya Saad | Here? |
| 00:02:25.53 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | We have quorum. Back to you, chair. |
| 00:02:28.07 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Item number two on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Do we have a motion? |
| 00:02:33.98 | Paul Mallory | So moved. |
| 00:02:34.93 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:02:35.60 | Paul Mallory | Second. |
| 00:02:36.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Assistant Manager Phipps. |
| 00:02:39.94 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Assad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:02:44.97 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Yes. Thank you. Item number three this evening are for public comments on items that are not on this agenda. Assistant Manager Phipps, can you give us some idea on how to proceed? |
| 00:02:59.23 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Absolutely, Chair. This is the time for the Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters not on the agenda, except in 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 subject be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to Three minutes per speaker, unless augmented by the chair. If you'd like to make a comment. at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker unless augmented by the chair. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom app, please raise your hand and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. And if you're joining us from a phone and you'd like to raise your hand, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when time has elapsed. Chair, looking to interested speakers and their speaker cards for this item. |
| 00:04:00.16 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | I just want to confirm no interested speakers on this agenda item, and all speakers who wish to speak are in connection with future items. Very good. |
| 00:04:11.89 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. I'm sorry, Assistant City Manager. Can I just ask for a point of clarification from a member of the audience? You're raising your hand. Are you wishing to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? Yes. Will you care to approach the podium? If you could state your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes to speak. |
| 00:04:33.78 | John Diamod | John Diamod, I live at the Del Monte, and I'm just very glad that we're past the insufficient notices problem. Thank you. Thank you, sir. |
| 00:04:46.35 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Okay, looking to the Zoom application for raised hands, interested speakers in connection with this item, public comment on items not on the agenda. you Thank you. Seeing none, Chair. Back to you. |
| 00:04:57.74 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Item number four are the approval of Planning Commission minutes. We have two, so I'll take them one at a time. Item 4A are the Sausalito Planning Commission minutes from August 6th. |
| 00:05:11.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So moved. |
| 00:05:13.05 | Nastassya Saad | Any point of discussion? |
| 00:05:16.25 | Fred Moore | I wasn't here during that meeting, so I'll refrain from voting. |
| 00:05:21.70 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you very much. |
| 00:05:24.54 | Wright Bass | Are we sure that's 2025? |
| 00:05:26.04 | Nastassya Saad | I was actually just as a point, I was just looking at that. It says 2024 for... Is that correct? |
| 00:05:26.11 | Wright Bass | Thank you. |
| 00:05:32.89 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:05:32.91 | David Marlatt | That is correct. |
| 00:05:33.87 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay. Appreciate that. Um, did I have a second? |
| 00:05:37.72 | David Marlatt | Yeah, it doesn't have who was in, I think I attended, but shouldn't it normally have who was the attendees? If it. |
| 00:05:45.68 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | If you'd like to recommend changes to the minutes, you may do so. |
| 00:05:50.12 | David Marlatt | No, I believe I attended. I think there was a motion to. |
| 00:05:56.90 | Nastassya Saad | We have a motion. |
| 00:05:57.97 | David Marlatt | I'll second that. |
| 00:05:58.78 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Director Phipps? |
| 00:06:01.22 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:06:01.24 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. And just for the record, well, Commissioner Moore, please feel free to. |
| 00:06:11.72 | Fred Moore | I'm abstaining since I wasn't in attendance at the meeting or on the commission. |
| 00:06:16.01 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Very good. Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saund. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:06:19.04 | Fred Moore | Yes. |
| 00:06:20.39 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:06:21.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was can we go back a second. I apologize. I thought we were on the other item. So I misspoke. This says it's a draft EIR scoping meeting. So the commission was not. |
| 00:06:26.05 | Nastassya Saad | I apologize. |
| 00:06:26.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:26.70 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 00:06:39.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Did not run that meeting was not at that meeting. So if Thank you. if it was done by a working group or something, but this is not a commission set of minutes. |
| 00:06:52.71 | Andrew Junius | Thank you for raising that commissioner. |
| 00:06:54.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:07:01.40 | Nastassya Saad | Right. |
| 00:07:03.27 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | that. |
| 00:07:03.51 | Nastassya Saad | If Attorney Rudin is here and wants to make a comment, we can see how to proceed. |
| 00:07:06.67 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | and see how to proceed? Just before the city attorney jumps on, yeah, I can confirm that that is an administrative error We. |
| 00:07:15.89 | Ron Albert | Uh, uh, |
| 00:07:16.35 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. So my recommendation is that the commission not vote on the item dated 2024 and only vote on the item dated 2025. |
| 00:07:26.53 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 00:07:27.56 | Attorney Rudin | And I agree as well. |
| 00:07:29.16 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Assistant City Manager. Let's move on to item 4B. This is the South City Planning Commission minutes from June 25th. |
| 00:07:37.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, those were the ones I meant to move out, |
| 00:07:41.83 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Do I have a second? |
| 00:07:44.13 | David Marlatt | I'll second it. |
| 00:07:44.85 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:07:46.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:07:46.54 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:07:50.93 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:07:51.18 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:07:53.19 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Item five are communications. Assistant City Manager Phipps, do you have any communications from staff? |
| 00:08:00.29 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | no communications from staff this evening. Thank you for asking. Back to you. |
| 00:08:03.85 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I'm gonna look to the commission. Any communication items this evening? Seeing none. Um, then we will take public comment on communications At this point. Assistant City Manager. |
| 00:08:22.18 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Seeing none, chair. |
| 00:08:23.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. We're now going to move on to item six. This is a special presentation. This is to receive and file a presentation for code enforcement. It's a code enforcement update. We're going to hear from our new code enforcement officer, Justin Gogarmalo. We appreciate you being here, and thank you and welcome. |
| 00:08:49.15 | Justin Gogarmalo | members of the planning commission, city staff, and the engaged community. Thank you very much for taking time to have this presentation tonight and to receive some information on our current code enforcement status, where we're at, where we're going and we're going to touch on some of the numbers as well as a little background just on what is code enforcement, how do we do it and the big question, why does it always take so long? So with that, I'd like to start just by jumping into some very basic numbers on our code enforcement caseload. When I started this year, We had a pretty big backlog of cases. You can see on this slide here, we had 74 ongoing cases. These are cases that ranged from seven years old almost to cases that came in in January or February right before I started. We worked on those, did some case resolutions over the last three and a half months, and we've gotten that number down from 74 to 62 cases. going to keep working on that. But as we're working on those things, cases keep coming in. And so far in Q2, over those three months from April 1st, ending on the last day of June, so all the way through to July 1st, we had 43 new cases come in. In total, we're at 90 ongoing active cases right now that we're working on. They're all open, and we still have many of them that we're investigating. Some are on a temporary hold because of... the need to do planning, permitting, and other matters that hold up these cases. And we're gonna look at that number a little bit later on and compare it to where we were last year and maybe a little bit about How are we doing compared to some other places around the Bay Area? So if we could go to the next slide. This is the code enforcement process. We've got six stages here and each one of these stages has multiple sections to it and they can either end the case there when we get to one of these stages just by resolving things, or we can get all the way to end stage six and things are unresolved. We may have to go back in the process or start over again if a case is closed early and there's a repeat offender and we have to reopen a case. We get all sorts of complaints. They come in by phone, by email. Sometimes our staff will see something while out and about, or community members can come up to our open office times Monday through Wednesday, 9am to 12 noon, and they can fill out a code complaint form if they have some kind of complaint that they'd like to make. Keeping in mind, not every complaint that we receive becomes an official code enforcement case. This is due to the fact that sometimes... The violation that is alleged isn't actually a violation. Sometimes it falls outside of our scope in code enforcement and we have to refer people or give them a little education to help get them in the right direction. And sometimes it's just a neighbor on neighbor dispute that seems to escalate. We get a lot of feuds and people begin accusing each other of things to the point where, The number of complaints that come in is just so overwhelming that our goal at that point is to really calm down the noise, the tension, and see if we can find some kind of resolution by working with any neighbors that are having this type of conflict. We always like to de-escalate whenever possible. Once we get a complaint and we find that it's valid, through research, through looking at old records, maybe doing a site inspection. We always like to talk to everyone involved, whether they're being complained about or whether they're complaining. It's important that everybody has their side of the story heard. And from there, we really jump into a due process sort of mode where we're looking to make sure we gather all the info we have, make sure we're being very fair, complete, compassionate, providing education when we can and trying to get issues resolved. We're not out there. trying to catch people in the act of doing something or a gotcha moment. We really are just trying to enforce the standards that the community wants, keeping the place clean, safe, and attractive to outside businesses, attractive to people that want to come and live here and play here and raise their kids. And so the goal is always resolving an issue whenever possible. If we need to escalate those issues, we will start with a letter, perhaps, maybe a phone call, maybe an email, just a courtesy, trying to get people to know What is the possible violation that there have? How can they fix it? And why it's important to resolve that it's really crucial to give context around why we're enforcing the code. The goal is to get the city in a very positive feedback loop where we're self-policing in that Word gets around that you shouldn't leave your garbage cans out on the street or throw litter on the ground. If someone sees it, they might report it over time. The goal is to get people aware of this, pick up their own trash, bring in their garbage cans when necessary. And we try to encourage people to. take these actions proactively, but also Help out your neighbor if you see something's going on, maybe they're doing some building and you're not sure if they have a permit, maybe start a conversation and talk to them and They just might not know what's going on and that they need a permit. And we'd love for neighbors to be able to help educate neighbors whenever possible. We are all in this together. However, there are sometimes some bad actors and some repeat offenders who have self-importance or their own lofty goals above the communities. And we have to progress to slightly harder enforcement. We might start with a compliance notice, which gives people a certain amount of time to resolve an issue. If that time has elapsed and the issue is not resolved, we may move into a citation with fines and we can then issue repeated fines, we can try abatement. For folks that just don't have the money to come into compliance, a lot of times we have a hardship waiver or we can have an appeal to hear out people's issues and see if we can come to a resolution. And all of this takes time. It just takes time to resolve these things. We ended up with 74 cases when I got here. And even though we got that number down, The number of complaints that come in, it's about one out of every three complaints that come in makes an active case. But really every month that we go by here somewhere in the maybe four to eight cases never get solved and get added to our ongoing cases. So each month we're working to solve things and each month complaints are coming in and still increasing our numbers. Now, if we can go to the next slide, we'll look at some of those crazy numbers that we've got going on and To start on the left, we've got a comparison of Q2 from 2024 with Q2 of 2025. And these numbers are a little difficult to decipher because In 2024, the case record keeping was not as thorough as we might like. And there was a slightly different system in place whereby sometimes a complaint would come in and it would be labeled. an informal case and never really entered into the system. We find that tracking what's happening, looking at trends, can really help us in the future determine what we're going to do to improve the program and how we can better serve the community. So accurate numbers are very, very, very important. And we're moving towards a system whereby. We're logging everything that comes in. If somebody comes in and they've got a complaint, We're logging it. It may not become an official case, but we're keeping track of it. Sometimes that's helpful in the future when we have a repeat offender and we've had multiple complaints over the years, but no cases. And sometimes it's helpful to know How many complaints are being made? Are we helping the citizens? and getting the complaint numbers down or are we experiencing a period of excessive complaining without cases being created? tells us a lot. If you look to the right, we have a couple of charts that really tell the story better than any of the numbers can. On the right, we've got our current Q2 numbers. You'll see down at the bottom, we've got two lines, a little yellow and pink line down there. That's new cases coming in and cases solved. Those numbers are very, very close. pretty much solve as many cases and resolve them as cases come in. However, more cases come in than we're able to solve. So you'll see up there, On the right side for Q2 2025, we've got two lines that are diverging up at the top. We've got a green line coming down. That's our ongoing active cases that we've been solving. That's that number 74 down to 62. It looks great progress. We love it. It's going down. But that red line is the number of total active cases. So that's cases that have come in, cases that are unresolved and the numbers diverge to a point where every three months or so, we've got 16 additional cases that have not been solved. And that's every month. We started with those lines together because we didn't have code enforcement official for many months and we weren't solving as many cases. But once we got here, got things in order, Things are being solved, but that number is just going to keep on going up. And so we have to prioritize. We have to find a way to get that number down. Or to really look at the cases that are most important. And we always look at health, safety and impact to the community. If we were to compare this graph to the graph on the left, because the numbers aren't quite apples to apples. They're a little more bananas to apples. you'll see that we've got some moments there where that red line is lower than the green line. And that means that the number of cases that we have is less than the number of new cases coming in, but it's also in this graph greater than the total number of cases. That's an impossibility and this, I feel, really shows the importance of having good numbers. That graph on the left is actually from Q2 of 2023. all the way up until the end of Q2 2024. So it's one year's period. And you'll see the first part of that graph where the red lines dip below, very, very inconsistent, erratic, our numbers weren't great. And so the data is not great, but there's a point where those little lines meet. The red starts to go up and it stays up and the green starts to go down and stays down. That's really the crucial part. Once systems were in place over the last year, that graph starts to resemble the one on the right. And this is a common pattern for code enforcement all over the place. Everyone has too few resources, too many complaints, too many cases that go unsolved for a long time because they're very complex. And if we were to, Go to the next slide, please. We can see some of those common cases that we have and i'll talk a little bit about um why it's so hard to solve some of these. So could we go to the next slide, please? Number one on the list, building without a permit. Seems like all around the state, that's the number one thing. Folks just don't know, or there's folks that think they don't need it, but that's a health and safety issue for us. So it's super important. We can't have structures going up that cause landslides, balconies that are built in historic buildings that might collapse under people. We're trying to keep folks safe and building without a permit is one of the most complex issues to resolve. We have to then educate the property owner have them draw up some plans, get some permits, maybe come before the Planning Commission, before City Council, it can take a long time. And that's how we ended up with a case that's almost seven years old at this point. Going down from there, a lot of these are a little quicker to resolve a noise complaint or tree cutting, they're pretty straightforward. They might take a week or two of investigation, but the actual time spent on the case isn't that much compared to building without a permit, which frankly could consume an entire week of work just to get a case ready to move towards an administrative hearing or to get a case ready to move in front of one of the commissions or the councils. A lot of the things that come in, these are all complaints that we get. My neighbor is making noise, smoking cannabis, dropping one banana peel in the street every day Parking in front of my house. My neighbor's letting some gravel fall into the street and I don't like the way it looks. leaving garbage cans outside. It seems to be a lot of folks have problems with these issues and they're all important. They do affect our livability, the attractiveness of the city. But when we're choosing between what cases to take on and solve immediately, our priority is health, safety and impact to the city and The banana peel isn't the first case that we're going after in just about every scenario we look at. So it's important to be able to parse these cases, get to the crux of what's really important health and safety-wise. And... attack those first, knowing that the number of cases that are ongoing is always going to go up in some degree. And some of those cases may solve themselves, but some of them may just never reach the level of importance where the staff and the time and the resources we have can address those issues. Unless we increase staff immensely or we have some more resources or the community really wants these things handled immediately as they come in, we're just not able to drop everything that we're doing in order to run after a banana peel. |
| 00:24:15.38 | Justin Gogarmalo | Any case that we get, as I mentioned earlier, it involves due process and sometimes due process takes time. We have to work with other agencies, public works, building, planning, the police department, and getting all of that interagency coordination also takes time. A lot of residents, When we contact them. aren't cooperative. They don't want to hear it or they just ignore our requests to have a discussion. So trying to track people down does take time. We're not able to just force our way into somebody's house to see an issue. We have to actually see the complaint that is being alleged as a violation. And if we don't view that violation, we may have to go back and do more investigating or proceed on maybe to get a type of inspection warrant, which is a very, very difficult and long process that we try to avoid whenever possible. The last thing that really comes into play with why these cases take so long is community conflict. We have a lot of neighbors that have been here a while, a lot of neighbors that are new and a lot of neighbors that have been fighting with each other for a long time over many things. And we find that these come in sort of a pattern where One complaint will come in from a neighbor, and then another complaint from a neighbor next door, and then another complaint. And before you know it, you've got four or five houses on the same block, all lodging complaints. calling the police multiple times over the weekend and really just escalating the situation. Sometimes it's over something as simple as, I don't like the way you cut your tree. It doesn't look good to me. And sometimes it's something serious, My neighbors threatening me with a gun. And also, They're building a pool in their backyard and don't have any permits. Well, One of those issues we're not going to be able to deal with. It's a law enforcement issue, but the other pool building, we have to deal with it, but we also have to be aware that this is a person that may have a gun, that may be threatening neighbors. And those concerns are something we think about every time we go out to a house and knock on a door. We have to be careful, we have to be thorough, but we have to be fair overall. And we really have to give people the time to resolve the issue and let them know how they can fix it themselves in the future. And with that, If we could just go to the next slide, this will be our ending here. And I just wanted to say our goal with code enforcement and Every action that we take over there in the community development department is really to improve the process that we're working with, to reduce delays, to reduce the cost on the city, the burden on the residents or even on other employees. With the goal of always focusing on health, safety, respectful communication. and I believe and I believe many people that I have worked with in the community also feel that we're all safety, respectful communication. And I believe, and I believe many people that I have worked with in the community also feel that we're all in this together. And when we work together, we can make meaningful progress together and really just make Sausalito a great place to be. So thank you very much. And if you have any questions or comments, I'd be happy to receive them. |
| 00:27:50.84 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I personally asked actually for this presentation because we really welcome the position. And I think it's important to have the right people in the right positions. And we're grateful that you're here and that the community knows that we do have somebody in this position since it was vacant for a while. So we appreciate all your hard work and the presentation this evening. I'm going to turn it over to my commissioners to see if we have any questions. Commissioner Luxembourg? |
| 00:28:18.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I just want to say welcome aboard. That was an excellent presentation I like the year-over-year numbers and again coming in periodically would be helpful to us. That was wonderful. Thank you |
| 00:28:30.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:28:30.24 | Justin Gogarmalo | Absolutely. Thanks. |
| 00:28:31.81 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Marlott. |
| 00:28:33.33 | David Marlatt | No, just also extend a welcome. It's good to have somebody on board. And I'm glad you're looking at the administrative side as well, the rigor in accounting for the numbers so that we can follow trends. I appreciate that. |
| 00:28:44.47 | Fred Moore | Thanks. Commissioner Moore. A third welcome. A couple quick questions. Have you created a matrix of the various types of violations by category and year, so you kind of, like, that you maybe could present the next time you come so we can kind of see where, I know you mentioned lack of building permits was the primary one, but I'd be interested to see where some of the other ones fall as well. |
| 00:29:07.22 | Justin Gogarmalo | Yeah, I can definitely do that. We do, just so you know, with current cases that we're working on, we've developed a little bit of a matrix that is, it's a color-coded matrix. Simply, red means it's really important, life and safety. Green means it's important, but it's not the first case we're going to go to if we still have cases in the red. And that type of pattern of being able to really quantify and qualify how important a case is based on health and safety and impact to the community allows us to get to those most important cases. before anything bad happens. As far as looking back on the types of cases we've had and the importance We won't be able to get any type of numbers on that just because it wasn't something we were really tracking at the time. It seems like there was a lot of just trying to keep heads above water and try and keep the numbers down with limited staff and a lot of changeover. But we do have case records for everything that made the official case list. So I'll be able to do that and pull out what those are. It's probably going to be heavily geared towards building without a permit, but we'll see some of those other cases and you'll probably be able to see from the numbers just how striking it is that Some issues just don't come up very much and other issues it's over and over and over again, always with that pattern of more cases coming in than can be solved. |
| 00:30:37.67 | Fred Moore | Just to help educate me a little bit, you had a fungal growth as a code violation. What does that entail? |
| 00:30:43.71 | Justin Gogarmalo | So fungal growth is a much more It's a much more descriptive, but also inclusive term for all of the things that we tend to hear from folks about living conditions. You'll hear some folks say, I have mold. It's terrible. It's black mold. I have poisonous mold. I have mildew. For us, it's all the same thing. There shouldn't be any kind of fungal growth in a place where you're living. It should be under control and it should be manageable. Whether it's black mold, whether it's dangerous to your health, that's something that environmental health through the county normally deals with. They'll be able to come out and do testing and look at the situation and advise on the habitability of a place. However, environmental health also states, testing for the type of mold and the quantity of the mold. isn't very important. They try to discourage it whenever possible. because remediation is what's most important. You really need to just take care of it, find the source of the leak, and resolve that problem. Cleanup can then proceed, but testing to see what kind of fungal growth it is, whether it's a mold or it's you could have a lichen growing on your wall and it's still a form of fungal growth. It's a catch-all term for what we're looking at there, but we're always encouraging fix the leak. |
| 00:32:07.60 | Fred Moore | I appreciate that. And only because some friends of ours had this situation where the landlord didn't fix a bunch of leaks. So how does the city get involved? It seems like maybe a civil dispute between a renter and a landlord. How does the city interject itself to make sure that there actually is a valid complaint, not just an upset renter? |
| 00:32:26.38 | Justin Gogarmalo | When someone is living somewhere and they're paying their money and they're trying to have a safe, habitable, quiet, existence and something like that happens and you have a property owner that isn't responsive It's overwhelming. It can consume everything and it can really not only take your time, but it can take your sanity and it can take all of your money trying to find a fix to that. And our function there is less of an enforcement agency because we're Enforcing mold or black mold or whatever the fungal growth is isn't really our area. That's not what we're concerned with. But what we are concerned with is our residents and folks that are renting. So we're always available to give resources, point people in the right direction. if a property owner starts to get into a hostile situation, we're there to help mediate by perhaps giving advice, but also pointing folks to the proper legal sources. starts to get into a hostile situation, we're there to help mediate by perhaps giving advice, but also pointing folks to the proper legal sources that they can use. We're always available as a resource and as a department, we're looking to get better and better with this so you'll start seeing some more guides and information going up on the website and in the newsletters and Just generally trying to get that information out there so that folks can be proactive and not have to worry about where do I go, who will help me. |
| 00:33:47.65 | Fred Moore | Thank you very much. I appreciate it. you. . |
| 00:33:50.03 | Patrice Storm Taylor | Vice Chair. |
| 00:33:50.46 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:33:50.84 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. In prior years, I've seen short-term rentals as a category of complaints. That wasn't on your list. Is that still an issue here in South Carolina? |
| 00:33:59.81 | Justin Gogarmalo | Absolutely. It's much less of an issue than it's been in the past and enforcement of that does still continue as long as city council wants to have a ban on short term rentals we will be enforcing that we do have several mechanisms for determining if rentals are being posted online or advertised elsewhere as less than 30 days. And our goal is at first education. If you can rent your place for 30 days or more, That's ideal. We don't need to be involved and we encourage that. But if it's a short term rental and we have folks coming in, this can be a blight on some neighborhoods with parking and the trash and the noise and just having folks come into town that may not care about the community in the way that the people who live in that neighborhood do. we really step in whenever we can. So it's a little more of a complaint based program at this moment because of our backlog of cases where if we've really got an egregious offender, we're going out and we're investigating and we're taking some action. But in the meantime, we have several other rentals that we're aware of, but aren't making it quite to the top of the pile just yet. But we are working on getting a new system in place to address those and make sure that we are able to quickly and efficiently without spending a lot of our time going out. And we'd like to get those resolved. And education is a huge part of that, just letting people know what the status is and what's permissible and what the community is not interested in having. Great. |
| 00:35:40.24 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:35:40.44 | Justin Gogarmalo | Sure. |
| 00:35:41.69 | Nastassya Saad | I just have one final question. Can you advise when the difference between calling code enforcement is versus the police? I mean, the police really are there to... to enforce the municipal code so where's that line |
| 00:35:52.81 | Justin Gogarmalo | This is an interesting one. That line is very nebulous. And the reason for that is, Code enforcement officers are essentially assigned a duty that is to enforce the code. Well, the municipal code touches on so many different areas. Some of it touches on law enforcement, parking, it may touch on areas that normally people would call the police about. A lot of times the first call for a party going too late is the police. That's the right party to call. if it's the weekend and there's no code enforcement officer around, Sausalito police are great. They're responsive, they're friendly. They'll come out if they are not busy with another health, life, and safety issue, and we'll try to help mitigate the problem. If it's a weekday and it's during business hours, you can always give a call to the community development department's office and leave a message, let us know if we have someone available, we'll head out, but it really comes down to. |
| 00:37:01.89 | Justin Gogarmalo | Is calling a police officer for the issue that you have worth the escalation with your neighbors, maybe friends? thinking that through sometimes can prevent a lot of wasted resources. We've had issues where, again, somebody didn't like the way someone was trimming a couple branches on a tree. And they called police and it turned into a screaming match and almost got physical. If the police hadn't been called and maybe code enforcement had been involved and we were able to follow up on it later, we'd be able to let folks know there's no real violation going here. This isn't an issue to call the police. This is simply an aesthetics issue. And I would say if there's no threat to health, life, and safety, that's immediate. And it's during business hours. You can always reach out to us and we'll be happy to advise whether we can help with that or whether it should be referred to the police. They have their hands full with things. And as much as we can take off their plate, especially calls that aren't relevant or that might escalate unnecessarily, we'd love to do that and be available for that. after hours if you're really having an issue and it can't wait or someone may be in danger. It's always reach out to the police. Does that help? |
| 00:38:18.37 | Nastassya Saad | That's very, very helpful. Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation and your time. We appreciate it. We'll actually open this up for public comment. Thank you, Assistant City Manager. If you could see if there's any public comment for our special presentation on code enforcement. |
| 00:38:35.18 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, Chair. I do not believe I've received any speaker cards in connection with this particular item. I would exempt you, Ms. McDougal. Please let the record show that McDougal would like to speak in connection with this item. You'll have three minutes. Thank you for being here. |
| 00:38:55.24 | Justin Gogarmalo | Yeah, thank you. |
| 00:38:56.31 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yes. |
| 00:39:00.37 | Unknown | Bye-bye. |
| 00:39:01.61 | Babette | Good evening, planning commissioners and staff of Sausalito City. Thank you for being here tonight. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm sorry I was late. I couldn't get my computer to get the meeting up. So I decided to just come on down. I'm glad to have this chance to speak on this particular issue because I live in a neighborhood right up the hill. I love hearing an empathic approach to civil governance. I really like that. Because, you know, at the end of the day, we are a village. And if we don't get along with each other, how do we face, you know, the big, ugly green meanies out there that want to take us over, right? I mean, we need to unify as much as we can. So I like, the suggestions. I also realize, though, that there are times in neighborhoods where, in fact, there is a neighbor or one or more, but at least one that just refuses to be reasonable. And then that just creates all kinds of problems. Like, for example, as I got in my car to come down here this evening, I found that 403 Bonita had eight cars parked on Girard Avenue. And they don't even live on Girard Avenue, but there I am being scrunched in again. So there's that. And when I used to complain about this before, I was told, well, maybe the residential codes are no longer in force because we have all these new ideas coming in the pipeline now and things might eventually change. Well, I ended up finding out that the Superior Court up at Marin County, they say, oh, no. your residential codes are in force. So that means if you have one business license for a professional rider who doesn't need a fleet of tired vehicles, I assume. And you only have two occupants in the residence. Why do they get to turn my street into their parking lot, even if every single one of them has a legal tag on it? I think the residential codes actually have some ways to put arms around these kinds of problems, and it has to do, I have an EDU. I tried to rent my home. I couldn't because there was no room to park. And people looked at the fleet of vehicles that were pretty tired and said, I have a half a million dollar car. You think I'm going to park here? Keep driving. They never even came up to look at the house. And it's a sweet house. So I would like to just say that there is a balance, as the young man has said, And, Hopefully, the idea of helping to mitigate conflict will be useful going forward because nobody really wants to be on, you know, poor terms with their neighbors. So maybe we could do an informational on how neighbors could reach out, not just the example eyesight, but generally. And thank you so much for making it possible for me to speak. |
| 00:41:51.98 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Babette, thank you for joining us. Thank you for your comments. looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. And just confirming, no additional speakers in the chamber on this. Very good. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:42:05.91 | Nastassya Saad | They need. Thank you very much. Thank you again to code enforcement. We're now going to move on to item seven. This is the public hearing section for the evening. The first item is 7A. This is for 324 Sauceleta Boulevard. This is for a design review permit with a heightened review findings, a variance, a lot line merger, and an encroachment agreement. We have our associate planner, Adam Blair, here to present this evening. Thank you very much for being here. And I completely forgot that David Marlott will recuse. Please go ahead. |
| 00:42:35.90 | David Marlatt | Yeah. Please go ahead. Yeah, thank you very much, Chair. Yes, my firm, D&M Architecture, is the architect for this project. It's kind of a legacy project that predates my time on the council, and I will recuse myself at this time. |
| 00:42:51.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. And with that, I will look to the commission for any ex parte communications. Commissioner Moore, anything to declare? |
| 00:42:59.26 | Fred Moore | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:43:00.22 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:43:01.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:43:03.31 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair. |
| 00:43:04.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:43:05.16 | Nastassya Saad | And I would just like to declare that I had a phone conversation with Sandra Bushmaker for some general questions. We did not discuss the merits of the project, but that would be my declaration. Thank you. |
| 00:43:18.46 | Adam Blair | All right, thank you chair good evening commissioners members of the audience. I'm Adam Blair associate planner with the Community Development Department. The item before you this evening is an application, which is requesting approval of a design review permit with heightened review findings of variance and a lot line merger. as well as requesting a recommendation of approval to the Sausalito City Council of an encroachment agreement, all of which to facilitate an exterior and interior remodel at 324 Sausalito Boulevard. Next slide. So here's a site map of three to four Salsalito Boulevard. The property consists of two parcels, the larger of which, which contains the existing single family residence is a 4,075 square foot lot. The lots identified by assessor parcel numbers 065 dash 252 dash three nine. The smaller of the two lots is a 149 square foot lot, which is identified by assessor parcel number 065-252-54. Both parcels are located within the R-2-2.5 two-family residential zoning district, and both have a general plan land use designation of medium-high density residential. Next slide. So applicant David Marlatt with D&M Architecture on behalf of owners Patricia E. Globski and Robert Metzger are requesting approval of a design review permit with heightened review findings, again, to facilitate an exterior and interior remodel. This proposed remodel includes a new front entry landing, a new front guardrail adjacent to the front garage, a new entryway addition, a new elevated flat roof over the existing residence, a new angled roof over the existing front garage, a new foundation and shear wall work, a relocated furnace, new siding, and remodeled kitchen and bathrooms. A design review permit is required for this application since there is a proposed height increase of the front garage as well as portions of the pitched roof of the existing residence, which will be rebuilt as a flat roof. So they'll be essentially raising up to form the flat roof. Heightened review findings are required for this application since the proposed project exceeds 80% of the maximum allowed floor area ratio permitted within the two family residential zoning district. The variance portion of this application is requesting relief from floor area ratio requirements to accommodate a 339 square foot increase in floor area ratio. This would, in terms of percentage... is increase the far from 59% to 67%. This FAR edition is largely through the proposed front entry edition on the third and second stories, as well as conversions of existing interior non-living space into livable space. A lot line mergers proposed as part of this application to merged the two parcels identified on the last slide into a 4,224 square foot parcel. This is intended to bring the part the property closer to conformance with minimum parcel standards which we'll discuss later in the presentation and to facilitate the proposed project. Finally, an encroachment agreement is requested to facilitate proposed improvement. improvements in the city right-of-way including a front entryway landing and a new front guardrail adjacent to the front garage and to permit the existing front garage structure, which currently encroaches into the city right of what we're doing. Bye. Next slide. Diving a bit into the history on this project, the existing residence at 324 Sausalito Boulevard was constructed in 1965 through building permit number 4657. The property was a 2008 square foot single family residence located on a 4075 square foot substandard lot. Moving forward to 2022 the city's chief building official at the time Thomas Ahrens performed a visual inspection of three to four sauce leader Boulevard to investigate undocumented construction. and additions made to the property. Following this inspection, Mr. Ahrens prepared a memorandum outlining his findings. His findings noted that approximately 1,065 square feet of improvements and additions, including conversions of interior non-living space into livable space, were carried out at the property without permits. His findings specifically noted that the third story of the main residence was converted into a dwelling unit without permits. Mr. Ahrens noted that these improvements posed fairly high potential for serious structural or other life safety issues and suggested that retroactive permitting, including a building permit, is required to legalize this unpermitted work and to make the residents safe to live in. Moving forward to October 2024 the city received an application for an interior and exterior remodel project. which aims to correct all structural issues, permit all illegal and unpermitted work done to the property, and to improve... overall livability of the single family residence. Next slide. So as summarizing the staff report for this item the proposed project was designed to conform with most of the applicable. Development standards including minimum setbacks maximum building height maximum building coverage. Aspects where the project does not comply is minimum parcel size the minimum parcel size and the two family residential zoning district is 5000 square feet. The lot line merger proposes a 4,224 square foot parcel, which would be closer to conformance with this requirement. However, the lot would still be considered a substandard lot. A maximum floor area ratio also exceeds the maximum allowed, hence why a variance is requested for relief from this development standard. And then. And before we move forward, I would just like to note that when this item first went before the Planning Commission back in April, comments were rendered by the Planning Commission regarding the project's ability to achieve compliance with the off-street parking requirements and Sausalito zoning ordinance. This project since has been redesigned to modify the opening of the front garage so that two cars can pull in and park side by side as opposed to pulling in at a diagonal angle. This enabled two cars to park side by side straight in the garage and thus accommodate two parking spaces which met the width and length requirements for Salsolido's zoning ordinance which is nine feet in width by 19 feet in length. Next slide. All right, so the design review permit portion of this application was required, as summarized earlier, because of the proposed height increase of the main residence as well as the front garage structure. Again, the main residence, the pitch roof is being rebuilt as a flat roof. So those portions of the roof, which are raised for the flat roof resulted in a height increase. And the garage roof is being rebuilt. It's going to be increasing height to form a slanted angled roof. This project also requires design review because potential view impacts were identified mainly through neighbors who submitted public comment on this application following staff's review. of this proposed application. The proposed project conforms with minimum setback requirements, including minimum side yard setbacks. Pursuant to salsa little municipal code 10.4 0.090 subsection D. which permits a portion of a building wall to project into the required side yard setback if it satisfies outlined crit's criteria in this municipal code section. This project does comply with the four criteria outlined in that section as summarized in the staff report. As for the covered parking height exception, the project also complies with the maximum height Um, standard. because pursuant to salsa demissible code 10.40.060 subsection C three B I through V. the, This section permits covered parking structures, including garages, which are located on downhill sloped parcels to project above the 32 foot required height limit. If it satisfies outline criteria in this section, this project does align and comply with that outline criteria in that section. Next slide. So staff recommends approval of the design review permit with heightened review findings, since the proposed architecture and site design introduces a creative solution which takes advantage of the unique characteristics of the site. and contributes to the design diversity of Sausalito. don't. This project poses to bring the residents into compliance with 2022 California building code. and incorporates an entryway design, which allows for safe and covered access to the steeply sloped property. The proposed project has been designed to not crowd or overwhelm structures on neighboring properties. They the project also increases utility of the existing residents by converting interior non livable space into living space, thus adding more space, which could be used by the property owners. Finally, the proposed project is designed to maintain the level of privacy currently enjoyed by surrounding properties. Aspects of the project which were tailored to address this include the proposed modification of the window layout, which either reduces current windows in size removes existing windows, or maintains current locations of existing windows. Next slide. All right, the variance portion of this application, as mentioned earlier, is requested for relief from required floor area ratio requirements. This is, again, to accommodate a 339 square foot increase from 59% to 67%. This increase, again, was largely through the proposed front entry addition and conversions of existing interior non-living space into livable space. As summarized below, 221 square feet of FAR was added to the third story, and then 117 square feet of FAR was added to the first and second stories. Next slide. |
| 00:53:08.41 | Adam Blair | So staff recommends approval of the variance for relief from floor area ratio standards since the property. is a substandard lot within the two family residential zoning district and is encumbered with a 67% downhill slope. There are a few opportunities for the property to integrate safe and code compliant entry solutions for safe ingress and egress of the property. And the proposed design incorporates an entryway design, which allows for safe and covered access to the residents over the steep slope, which starts right after you walk off the sidewalk or the curb. In terms of public welfare, the proposed design is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property in the vicinity. This project is aiming to remodel a structurally unsafe and noncompliant residence to make it safe, code compliant, and livable for the current property owners. And they achieved this largely through minimal impacts to stepped forms, mass, bulk, and density relative to surrounding homes. Again, a lot of the new FAR was converting non-living portions of space within the envelope of the building into living space. Finally, the proposed design is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Sausalito zoning ordinance. It incorporates a design solution which again works with the topographical and increased floor area ratio limitations of the site. And it increases the utility and safety of an existing single family home on a substandard lot. Next slide. one side back. |
| 00:54:44.55 | Adam Blair | Thank you. So as summarized earlier, the lot line merger proposes merging the following parcels into one 4,224 square foot lot. a 4,075 square foot lot and a 149 square foot lot. The resultant lot will be closer to compliance with minimum parcel standards And it will serve to eliminate an existing property line encroachment nonconformity. Currently the property has an entry deck, which crosses over the property line onto that 149 square foot lot, which is shown in the diagram below this merger would eliminate that nonconformity and that structure, which will be rebuilt as the entryway addition will comply with salsa to zoning ordinance pursuant to that side yard structural projections section outlined earlier. No new nonconformities will be created as a result of the slot line merger and the merged parcel conforms with shape orientation, the public right of way open space setbacks and bulk requirements. Next slide. Finally, the encroachment agreement portion of this application is proposed to facilitate the following improvements in the right of way. A front entryway landing, which will be used to access the front door of the property. A front guardrail adjacent to the front garage, which will serve as fall protection if you're walking along the driveway. Once you go to the right of the garage, it's a steep drop. So it serves for safety purposes. And it will be to facilitate the front garage, which will be reconstructed. and also encroaches into the right of way. This garage has encroached in the right of way Since it was originally built. And so this would essentially legalize that encroachment. These proposed encroachments will not adversely affect the usability or enjoyment of adjoining parcels and will not create or extend an undesirable land use precedent since it seeks to replace existing encroachments and to improve the safety of accessing the property. Next slide. All right, so with all that being said, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve application 2024-00195 for 324 Sausalito Boulevard and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the design review permit with heightened review findings, variance, lot line merger, and recommending approval of an encroachment agreement to the Sausalito City Council. Staff finds the proposed project is in conformance with the criteria listed below, which pertain to the design review permit. the variance, the lot line merger, and the encroachment agreement. And with that, that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions you have. |
| 00:57:13.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much, Adam. We appreciate your presentation. A lot to get through here, so I'm going to go ahead and turn it over. Commissioner Moore, do you have any questions for staff? |
| 00:57:27.88 | Fred Moore | Just a couple of questions, Adam. THE FAMILY IS THE FAMILY. THE FAMILY IS THE FAMILY. I think the prior meeting there was some discussion about the sloped angled garage roof and whether, I think right now the garage has a 14 height limit or proposed to be 14 feet. And there was some discussion about whether or not that angle of that could be reduced at all. I didn't see any change in the plan, so I'm assuming it did not get reduced. Is that correct? |
| 00:57:53.26 | Adam Blair | I'll let the applicants speak a bit more on that, but I will say that the story polls for the garage were actually modified. Prior to this hearing, they were reduced by about five inches in height. So there was a proposed modification to bring it down a little bit, but for the most part, the garage slanted roof design will be staying mostly the same. |
| 00:58:12.23 | Fred Moore | I appreciate that. So one of the other comments talked about the story polls and had a couple of pictures and their information on that was that the polls actually increased by seven inches. So are you saying that the polls were put out there, established, certified, and actually they were shorter or lower than the prior polls? |
| 00:58:35.18 | Adam Blair | The applicant indicated that those polls were lowered and the city did receive a story poll certification form. So a licensed professional did go out and certify the height of those polls. |
| 00:58:49.64 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:58:51.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Adam. Thank you for your presentation. I Want to thank you for including the heightened design review, which is one of the items we mentioned last time and also Having the two required parking spaces. I think that's very important There were four other issues that we raised one was the the slope of the roof and the height of that, basically to avoid the 32 feet, so we don't have to grant that exemption. You're saying that they have not done that change. |
| 00:59:26.41 | Adam Blair | Um, I let the applicant team speak to it more, but it was indicated to me that they wanted to maintain that for design and aesthetic purposes. |
| 00:59:33.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:59:33.94 | Adrian | Thank you. |
| 00:59:34.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Uh, the, and then we asked last time for some landscaping to go around the building where scaffolding is going to go up, but the staff report indicates there's going to be no new landscaping. Has that not changed also? |
| 00:59:50.27 | Adam Blair | It has changed a little bit around the area where the front entryway addition is going to be constructed. The applicant team amended their plans to show that any landscaping that's otherwise disturbed by the construction of that entryway landing will be replaced and replanted with native vegetation. So they did propose landscaping in that portion of the property. But to my understanding, the landscaping along the back and right portions will remain largely unchanged. |
| 01:00:14.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And next, on the FAR, the plans say that in the top right corner where the zoning information is that the proposed square footage is 2897. And in the staff report in your zoning analysis, you indicate it's 2811. And I'm trying to understand why those are not the same numbers. |
| 01:00:41.88 | Adam Blair | Good question. Oftentimes there are differences in just the manner in which the applicant team versus planning staff calculate floor area ratio. I can't think of a specific reason as to why there's a 60-ish square foot discrepancy, but I can verify that upon receiving the resubmitted plans, staff did conduct measurements of each floor to note any potential changes in FAR, and that's how we came to that number mentioned in the staff report. |
| 01:01:08.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you have an analysis that shows, because they have an extensive analysis for FAR. So you're identifying differences, and can you explain where those differences are? Because there's an important reason I'm asking that, because if this were a 5,000-foot lot, there's a certain amount of square footage that would be required. And we have to make sure under variance, we're not giving a grant of special privilege. So you've come up with different numbers. So can you identify where your differences are? |
| 01:01:48.26 | Adam Blair | I would have to go back to the plans and review their FAR analysis in greater detail. I can mention that although if they did have a 5000 square foot lot things may be slightly different. However, they are also a single family residence located in the two family residential zoning district. So therefore the property is also subject to stricter standards for FAR and building coverage and impervious surface depending on the size of the lot. relative to the minimum parcel size in the district. So if you were to take the current lot size, 4,224 square feet, the property is subject to slightly stricter standards than say a conforming single or two family duplex on that site. So they're challenged by that as well. But to answer your earlier question, I would have to go back through the plans and compare my analysis with the applicant team's analysis to figure out where those discrepancies could be. |
| 01:02:41.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I think that'll be important. The other question is, the FAR is over the allowable amount without a variance. And once the ADU would be built, it would supposedly comply according to the architect's calculations on the drawing. So I don't know what the staff's calculations would be to that. But if, is there any, the problem I'm having is if we grant this variance, there's no guarantee this ADU would ever be built. There's no requirement. I don't see any requirement that the ADU be built, and we have no assurances that it'll be built. So by allowing this here, there's no no gear I guess my question is there anything in the documentation I might have missed that guarantees and a you'll be a be built I understand one has been submitted and there's an application in the track it but but there if we were to approve this today there would be no way to guarantee the ad you would ever happen is that correct |
| 01:03:50.74 | Adam Blair | So an 80 is not before consideration at this moment the applicant team has expressed that they want to put an 80 you and that property in the near future. They've expressed that by submitting an 80 you application to convert the third floor into an 80 you but for the purposes of this application and what's before you that. This evening we're just reviewing the far variance request in relation to the single family residence itself without an 80 you under consideration. |
| 01:04:16.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, I understand. Those are my questions. I go back to the chair. Thank you. |
| 01:04:21.49 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Great questions. Vice Chair. |
| 01:04:25.10 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Sheriff. Adam, quick, let's clarify again where we stand with the FAR and the building envelope. Is it correct to state that the increases in the floor area of the building that increase the FAR from what 58% to 67% or something? all take place within the existing envelope of the building. |
| 01:04:47.66 | Adam Blair | Not all of it. Some of it will come from the proposed entryway addition, which will be serving as access to the property. But there is still a significant portion of it to where the floors will be modified in terms of ceiling height increasing. So that way the space will become livable space. A lot of the third floor currently has a slanted roof where if you go in there, you have to duck down to go into certain parts of that floor because the ceiling is so low. It's well below five foot, 11 inches. I'd be willing to say maybe five, four, five feet, five in height. |
| 01:05:19.25 | Andrew Junius | So the volume of the building. really doesn't change except for the the roof reference that you just made the roof the roof being flattened out Correct. |
| 01:05:27.22 | Adam Blair | Correct. And the entryway. But there are no additional, or I guess, large bump outs on the right rear or left sides. There's a very small one on the first floor where it's coming out a little bit, but for the most part, the building envelope will be maintained. |
| 01:05:28.53 | Andrew Junius | I did too. |
| 01:05:40.82 | Andrew Junius | Right. |
| 01:05:41.02 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 01:05:41.07 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. And roughly how much is the entryway addition in square footage? just roughly. |
| 01:05:46.97 | Adam Blair | roughly. Roughly, if I had to recall, it was about 200. I could be shooting a little high, but it was somewhere between 150 to 200 square feet. Right. |
| 01:05:57.17 | Andrew Junius | And that is, yeah. All right. Thank you very much. |
| 01:06:02.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I don't have actually questions for staff at this time. So with that, we can move over to the applicant presentation. Can you advise who from the applicant team might be here? |
| 01:06:16.88 | Adam Blair | Yep. Well, we have Karen joining us from DNM architecture and he will be doing the applicant presentation. |
| 01:06:22.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Feel free to approach the podium. You're going to have 15 minutes for your presentation. If we stop you at any time for questions, it won't count against your time. You're welcome to reserve some of your time at the end for rebuttal against public comment or just to finish a final thought after public comment. So the floor is yours. Thank you for being here. |
| 01:06:41.94 | Karen Levon Eloyan | Good evening, commissioners. My name is Karen Levon Eloyan, and I'm here representing DNM Architecture on behalf of the applicant. Thank you for your feedback at the last hearing. Tonight, we're presenting updated materials in response to your comments, including heightened design review findings, a construction management plan, landscape plan, materials board, and clarification of garage parking and roof design. Um, I believe we have a We have a presentation slides that are missing. |
| 01:07:14.20 | Nastassya Saad | Can we go ahead and stop the clock for just a second here |
| 01:07:50.36 | Karen Levon Eloyan | Okay, thank you. We remain committed to a project that improves safety, preserves neighborhood character, and brings a long vacant home into compliance. Next slide, please. At the last meeting, we presented a proposal which included necessary structural corrections, roof replacement, new building entry with stairs, and an FAR variance request to create space for a future attached to ADU. The design had minimal impact on the property's exterior massing with only a small encroachment for safe entry. Next slide. |
| 01:08:25.89 | Karen Levon Eloyan | Next slide, please. Um, Our goals are still to make the property safer and more functional while addressing historical issues and to add a new ADU. This comprehensive proposal... Those will include roof and structural corrections and interior stair and elevator that improve safety and accommodate aging in place. 50 square foot entry encroachment for safe pedestrian access lot line merger to resolve legacy parcel issues. F. A. R. variance request to improve egress safety and circulation, an upgrade to a two car garage and a converted ADU under a separately and already filed permit. The proposed interior stair for entry is highlighted in pink. The future ADU is highlighted in yellow. The primary dwelling is highlighted in blue. Also marked are the areas affected by the FAR variance requests. Next slide, please. The Commission had questions regarding the garage at a previous meeting. Upon further research, a garage permit was obtained in 1999, but never finaled. The proposed design upgrades the garage door to provide space for two legal parking spots. Next slide, please. It was noted previously that SMC 104060C3 refers to downhill parcels and following subsection, B4, refers to uphill lots. The code section is confusingly worded. However, we believe that the proposed design meets the criteria. The maximum height of the proposed garage is only three foot five inches above the 32 foot height limit and does not exceed 40 feet per SMC 104060C3B1. The garage is also the highest structure on the lot, per SMC 1040 60 C3 before next slide please. A construction management plan has been added to the set. Materials will be stored in the existing garage. There's space for one construction vehicle and a portable toilet in front. No debris boxes are intended. The site is constrained and flaggers will be used as needed. Next slide, please. |
| 01:10:32.67 | Karen Levon Eloyan | A landscape plan is included in the drawing set, which identifies the trees on site. The owner's intention is to maintain the natural landscape. Disturbed areas will be replanted with native ground cover. No trees are being removed and a five foot area around the house will be maintained with minimal vegetation in compliance with the vegetation management plan requirements of the Southern Marin Fire District. Thank you. A vegetation management plan will be submitted to the SMFD at the appropriate time. We are adding potted trees at the garage level additionally to soften the facade. Next slide, please. Heightened design review findings were provided to staff and omitted from the hearing packet from April 23rd. The project does not include removal of, nor any adverse impacts on trees on the property. Despite being substandard and steeply sloped, the site provides adequate width and depth for the existing house and modest stair addition. Lot coverage is still well below the allowable maximum. The project does not obstruct or otherwise affect the neighboring views as we will demonstrate in the following slides. The project does not alter the current use and poses no hazard to public safety in terms of vehicle traffic, pedestrian circulation, slope and tree stability, runoff and public utilities. In fact, it improves pedestrian safety by creating an interior garage door connection to the entry. Use of helical piles for the foundation will minimize excavation, and there will be no alteration to the site topography. The garage could previously only accommodate one car. The 14-foot garage door will be replaced with a 17-foot door to enable parking to cars. Limited guest parking is available in front of the garage door. The project maintains the existing native landscaping, which maximizes privacy and minimizes the appearance of bulk. Next slide, please. We've chosen high quality Durable materials for the exterior, including vertical cement fiber siding, which is both beautiful and fire resistant. The natural finish wood door and steel and wood railing design enhance aesthetics and do not crowd the structure visually. The garage roof will have Class A composite medium gray shingles, and the flat roof is a Class A membrane roof. Next slide, please. The design fits within the allowable height limits and does not impact neighboring views or privacy. It's been carefully designed to follow the natural slope of Sausalito Boulevard and has minimal impact on the street, as you can see clearly in this context rendering. This design enhances the curb appeal by echoing the rhythm of the street. This is the only portion of the building visible from the street and contributes positively to the streetscape without blocking views or light. Next slide, please. Additionally, the use of flat and shed roofs along with vertical siding is commonplace along Sausalito Boulevard, as you can see from these pictures of neighboring homes. Next slide, please. |
| 01:13:34.55 | Karen Levon Eloyan | A sincere effort was made to engage the neighbors, offering to meet and discuss the design. Some neighbors have expressed support and will do so tonight as well. A few expressed concerns at the last hearing. The property owner has offered to meet with these neighbors, but they have not responded to texts and emails. Next slide, please. One neighbor, highlighted in blue on this slide, submitted a photo claiming view impact, but the photo was taken at an angle looking uphill rather than towards their potential view, which gives a misleading impression. Another late another neighbor was concerned with the encroachment by the new flat roof, however, the proposed roof is about 13 feet below their window height. Additionally, we have modified the design since the last meeting to maintain the existing roof in the northwest corner. which further reduces any visual impact. This change also completely eliminates potential light impacts on 330 to 332 Sausalito Boulevard. The project does not obstruct views of skyline or water and complies with, complies fully with applicable height and massing regulations. The new garage roof ridge is raised at its north point by 4'10 above the existing roof ridge, but the southern end of the roof ridge is raised only by 2 inches. The maximum wall height of the garage is only 13 feet 10 inches, and overall, this is 5 inches lower than the garage roof design we presented at the last meeting. This further minimizing the project's massing. This reduction in sight has been certified by a registered civil engineer. Next slide, please. In conclusion, we've carefully addressed the Commission's comments and believe that this proposal will resolve any concerns. With the Commission's consent, we look forward to advancing this project, which will enhance the property, neighborhood, and city, as well as provide a much-needed additional housing unit. We respectfully request approval to move forward with this project and I remain available for any questions. Thank you very much. |
| 01:15:37.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Gonna note that you've got six minutes and 35 seconds, unless there's somebody else from the applicant team that wishes to speak. Absolutely. |
| 01:15:44.91 | Patricia E. Globski | Clarify a few things. |
| 01:15:46.56 | Nastassya Saad | Do you just mind speaking into the microphones just so we can all hear you on Zoom as well? |
| 01:15:46.93 | Patricia E. Globski | My speaking on today. Okay. We were not the owners that, and I want to remind everybody, we bought the property after Tom Ahrens published that letter. We met with the city. We discussed the extent of what they wanted. We said to the city that we would work with them in good faith, We have spent over three years, we have brought in many, many experts to look at every single issue and provide the best solutions. We have reached out to neighbors, and some have chosen not to talk to us. I also want to remind you that this was the dream and hope of my husband who died at the end of April. And it is the three-year process with the city that has prevented us from getting into the house. We, I also want to mention that in terms of landscaping, the landscape is consistent with every single neighbor in the neighborhood. So unless you are interested in imposing other restrictions on landscape in the neighborhood, you must be aware of what that neighborhood looks like. And in our situation, I'm willing to do some landscaping because I do think there is improvement that is necessary. This is a house that nicely satisfies all the things that you folks have asked for and provides an improvement to the design of the building. And I also want to point out that the folks that are complaining have misrepresented and have income. correct facts about the building, such as we increased the roof line, which we did not. So the fact that that's being, oh, they increase that roof in the front. That is incorrect, and I find... that Um, Self-serving. I also want to bring to your attention that there was an extremely large tree by that power pole in the front of the building and not a single person in that neighborhood commented on it. It was very large and it was falling onto the house and we had it removed. And the best comment I got from that is, oh, you're removing my shade. And that's ironic because one of those same people have said, oh, now, that I'm removing the shade and the view, and they didn't comment that that tree was preventing view, but a lower rooftop now is a problem. I find that really inconsistent and problematic. And I also want to point out, one of the people who's made a comment is on the side of the house where no changes are occurring. So the fact that any changes would be raised is actually quite comical. So I think it's important that you have a full perspective of this. We've spent a lot of time, and I think we've done an exceptional job presenting an attractive building and solving problems. |
| 01:19:20.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. If we can stop the clock at 3.01. We'll go back to 301. Thank you very much. And if there are no further comments from the applicant team, then you can go ahead and remain actually here because we are going to ask some questions. Commissioner Luxenberg, let me start with you. Do you have questions for the applicant team? |
| 01:19:39.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I do, thank you. My first is going back to this issue about square footage. Typically the architect identifies the square footage correctly on the drawings, and usually it's the same as it is in the staff report. Staff has come up with other calculations. You may not know at this time, and maybe we need to analyze this for the future, of why they have a lower number than you have on your drawings. |
| 01:20:04.85 | Karen Levon Eloyan | I cannot speak for staff or why they have made a determination that's different vis-a-vis the FAR number. I'll have to confer with staff as well as the other team members of mine. |
| 01:20:18.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But you would certify your number as the correct number per our code? I'm not sure. |
| 01:20:21.98 | Karen Levon Eloyan | Correct. Okay. |
| 01:20:23.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and get it. |
| 01:20:23.31 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, Commissioner Luxembourg, can we just comment on what that number is |
| 01:20:23.38 | Karen Levon Eloyan | Thank you. |
| 01:20:23.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:20:29.25 | Nastassya Saad | Can you state from the applicant, please? Thank you. |
| 01:20:31.19 | Karen Levon Eloyan | Yeah. So the proposed FAR as shown on the building set provided, which was from June 26, shows a proposed FAR of 2,897.3 square feet, which is 68.6% of the parcel. |
| 01:20:51.29 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Luxor. |
| 01:20:52.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. My second question relates to construction staging plan, but I do have a question for Adam as part of this. So on our standard, any type of project like this, we always have a standard construction management plan condition, which states at the time of building permanent application, the applicant shall include a 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 road closure procedures where employees will park so it's not overwhelmed the surrounding neighborhood and other information is requested by the community development director. Is there any reason that has not been included in the draft resolution here? |
| 01:21:40.78 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 01:21:47.31 | Adam Blair | There is no clear reason for why that was excluded. However, we would be happy to accommodate it as an additional Condition per the request of the Planning Commission |
| 01:21:56.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and per your, you have no issue with that being a condition on this project. |
| 01:22:02.84 | Anthony Coscio | him. Thank you. |
| 01:22:03.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do you have any issue if that was part of a condition? That's a standard provision that we have, which is to require you to provide a construction management plan when you submit your building |
| 01:22:14.47 | Patricia E. Globski | We... I thought we had added a construction management plan, so I'm not really sure what you're asking. |
| 01:22:21.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You have a staging plan, but a construction management plan would go into a little more detail of where contractors will park, if you have to close the road, how you would do that. You don't do that now, but we would put a condition in this approval that says at the time of building permit, you would identify those things, including the number of your general contractor and all of those things. That is- |
| 01:22:45.57 | Patricia E. Globski | That's fine by me. I don't have a problem with that. I also want to clarify that while everybody says future ADU, I have absolutely 100 percent intention and I paid for the permit for an ADU. So do not call it a maybe. It's a definite. |
| 01:23:01.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. My third, the last question, I think it's the last question, relates to this shed roof, ignoring aesthetics for now. Is there any structural reason, I saw the drawing you have with the 32 foot height limit. Is there any structural reason, in 20-year-old structure, that you can't make that 32 feet? |
| 01:23:21.51 | Patricia E. Globski | Well, the inside the garage there is a slope which if you reduce it, it is a not a particularly usable space because the roof actually comes down too close to the flooring of the garage. Thank you. and because it is on a slope. And one of the benefits of that that sloped roof is not only can you put in some natural light, but it also does accommodate the slope within the garage. |
| 01:23:54.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is there a floor in that space or it's just |
| 01:23:57.86 | Patricia E. Globski | It's a floor, but it's on an angle. |
| 01:24:01.13 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This is above where the cars are? |
| 01:24:04.12 | Patricia E. Globski | No, when you come into the garage, it's not a flat-level floor. It's a slope. |
| 01:24:06.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:24:11.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But I guess I'm structurally, is there any reason this can't be made 32 feet? |
| 01:24:19.09 | Nastassya Saad | I think it's a better question for them. |
| 01:24:19.61 | Patricia E. Globski | a question for the design among other things for the |
| 01:24:22.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:24:22.40 | Patricia E. Globski | Thank you. |
| 01:24:22.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not asking about aesthetics. I'm just asking structurally, can you make this 32 feet? If you needed to make it 32 feet, is it structurally possible with this sloped floor? |
| 01:24:22.46 | Patricia E. Globski | Yeah. |
| 01:24:34.07 | Patricia E. Globski | I assume it might be possible, but there's a practical... problem and an aesthetics issue with it. |
| 01:24:41.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm actually asking the architect whether it's you |
| 01:24:44.79 | Karen Levon Eloyan | structurally the roof can be made 32 feet tall. Thank you very much. |
| 01:24:49.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I yield that. |
| 01:24:51.74 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:24:51.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:24:52.52 | Nastassya Saad | um, race chair. |
| 01:24:56.45 | Andrew Junius | Just to follow up on the parking question in terms of the roof height. So to clarify, on the side of the garage where the roof is higher, the slope that goes up from where you're standing in front and you see the visual impact there, clearly it's higher on one side than the other. You're saying on the side where the roof is higher, the garage floor slopes up, which means you really need the height of the roof to make the space workable or you're going to pull into a space and the roof of the car is going to be two inches from the roof of the garage or something like that. It'd be too tight. All right. Thank you. |
| 01:25:30.25 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:25:30.30 | Patricia E. Globski | She reads. |
| 01:25:30.98 | Nastassya Saad | We just we have to have you speak into the microphone for a |
| 01:25:31.45 | Patricia E. Globski | just we haven't. There are some SUVs, and I have one of them, where the top of the car, given the way it is at the moment, does not really fit in the garage. And so because of the slope of the floor. |
| 01:25:48.05 | Andrew Junius | Great. And so you'd absolutely, we need that. You need the height on that side of the garage to make a second parking space, you know, work for a variety of different vehicles. Thank you. |
| 01:25:57.30 | Nastassya Saad | That's right. |
| 01:25:57.34 | Andrew Junius | That's right. Thank you. |
| 01:25:59.58 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Moore. Thank you. |
| 01:26:02.58 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:26:02.62 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 01:26:04.51 | Fred Moore | I appreciate you clarifying the ADU question. That was one thing I was going to ask. You mentioned, if I heard you correctly, that there's space in front of the garage to park a car. Is that 19 feet before it gets to the street, or is it a smart car you have to park in front of the garage? |
| 01:26:20.32 | Karen Levon Eloyan | I believe I cannot confirm whether it's 19 feet without looking at the plants that's in front of me, but a vehicle larger than a smart car is able to park there. |
| 01:26:33.09 | Patricia E. Globski | We do have service vehicles that often, when they're making a stop, park in front of the current garage. |
| 01:26:41.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't actually have any questions at this time. Thank you very much, Commissioner Oxenberg. Thank you. |
| 01:26:50.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have a follow-on question to Commissioner Junius' question. So from a structural point of view, if you put that SUV in there, what is the minimum number that you have to do to clear the doors? Because you're rebuilding this thing, and so I don't think you need to go the additional five-and-a-half feet. So what is the absolute minimum, I'm asking the architect, of what structurally you need, and maybe use different beams on top to make it work, Thank you. feet so what is the absolute minimum i'm asking the architect of what structurally you need and maybe use different beams on top to make it work what's the lowest you can possibly make this uh you use because you said you could get it to 32 feet structurally when you said that you were meaning that you can't get a standard f suv into the garage |
| 01:27:35.48 | Karen Levon Eloyan | Just want to make a quick clarification that the roof is not five feet, it's 411. But with regard to the structural, I'm not sure the dimensions of the property owner's vehicle. So I would have to take a measurement on site to confirm what the minimum increase in roof height is to make that space workable. |
| 01:28:01.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Because when I saw the drawings, which maybe we can go back to your presentation, the slope of the roof does not increase the height of the doors. So if you can't get that additional triangular space, if you can't get through the doors, doesn't do anything for you. So what is the height of the Can we look at, can you go back and we look at the the design of the doors where you had the thing that said four feet whatever. Can we get back to that? Because if the doors don't go up, you would have to increase the doors at that angle. But I thought the doors were not parallel to the slope of the roof. |
| 01:28:50.79 | Patricia E. Globski | That's correct, and I will tell you that one of the things that we have not done is actually measured it, and I have discussed the slope of the floor several times with my architect and the problem of parking in there, so it is probably a detail that needs a little bit of detail of extra measurement. But I will say I have scratched the top of the car, so I do know it does need some help. |
| 01:29:18.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So can we go to the drawing that showed the four feet Makes sense. |
| 01:29:25.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so it would seem to me that looking at the 32 feet maximum on this drawing, that I see the slope that you can raise that door another three feet. Before we hit the 32, in other words, you don't need to have the 32 feet maximum. I'm asking the architect. |
| 01:29:50.24 | Karen Levon Eloyan | Thank you. Yes, correct. |
| 01:29:52.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so you can meet the 32 feet maximum and get an SUV into this garage. I believe so. Yes. Thank you. I yield back. |
| 01:30:05.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Any other questions from the commission? Thank you very much. You have three minutes and one second left. So I'll have you go ahead and sit down. We're going to open this up now for public comment. I'm going to turn it over to our assistant city manager to help facilitate that. We'll have three minutes per speaker for public comment, and then you will have a chance to use your remaining three minutes afterwards. |
| 01:30:33.26 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much, Chair. Looking to receive speaker cards first. I will start with Babette McDougall. Babette, welcome back. You'll have three minutes. |
| 01:30:48.56 | Babette | Thank you. |
| 01:30:48.72 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:30:49.31 | Babette | Thank you very much. Fundamentally, my intention here is to make yet another comment about staffing. I'm so impressed with Adam's presentation. Thank you. And I realize this guy is so sharp. It made me believe. that maybe we can add more. Like what if we had a full-time housing element? What about him? I mean, that guy is so smart, right? We need a full-time housing element person. That's just the way it is. And that's really fundamentally why I'm standing here because I love the way you guys are building out the staff. We have to rise to meet our future. And I'm going to say it again. I remember I was present when... Neighbors were saying, you don't understand, you got a two car garage and we're all starving for one place to park on this street. I remember that, that was painful. And that's the problem living in a community, I guess, but if we don't find a way to get along, what happens when the really big stuff hits because it's gonna hit pretty quick. And we need to line up together as a community. The more give and take, the better. I am so grateful for the details. Let each of you present here because ultimately the devil is in the details. Thank you so much for being on top of it. I yield back. |
| 01:32:13.19 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much, Bebette, for those comments. Next speaker is Miranda Mimi Mingus. Miranda, welcome. You'll have three minutes. |
| 01:32:24.89 | Miranda Mingus | I just want to say I support what the owners are doing. I think that this is the best way to enhance the neighborhood and the community. And they have put a lot of work in this, made a lot of compromises. And I fully support what they're doing. That's all. |
| 01:32:45.47 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, Ms. Menges, for your comments. Next speaker is Patrice Storm Taylor. Patrice, welcome. You'll have three minutes. Thank you for being here. |
| 01:32:58.97 | Patrice Storm Taylor | My comments are short, too. I just wanted to say that I also fully support the project. They've done all of the due diligence. I've met the contractor. I live downslope from them, so I should have a particular interest in this project. And I'm fully confident that it's in the right hands and is being done well. Thank you. |
| 01:33:17.79 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, I note has not listed an item, so I'm going to call the name Chris Godowski. |
| 01:33:30.31 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | We will push you to the next item. Thank you, Chris. Next speaker also did not mention an item number. Anthony Kosio. Anthony, would you like to speak on this item or the next item? Very good. Moving on. Next speaker, Tamara Fisher. Tamara, you have indicated. You have three minutes. Thank you for being here. |
| 01:33:52.15 | Tamara Fisher | I thank you. I, as the other lovely women, I concur with this project. I'm a realtor. I've been a realtor for about 23 years, so I've been around the block, no pun intended. I think what we look at mainly is aesthetics. I think the architect as well as the contractor really put forefront of topography as well as the views to enhance the property. And I think when they enhance the property, it enhances the neighborhood. And that's what it's all about when we're looking, realtors are looking, is the equity value. So this will increase the equity. And in turn, it will increase the neighborhood's equity. So I think it's a win-win situation. I think all the boxes have been checked. And so hopefully, you know, we can all come to meeting of the minds, so to speak. Thank you. |
| 01:34:50.72 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Very good, thank you for your comment. That does it for received speaker cards on my end for this item, commissioners. Moving on to the Zoom application for raised hands. I'll call those in the order they were raised. The hand currently raised is that of Sandra Bushmaker, and you are the first. Sandra, welcome. You'll have three minutes. |
| 01:35:10.95 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, commissioners and applicant. First, I want to say I really want to see this project go through and have it meet the, building codes and all the various codes in Sausalito. I've lived immediately across the street in that blue encircled gray building. with the red garage door. And I'm really literally right on the street. I might have a setback of three feet. I took those photos that were attached to my letter from my living room. And the first set, it's been very confusing with the story polls because the first set of story polls were not objectionable in the least. And I also observed with prior tenants in that property that they were able to park a VW station wagon and a Mercedes Benz sedan in the garage. So just FYI. And there is an existing ADU in that property. And I knew the tenant that lived there as well. And parking is a problem in this neighborhood. So the photos that I took, my view is directly across the street at the project. So I did ask the workers, construction workers or story poll workers that were there last week, how much, what changes they're making in the story polls. And they told me they were raising them seven inches or eight inches, whatever I said in my letter. I believe I said seven inches, which is what they told me. So that's the information I had to go on So my objection is to that Pete. triangle on the left side as you're looking at this project It is you can see from the photos that I attach. It doesn't impact my view. I... It also Bye. is overwhelming to the neighborhood in my opinion. To me, And the pitch of that peak is not in line with the street pitch. Now I could be mistaken on that, but visually from my eye, While I'm on the street, looking at the picture of the street, and the pitch of that roof line, I do see them as two separate matters. I, I'm... now understand from the comments that have been made that there will be an ADU in the future, but there is no ADU with this application. So I just got that clarified. I've asked, that driveways and garages not be blocked. The owner of the property in which I live and 317 South Alito Boulevard have endorsed my comments in the past. They were not able to attend tonight. Uh, I did want to point out I did not receive a yellow card for this hearing tonight, which concerned me as I received yellow cards for the prior two hearings. So, like I said, I think that, and I also said in my letter, the compatibility of this building does not fit the neighborhood when |
| 01:38:14.38 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much, Senator, for your comments. Looking to the Zoom application for additional raised hands. Going once, going twice. Seeing none. Oh, one got in at the last moment. Denise Buffett. Denise, welcome. You'll have three minutes. |
| 01:38:38.67 | Denise Buffett | Hi, I wasn't planning on speaking on this, but this is also the first Zoom. So, Thank you for your patience. I did have a chance to listen to all the information and the presentation. My heart goes out to the homeowner. it. from everything that I've heard, all of the comments, the thorough presentation, She's made. Quite a few. changes and having lived in Sausalito for 20 plus years. and walking the Sausleo regularly. You can see the dog in the background. There has to be compromise as far as... allowing homeowners to make improvements to the home And I took a little umbrage with the comment about aesthetics. if it doesn't matter. Aesthetics are important. It is, in my opinion, having locked Sausalito every day, almost for multiple days. over the years that it is in fitting with the aesthetics of the city, so I would speak in support of this. having been someone who's going through this process of renovating a home, and making sure that neighbors are happy And. I would hope that this city would respect the amount of time and energy that the homeowner has put forth and the architects in making the compromises and the adjustments. to ensure that and chest. it's, having gone through this again. |
| 01:40:31.76 | Denise Buffett | The only thing I can say is It would be a shame for you. to just not approve it based off of the the fact that structurally you could force her to remove that feet to have a slant The slant aesthetically isms fitting with the city I could. You know, if we want to go through another meeting, God forbid, give many examples. I'll take a little photographs throughout the city. So. The fact that she has made the compromises, the fact that it is fitting with the city And that aesthetics do matter. It matters to the value of the house, matters to the function of the house. And having those slopes are difficult and having that extra access to the roof is meaningful. Storage and space is limited in the city of Sausalito. So anything that we can do to allow ADUs and to improve access, I think is something that should be supported. So I hope that this project goes through. Thank you. |
| 01:41:44.16 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much. your comments, Denise, and one more chance for folks in the Zoom application to raise their hands, going once, going twice, seeing none. Back to you, Cher. |
| 01:41:55.94 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I actually will turn it back over to the applicant team. You still have three minutes and one second if you'd like to come back to approach. Use your time however you wish. Can either respond to public comment or continue any parts of your presentation. Floor is yours. |
| 01:42:11.36 | Karen Levon Eloyan | Thank you. I just wanted to circle back to the question of the story polls. I can't account for what was said or why there was an indicated increase in the story polls, but the revisions to the design that we have undertaken since the last Planning Commission meeting were intended to reduce the height of the story polls. And this has been confirmed by a registered civil engineer that we have, in point of fact, reduced the height of the roof by five inches. So I just wanted to emphasize that fact. |
| 01:42:47.24 | Patricia E. Globski | I also want to make it clear that the Sanders view, she is 50% higher than that roof in any point. And it needs to be acknowledged that we're not talking about anything that impacts a view in any fashion. I also want to thank that last lady who spoke. I don't know her, but rah, go. |
| 01:43:14.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Are you going to forgo the rest of your time? Would you wish to continue? |
| 01:43:19.47 | Karen Levon Eloyan | Yes, we'll forego the rest of the time. Thank you. |
| 01:43:21.48 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. OK, we're going to close this portion of the public hearing, and we're going to bring it back up here to the desk for discussion. Who wants to start us off? But... I mean, I think it's a good thing. |
| 01:43:36.17 | Patrice Storm Taylor | Thank you. |
| 01:43:39.41 | Patrice Storm Taylor | chair. |
| 01:43:39.90 | Andrew Junius | Great. Thank you, Chair. Well, if those of you that have seen me at Commission hearings like this one before kind of know what to expect, I'm truly amazed at just how continue to put up with this process that this has become normal you know another you know opportunity to just talk about how convoluted and messed up our code is our processes to put a property owner through this is truly an amazing thing i think it's a says a lot about the fixes we need and the improvements we need in our process in our codes and in sausalito i mean this let's be honest, this host is a real mess. This applicant came in three years ago, poured enormous amounts of money, enormous amounts of time into this effort. They didn't cause these problems. They went into it with eyes open, but I'm not sure they expected this. You know, this is the real... |
| 01:44:05.70 | Sandra Bushmaker | Absolutely. |
| 01:44:19.14 | Sandra Bushmaker | Yeah. |
| 01:44:33.95 | Andrew Junius | the real concern and you know, I'm, I'm just amazed at the complexity. I think staff does a good job given the insanity of our code and the, the, you know, the bizarre, it's just unbelievable that we're up here talking about 60 square feet here, a hundred square feet there on a lot that, |
| 01:44:51.45 | Sandra Bushmaker | Sure. |
| 01:44:53.33 | Andrew Junius | you know, is frankly pretty typical in Sausalito. There's a lot of houses like this in Sausalito. You walk by this house. You wouldn't think it's anything. It looks like a bunch of houses like this on the slopes And yet, The minute you make a proposal, and the microscope comes out, All of a sudden, it turns into some like Manhattan project of a analysis and it's just unbelievable. And I'm, I, I, I've been on this commission now for four years plus I've been doing this for a long time. It still upsets me that we, we try to squeeze these projects through, you know, through like a sieve when in the fact that again, that last speaker I thought was very good as well, and another speaker here that spoke to the enhancement of the neighborhood. We should be encouraging people to improve their homes, and that's what we've got going on here. And there's really no change of any substance in the size of the house. And to be concerned about, you know, a handful of square feet here or there. when the house essentially looks the same after as before. I'm just I'm just amazed. And the aesthetic, I think, should frankly be the choice of the project's applicant. The architect is a good architecture firm. They're proposing one move, one feature here, and it has to do with the garage. Our job as commissioners is to use the tools we have, and in this case, it's a waiver. I think it's a height waiver, yes? I'm sorry, what is the procedural issue that's going to get the height? |
| 01:46:21.48 | Adam Blair | It's a height exception. |
| 01:46:22.93 | Andrew Junius | The height, there are exceptions in the code so that we can look in projects carefully and we can say, yes, this project, this exception makes the project better. We should grant it. That's how I feel about this project. That garage looks great the way it is. I'm very concerned that over some technicalities, we're going to argue up here about squishing that down, making it look more pedestrian, removing the one architectural feature that this part, this house has. So I'll leave it at that. Obviously, I think it's a great project. I'd love to get it done tonight. I'm really bummed out that it had to come back here a second time. I hope it doesn't have to go. We're only four up here, so we really need three people to agree. So there's where I stand at the moment. |
| 01:47:06.72 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:47:12.51 | Fred Moore | I'm not sure I was as passionate as commissioner is. I appreciate some of the modifications that were made since the last middle in addressing some of the concerns that were made. The parking is very beneficial, I believe. In a perfect world, meeting the 32 feet might be appropriate, but we do have an exception. And the project is compliant without exception. So I don't have an issue with the height over the garage. I think it is consistent with the neighborhood. I think it's gonna end up looking better than obviously what it looks like now and other homes in the community. So I am supportive of the project. I appreciate what you've done, and I think that's going to stop there. |
| 01:47:58.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 01:48:01.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair. I've got basically three issues, which I said last time and it's pretty clear. I also want to note for the record, we received this in April, and there were issues with this parking garage with the two spaces. So we have not had this for three years. I don't think the city has had this for three years. So I want people to understand that somebody might have bought a property and they hired an architect and took a while to design it But the city has not been reviewing this for three years and we've only had it For a couple months and had they address those issues last time it might have gone quicker So I want to note that for the record As I said at the last meeting on another project and then this project, this is a substandard lot. If this were a standard lot, the most they would get is 2,850 square feet. We have a code for a reason. If we're going to bury the code every time somebody wants to build something, then we might as well not be here. I mean I I think there's a reason for that having said that the the staff has somehow analyzed this to get it down to 2811 so I'm sure the architect can work with staff to get this under 2850 and then the variance is justified because if it were a 5,000 foot lot lot, that's the maximum. But if every time somebody wants to build something and we have small lots that we let them do that, then we will overbuild lots throughout Sausalito. And although I understand from Commissioner Junius he doesn't like the technical aspects of this, but our role here my i feel my role here is to ensure that that we're complying with the codes that we have and a variance to uh you know bring it up to a standard lot is justifiable and i think there's a way to get this to 2550 because the staff has said it's 28 11. so that's my first issue the second is and i don't understand why i keep having to bring this up we should have construction management plan conditions as part of any kind of project of this type they keep getting omitted and they keep getting put back in but if we could just have staff put it in in the first place we wouldn't have to have a discussion discussion about that one. With regard to the roof, I can't see the justification for the exemption here. As far as the aesthetic, I do believe in aesthetics. I'm looking at the plan right now. There's no reason this sloped roof can't go down to 32 feet. It still will be built. I'll still be able to get the SUV into this thing, and there's no reason to grant an exception in this particular case. And it could still have the aesthetic of the sloped roof. And if they're putting another floor in there and putting storage up there, that probably adds to the FAR. I don't know what's going on with that, but aesthetically, we could keep the slope. All I'm trying to do, I'm not Thank you. and that probably adds to the FAR. I don't know what's going on with that. But aesthetically, we could keep the slope. All I'm trying to do, I'm not trying to change the design. I'm trying to not have to grant an exception that I think is problematic, plus we have this strange thing with an uphill lot on a downhill thing in this exemption. So I'm trying to avoid that. I don't see any reason it can't make the 32 feet. So I could, if we restricted it to no greater than 2850 and they could work that out and we can get the rid of the height exemption, I could somehow see to move forward with this. Without that, I mean, I can't justify it. I can't make the finding, and we can get into the specific findings, but I have trouble with findings two, three, four, and heightened design number three. |
| 01:49:06.35 | Sandra Bushmaker | here. |
| 01:50:25.14 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. discussion. Thank you. |
| 01:51:58.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and with the change in landscaping we heard tonight, I can make the finding six. So anyway, so that's where I'm at on this. I'm, you know, I believe that we should renovate this project. I believe they're doing a job to do that. With these couple minor modifications, I think we can get a project that works, but that's where I'm at at the moment. |
| 01:52:22.52 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxembourg. Thank you to the commission and to all the public comment we both heard here and received orally as well. I think it's to no surprise that I'm going to respectfully disagree with my vice chair here. This is what we do at the commission. You know, we have design review for a reason, and we have heightened design review for a reason. And it is subjective, which I know can be hard to swallow in the days of these new state laws where everything is objective. But we do have a task here at the Planning Commission, and it is 100% in our remit for some of these subjective criteria, both in design and heightened design review. That being said, until the code changes, this is our charge and this is our task and the municipal code we have in front of us is important and that's that's that's the extent of that in my opinion that being said I don't disagree with Commissioner Luxembourg I'm also having I mean the math has to add up I'm not going to be able to make a finding if our math is not correct here so we might need to get into that Adam, this evening, I mean, we can't have a discrepancy and make an approval. That just doesn't work, regardless of what the project is. So it's a good call-out. It wasn't adding up for me when I was on my own, and I appreciate you raising that here tonight, because the math has to add up. So we need to know if we are making an approval here, what is it that we are approving? Is it what's in that staff report or is it going to be the architect's numbers? So that's one and that's just fair and equitable to absolutely every applicant and for public record. And secondly, I think the question about the pitched roof, I mean, I think the design right now currently as it is, of course, a non-compliant, potentially struct unsound home, fits the neighborhood of the character. In my personal opinion, the new design and the color does not. At that point, I'm not going to make a sticking point because we have a bigger issue here of a homeowner that wishes to renovate to live in a home that they've purchased. And we do want to help you do that. So I'm just going to forgo the subjective criteria that I'm able to make this evening, and I'm not going to get a sticking point on that, but I do think Commissioner Luxembourg's detailed question about the necessity structurally of that roof, it's not there. And therefore, why make an exception that doesn't need to be there? I wholeheartedly agree with that conceptually, not for this project, but for any project. There has to be a reason for an exception. tangible, viable reason. And I can't find that, so I don't think we need an exception here. Otherwise, the rest of it, knowing that there's an ADU coming and appreciate the forthcoming and paying for an application for that, because it is difficult to make a variance on floor aspect ratio without something in the pipeline like that, because you're not obligated to build an ADU at this point. If we were to make a floor aspect ratio, floor area ratio exception and give a variance, an applicant may or may not ever build that. So we're just, potentially overbuilding a lot that might not need it. So that gives me comfort. I appreciate Adam and the applicant for calling out the story polls because I thought they had shifted in some way and it was unclear. So I think we're now set there. Originally I had some concerns, but I think there's no more concern here on anything with the story polls. So I'd like to get there as well. What just, what's the math going to be, Adam? In fact, if we can comment on it at this point, I'm going to let Vice Chair Junius chime in here. I think he wants to say something. But regardless, I'm going to need that to get worked out to move forward. |
| 01:56:21.52 | Andrew Junius | So thank you, Chair. So I'm going to make a motion to approve the project as is. The findings regarding the completely subjective, I don't even know how many they are, subjective findings. I can make all of them. The justification for the height exception is the architecture works better, matches the slope, and we have a very respected design team in front of us that I trust that made this project look better without the slope as proposed. It's not going to look as good. And that's the justification, an aesthetic justification for the height waiver. With respect to the square footage, I think the reason why we have a difference is, again, back to the complexity of the code. If we've got two experts on both sides of the table, both trying to get this right and they come to a hearing and they still are off by 60 feet, I'm not sure that's anybody's fault. I would move that we approve the variance with respect to the floor area with the larger number. And if it comes in smaller, fine. But we at least it would. We got the we've got the 2897 in and we can move this project along. So that's my motion. |
| 01:57:25.85 | Nastassya Saad | I'll take discussion. I'll also, of course, entertain since we do have a motion if there's a second. |
| 01:57:32.18 | Fred Moore | a second emotion to allow discussion. Okay. |
| 01:57:34.69 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Is there any counter motion? |
| 01:57:37.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to make an amendment to the motion. The amendment will be that this project is restricted to 2,850 square feet of space, which will need to be verified at time of building permit, that we add a construction management plan, require a condition to the conditions that we have. That would be condition number 14, and that we do not approve the height exception and require the garage to be no greater than the 32 foot height limit and they can design redesign that at the time of building permit so that was my alternative motion I'm sorry. |
| 01:58:18.85 | Attorney Rudin | Thank you. Sure. for clarity on the motion. That motion would also not |
| 01:58:20.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:58:23.78 | Attorney Rudin | As I understand it, you're intending to deny the proposed variance with regards to the floor error ratio as part of that motion? |
| 01:58:29.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I'm suggesting we grant a floor area ratio up to 2,850 square feet, but not up to the 2,897. The 2,850 is what would be allowed if this were not a substandard lot. So therefore, I can justify in the unusual circumstances because it's a substandard lot. So I'm bringing it up to what they would have gotten had it been the standard 5,000-foot lot. |
| 01:59:00.11 | Attorney Rudin | Thank you. I appreciate that. |
| 01:59:01.48 | Nastassya Saad | Just for the record then, because... the 2850. is greater than the current what's in the staff report is 2811. |
| 01:59:15.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, but the staff report is helpful, but the staff's analysis is not. The architect has got to certify this at the time of building permit, and the architect has said that they would certify it at 2897. I think that there's a way to do this because obviously there's some discrepancy of how they counted stairways or something. And as long as the architect can certify at the time of building permit that we're down to 2850, which it seems like there should be able to do that somehow, or there's some tweak in the wall here or there to do that, that yes. Because if I hadn't seen the staff's number, I would be more concerned about suggesting this condition. |
| 02:00:00.74 | Nastassya Saad | So just for the record, so everyone knows what we're talking about, your 2850 increases the square feet by 39, which is 39 greater than what is in the staff report, but decreases the architects by 47. It's almost, it definitely just for the record, it's going to increase what we have here in the staff report. It just doesn't get us quite to what is on, what the architect has come up with. Thank you. |
| 02:00:30.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:00:30.34 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:00:30.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, I mean, what the allowable square footage without a variance, I'm going to, Adam, can you look at that number for me, please? What's the allowable square footage? It's 58% of whatever the 4,200, is that interesting? |
| 02:00:31.09 | Nastassya Saad | I mean, well, |
| 02:00:45.50 | Nastassya Saad | The maximum allowable. in the ordinance is 57. The existing is 59%, which is 2,472. |
| 02:00:57.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the existing, I'm sorry, |
| 02:00:59.34 | Nastassya Saad | The existing is 2,472. |
| 02:01:03.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And the maximum allowable is 57% of the 42. Somewhere do we have that number as well? We should have that number. I don't have a print copy of the zoning. There's no... Usually under existing, it gives both square footage and percentage, does it not do that? |
| 02:01:22.35 | Nastassya Saad | Under existing, it's a 59%, and the square footage is a 2472. |
| 02:01:29.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I can calculate it because it's 57% of the 42-24. It's as simple as that. Hold on. Amen. 42, 24 times 0.57. So they're allowed 24. 2407. They currently have more than they're allowed by code. I'm suggesting allowing them to go to what is allowed in this zone if they were to have the, they had a conforming lot, which seems reasonable. I said that on multiple projects and would make sense here. But I don't see the logic of going beyond that. And it does seem like somehow they can make that work. And rather than have it come back here, I thought they could work it out before they get to the building permit so if we put those conditions on somehow they'll make it work and they may have to make something slightly smaller but it's not enough to worry about but it it makes us consistent that if you have a substandard lot if you had a standard lot you're allowed X If you're gonna allow people more than what they'd law with the standard lot you can't make the unusual circumstance finding that's |
| 02:02:32.38 | Sandra Bushmaker | but. |
| 02:02:47.59 | Nastassya Saad | So let me just because we have a motion and this is now |
| 02:02:51.03 | Andrew Junius | I'll go ahead and withdraw the motion at this point. |
| 02:02:52.92 | Nastassya Saad | OK, I appreciate that. Just for the sake of the discussion, I appreciate that. So at this point, We need to finalize the numbers here. So, Adam, I might be looking to you. Do you understand the point of discussion here as to what Jeffrey is saying here? Because the discrepancy, and this has to be for public record and also what's submitted publicly, needs to be we have to have everything kosher here. So there's 2,811 square feet in the staff report, and the applicant is saying it's 2,897 square feet. So... Let's put Jeffrey's suggestion on hold for just one second. If we were to move forward this evening, what is it that we're approving? If you just take us all in agreement to move forward, Are we approving your 2811 or are we approving 2897? Let's just clear that first, please. |
| 02:04:03.22 | Adam Blair | Good question. Naturally, as staff, I would be inclined to go off the number that staff has provided since we're experienced with the municipal code, especially in terms of how we calculate floor area ratio. With that being said, I would also be open to seeing how the applicant team got their number. It's natural to have some difference or discrepancy between numbers provided by applicant team versus the numbers provided by staff. So I guess to reiterate, I would naturally go off the number that is provided in the staff report, given our experience with calculating floor area. |
| 02:04:35.99 | Nastassya Saad | with. I appreciate that. So let me put that back on the table because we just, we have to know what we're approving. The applicant needs to know what is being approved and the public needs to know what we're talking about. So that being said, that is, if we go as is, that's 2,811 square feet. That is what is on the table that I think we're gonna agree to that that's what's on the table this evening. |
| 02:05:00.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm happy to put in the motion the 2,811. The problem I'm having is we're also approving the set of drawings and we are making a modification to that set of drawings. So if we were to approve it at 2,811 and the architect can't design it to 2,811, again, I'm being consistent with what I've said repeatedly. I'm okay with 2,850 because that is, there's a logic where 2,850 comes from. I'm sorry to interrupt you. |
| 02:05:28.76 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry to interrupt you, Commissioner Luxembourg. Can I just see what Attorney Rudin is interested to save here? |
| 02:05:38.21 | Nastassya Saad | You're just on mute, Attorney Rudin. |
| 02:05:41.81 | Attorney Rudin | Thank you. In terms of a condition of approval, you know, you can set a ceiling so not to exceed 2850, which would provide additional design flexibility for the architect, if that's the planning commission's preference. |
| 02:05:57.52 | Nastassya Saad | OK, so we could approve what we have and add that in. Let me, Attorney Rudin, just because for the sake of approving drawings, which I completely agree with you, Commissioner Luxembourg, we have to approve drawings as well. How does that? How does that work? So if the drawings are going to show 2,897, is that just to... condition that change, and then that can work without having to come back to the Planning Commission. |
| 02:06:26.85 | Attorney Rudin | Yes, so you would approve the proposed project and the proposed plans with a condition of approval that they be revised to modify the project so that the floor ratio does not exceed 2850, which would be verified by staff at the building permit stage. |
| 02:06:45.49 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. That's very helpful. So I think we're moving forward, and I appreciate that because we have to have correct math and know what we're moving forward with. So I actually am just going to look for a nod from the applicant that you understand that what is actually before us here from the staff report is the floor area ratio of 2,811, and I think at this point the commission might be leaning towards giving additional square feet, but it is not 2,897. That would take us to a ceiling of 2,850. And I'm sorry, we're in deliberation. I'm actually looking specifically to the architect at this point. Just do you understand that that's what's on the table? OK. So I appreciate it. We're just at deliberation, so I'm not going to be able to entertain any more comments, but thank you very much. So that's step one. I don't know where we go from here, but I appreciate us working that out. With that, I will look back to the maker of the original motion if he'd like to make another motion that could be up for discussion. |
| 02:08:00.15 | Andrew Junius | Well, I'd just like to make another comment about the hypersensitivity, about the size of a lot here. So, yes, it's a substandard lot, but these lots are 5,000 square feet if they comply. This lot's a little bit over 4,000 square feet. So, and, you know, in another way of looking at it, you can't even really see the lot. When you walk down the street, what you see is a garage and the house is down the hill. There's no way to know that this lot would be, you know, 1,900 square feet smaller than the other lot. So, again, the hyper technicalities of, you know, trying to squeeze the owner here, the developer here, the applicant here for another 50 square feet because of a math calculation we did on our phones up here in something that You know, I mean, you know, I've seen substandard lots that, you know, you're in a you're in a 2500 square foot lot district and the lot is 900 square feet. Now, that's a substandard lot. OK, that's a lot that's got real issues. This is not, to my opinion, a substandard lot that should be treated in any different way. And then again, the proposal before us, I think, is really justified. So I'll be moving off that for a second. If somebody else wants to make a motion, I'm sure the owner would like to get out of here with the project, even if it's mangled and squished as it's going to be. So. |
| 02:09:18.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'll make a motion. |
| 02:09:19.91 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, can I make a comment? Just the alternative is that we're approving what's in front of us, which is reducing their square footage by 80 because what's in front of us is actually 2811 per staff not 2897 so I actually think it's a nice compromise to go for 2850 because at this point we have conflicting numbers, which is unfortunate. I agree But we have to approve something and they have to they have to line up. So go ahead Commissioner |
| 02:09:50.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I also want to correct a comment that Commissioner Junius just made. You're saying you can't tell that it's not a 5,000-foot lot, that it's 4,200, and you can't really tell the difference. I'm suggesting, I'm assuming by my motion that I'm about to make, that it is a 5,000-foot lot. I'm allowing them to have what they would have had, had they had a full, lot and and i view and and i'm doing it today i've done it previously that's that's what our code allows we have to find in a variance there's an unusual circumstance the unusual circumstance in my mind is it's a substandard law and if it was a standard lot it would be allowed 2005 2850 square feet the proposal might be less than that the moment, but per Attorney Rudin's comment, I'm going to suggest in this motion in a minute that we allow them up to 2,850, which is more than the staff says it is. So if the staff is right, and they may be right, there's something that they're analyzing slightly differently. The staff is right, we're allowing them more than they're asking for not less so and I'm trying to also get an approval here as well and then but anyways I will make a motion that we approve the project subject to the following additional as indicated subject to the following additional conditions first that a construction management plan the language which I read be included as condition number 14 and as an aside I encourage the staff and any project with this type in the future that that go in before we get it so please try to do that the second is that the the far for this project shall not exceed 2850 square feet and shall be certified by the architect in the building permit set so we don't have to have a come back to us so that's why that's there and then third that the the that this approval does specifically does not provide for the height exception and so they must not exceed 32 feet height for the garage and i'm not going to give any information but if they want to have it sloped it can be sloped and the garage doors still work or they or they can they can flatten it if they want. But there's looking at the drawing, there's no reason the slope can't continue and the cars can't get in there according to the drawing that I saw. And structurally the architect has indicated that that's possible. So with those conditions, I'm moving approval. |
| 02:11:09.15 | Sandra Bushmaker | uh, Thank you. |
| 02:12:38.01 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to second that. |
| 02:12:41.17 | Andrew Junius | THE END OF THE END OF THE At the risk of boring everybody to tears here, the variance hardship that I'm looking at has nothing to do with lot size. It has to do with the slope. It has to do with the history here. It has to do with the house has been sitting vacant for three years. And I'm not blaming the city for that. I'm blaming the entirety of the situation itself. The staff, I think, has done a great job. The problem is the code the code's too complicated our process takes too long and I wouldn't be surprised if that first year was spent trying to understand the code trying to work with the city folks before we even you even submitted so that you were being a good applicant and tried to make this work that said I'll vote on the motion when it's called |
| 02:13:26.31 | Nastassya Saad | Is there discussion on the motion? Is there an amendment to the motion? |
| 02:13:33.23 | Fred Moore | Um, |
| 02:13:33.56 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:13:33.60 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:13:33.66 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:13:33.97 | Fred Moore | Thank you. I struggle with fluoride ratio. Fluoride ratio is such a random item. I understand that it's a condition that we have to deal with it. However, at the end of the day, I've worked with architects for 40 years they never agree they always have different different numbers so i appreciate the concern about putting a maximum and moving forward i think this project does need to move forward i appreciate staffs identifying the exception for the height limitation above 32 up to 40 and this clearly at 35 9 3 quarters it is significantly less than an allowable exception again, according to our code. But I want the project to move forward. So I will... It is significantly less than an allowable exception, again, according to our code. But I want the project to move forward. So I will also support the motions. |
| 02:14:21.86 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. If there's no further discussion or vice chair juniors, would you wish to make another motion? You did have one originally. |
| 02:14:31.23 | Andrew Junius | No, I would just point out again that randomly choosing 2850, certainly something nice to do for the owner here. I don't know why we don't make it 2897. That's what the plans say. That's the project that developer wants. It's 50 square feet in a sea of discretion here. And it just seems silly to be just randomly penalizing the owner here for a discrepancy in interpretations. But I'd like to just call the questions. |
| 02:14:58.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'd like to respond to that because I think that needs to be responded to. This is what we have to do according to the state law on a variance. It says there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property involved or the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the same district. Throughout this district, there is a 5,000 square foot minimum requirement. If they, whether it's flat or whether it's sloped, if it's 5,000 square feet, they would be allowed per the code, 2,850 square feet. It is not a random number. I'm not suggesting random number. I'm suggesting that I can see a variance beyond, and that's more than they're allowed because they don't have 5 000 square feet so if the other properties in this district are 5 000 square feet this is what they would be allowed so i can see to grant the variance up to that level because that's what this district and that's what the law statements for Ferentz says. I don't want anybody to get the idea that this is just a number pulled out of the air or random. It is not. |
| 02:16:13.96 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 02:16:14.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And I will second calling the question. But actually, that doesn't require a second. |
| 02:16:19.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay, so we have a motion, we have a second, we have some general direction here. Let's go ahead and take a vote. Assistant City Manager Thibs. |
| 02:16:30.36 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Commissioner Merlot is not present at the record show. Commissioner Moore? Yes. Vice Chair Junius? Yes. Chair Hassan? Yes. |
| 02:16:41.23 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:16:41.64 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you. motion passes. |
| 02:16:42.92 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you to the applicant. Thank you to the commission. We are now going to have good cheer in the chambers, we are now going to move on to the next item, which is item 7B. This is 715 Bridgeway. This is a design review permit, a variance, a conditional use permit, three conditional use permits, a minor use permit, a signed permit, and a certificate of appropriateness. And we have our senior planner, Matthew Demandich, here this evening to present. If you can just hang on for Commissioner Marlott to return, we will then get started with this item. And actually, since I did this one at a time, can I just look to the commission for any ex parte communications on item 7B? Commissioner Luxenberg? |
| 02:17:37.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No expert at communication. |
| 02:17:40.07 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair? |
| 02:17:40.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | nothing. |
| 02:17:41.27 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Moore? Nothing. Commissioner Marlott? Nothing. I too have nothing to declare. |
| 02:17:44.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | nothing. |
| 02:17:47.21 | Matthew Mandich | All right, good evening, commissioners. So yes, you will probably remember this project as it was before you in December of 2024 last year, where it was approved by a 5-0 unanimous vote. So there have been, there was an appeal, which we'll discuss some tweaks to the project that both staff and the applicant have been working on together that we think even improves the project on what was approved the last time. So thank you very much. Next slide, please. Alright, so location, Old Wells Fargo building located at 715 Bridgeway, right on the corner of Bridgeway and Excelsior Lane. The pedestrian steps right there, Viña del Mar Park, across the street. It is in our Central Commercial Zoning District and our Downtown Historic District, one of our commercial thoroughfares here, surrounded by other hotel and restaurant uses as well as the ferry landing. Next slide, please. it. So a little bit of background on the building itself, built in 1924, designed by H.H. Winter for the Bank of Sausalito. It was designed to mimic the grand banking temples of this time, but on a smaller scale to fit with its surroundings. It is a contributor to the Sausalito Downtown Historic District. It's on the local and state register, and it's eligible for the National Register with a status code of 2D. The building facades on the east and southern side remain largely unaltered and preserve the historic building in all its grandeur. It became an American trust and savings bank following the being the Bank of Sausalito before becoming a Wells Fargo, which it served as until July 12, 2023. The building itself was purchased by the current owner, Kent Ipsen, in 2024. Next slide, please. So as discussed a little bit at the beginning of the meeting, this project was approved by the Planning Commission on December 11th. The project before the Planning Commission at that time was a design review permit, a variance, two conditional use permits, a minor use permit, a signed permit, and a certificate of appropriateness. The commission found at that hearing that the proposed project was designed appropriately, will not result in any substantial adverse impact on the historic resource in the historic district or the historic district um it's in conformance with the required sois which is secretary of interior standards one through ten the project was recommended for approval by the historic preservation commission in October of 2024 also on a 50 unanimous vote the commission found in December 11 24 that the proposed project was in conformance with all the required findings in the Sausalito municipal code for the permits required. and it was approved via resolution number 2024-24 by a 5-0 vote. The project was appealed by a neighbor, Sharon Kahn of Excelsior Lane. It was heard by the city council, and it was remanded back to the planning commission for additional evaluation, so no decision was rendered by the council on the item at that time. The appeal was not upheld or denied, but rather the project was remanded back in its entirety to the planning commission which is why it's before you today as discussed staff can have act as staff looking staff and applicant excuse me have worked together to improve the project and make the necessary changes for renewed approval today next slide please So just to get into the project proposal, here is a rendering of the building as it is intended to look. As you can see, all the historic features being preserved. There's going to be some, you know, updating and refurbishment of the exterior, including new paint and any minor repairs that need to be undertaken. But of course, all of the defining features will remain. Next slide, please. So a little bit about the project itself. The ground floor will feature a fine dining restaurant and bar known as The Pocket. It will seat 105 guests inside and 16 outdoor on the sidewalk. Construction of a second floor inside the building will be built inside the superstructure. There's a large vacuous space that will accommodate three boutique hotel rooms. Existing construction in the rear yard, which does come up all the way to the rear yard setback, will be removed to create space for a new patio, fire pit, and hot tub lounge area, which are considered guest amenities for the hotel. all of these will be removed to create space for a new patio fire pit and hot tub lounge area which are considered guest amenities for the hotel. All of these will be within the existing imposing retaining walls on the site. The exterior will have new signage lighting flower boxes and paint refurbish and all the defining characteristics will be reserved and rehabilitated next slide please. So this requires a number of planning permits, as you're aware, as we've already discussed a bit. The design review permit is for the addition of 1,013 square feet of floor area, a variance to demolish and remodel the existing legal nonconforming structure in the rear setback, a conditional use permit for the hotel transient lodging use in the commercial zoning district, and the conditional use permit for the sale of alcoholic beverage in the Central Commercial Dining District. Conditional use permit is also required for the waiver of parking requirements for historic structure in a historic district. And this is a new permit that's been added to the project since it was first approved. A minor use permit is also required for the outdoor sidewalk dining, as well as a signed permit for the new business signage on the south and eastern facades, which was also reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission, which has additional findings for assigned permits on historic buildings in the historic district. A certificate of appropriateness was also recommended for approval by the HPC, and the final determination is required by the PC. Next slide, please. So just a little bit of look at the building here. This is kind of the oldest plans that we have on file. As you can see, very minimal changes aside from some signage here and here, as well as a projecting sign there. Next slide, please. And here's a look at the southern facade, which again, largely mimics or is identical to the existing building. The only change that we'll be seeing here is one gate. which will be emergency access for the backyard amenity area. There were previously on the older plans, if you remember, was another gate up here to access the deck, but that rear area has since been redesigned. So there'll only be one penetration into that retaining wall. Next slide, please. Thank you. |
| 02:23:52.12 | Paul Mallory | Thank you. |
| 02:23:52.15 | Matthew Mandich | So just some of the exterior details here, just to give you a look and feel of what's going on. There are going to be some new gas lamps here or lights that kind of mimic gas lamps. They're actually not gas themselves, but that's the look and feel. There's two existing LED lights there that have a very bright light, as you can see those down there right now. Again, just updating with flower boxes, a new paint coat, which is a kind of an off-white to gray scale here so just you know general refurbishment and updating of the building next slide please There's going to be some restoration done as well. There was a safe deposit box that was cut into the building here that will be restored to the best of the ability and covered up with a little flower box hanging there. There was an ATM here. For those of you that remember the Wells Fargo ATM on the right side of the front facade that will be replaced with the new door to provide access to the hotel rooms upstairs. Next slide, please. So look at the floor plan here, and this is where we'll see a little bit of difference on the upper floors, but everything else on the lower floors remains the same. So here's the front of the building, bridgeway, sidewalk in front. Main entrance will remain the same as it is for the bank. You'll be able to walk in right here. There'll be a desk, reception host, bar over here, and seating area in there and kitchen back here. that door that we just discussed on the side here on the front right side of the facade that will be a separate kind of entrance that leads back up to a stair set and an elevator which um it can access the restaurant here but we'll also be accessing the upper floors which is where the three hotel rooms are proposed to be so you have two larger suites and kind of a smaller studio right here. Um, one, two, three across the front in the back, there is a, an amenity area with a, with a hot tub, uh, and a fire pit. And these are the restrooms for the restaurant, which will also be accessed via this staircase or the elevator. And when people are using the restaurant or using the restrooms in the restaurant, they also have a glass panel here where they can kind of look into that amenity area as well. Um, next slide, please. So moving to the upper level, the deck that was originally proposed and approved by the commission has been significantly reduced in size. It is confined solely to the northwestern corner of the site now. Access, which used to require access through the Excelsior stairs up and over, has been removed. All access will be interior. There will be a stair set that leads up to a first landing here, which will also be kind of, you know, an elevated deck guest amenity area with a small fire pit and room for a couple to sit and sip some wine. And there'll be another stair set here, small landing and a stair set up to the upper deck right there. And we'll see a rendering of this in a minute. That'll make it a little bit clearer for you all. Next slide, please. So the floor area, which was something that was discussed as being an issue prior to this, there were some interpretations about whether or not this was considered an inner court or not. This redesign of the back area has certainly eliminated any of those issues. This is clearly defined as an inner court. Now it's actually also reduced the floor area, which was proposed with the inner court exception, which is 1.29 to 1.28 without any exception at all now. So I think this is a pretty clear compliance with the 1.3 far requirement for the central commercial district, which cannot be exceeded by variance due to ordinance 1022 so project is fully compliant with Florida. Next slide please. This is just a section of the second floor addition, how we talked about this large space here, big, large windows. They're going to be adding a second floor within the building. This will house those suites we were talking about, one, two, three across. Here's the entrance to the restaurant, the old bank entrance, and the new entrance to the hotel upstairs. And this is just a highlight here of the detail of the plate and how that will connect to the windows. This was requested by our historic architect as well as the HPC, and they fully approved of this design. Next slide, please. So as discussed, a variance is required for this project. That's kind of been the hot button topic. We just had a long discussion about variances for the previous item. So, you know, this is obviously something that is sensitive. It's required to demolish and remodel the existing legal nonconforming structures, which occupy the rear setback today. So in order to demolish those and remodel them in a different configuration, a variance is required. The building was built in 1924. It has no setbacks. It's built out to the retaining walls on all sides. It's entirely different. and remodel them in a different configuration of variances required. The building was built in 1924. It has no setbacks. It's built out to the retaining walls on all sides. It's entirely contained within those existing retaining walls, which are very large and retaining walls over 30 feet and about two feet thick. So it's a very kind of unique building and unique situation that we're experiencing on the slope here, how it's terraced in. This is a registered historic building and historic resource, which limits the kind of use types that can happen. Can we go back, please? that limits the use types and the types of construction available. The building must be preserved, and any changes to it must respect the Secretary of Interior standards. Therefore, it's hard to achieve an adaptive reuse without a variance in this situation. The parcel is also substandard, again, harking back to a substandard parcel discussion we just had. That limits the use area and the building area available to the applicant, which is, again, substandard parcel of variance is required. It's not injurious to the surrounding parcels. It's abutted by the Excelsior right away on one side and bridgeway on the other. And in the back of the parcel is a vacant substandard parcel at the rear, which would really struggle to be developed as it's just about over 3000 feet and probably would require a number of variances for development there as well. And it is also has a commercial business on the other side on bridgeway. Next slide, please. So just to talk a little bit about this rear area, which is kind of the hot topic of this project. As you can see here, this is these large imposing retaining walls right here, here, and here, which run along the whole rear area of the site. This is the existing situation that you have back there. I've highlighted this section of the existing floor plan. Here's the floor plan for the bottom floor of the bank. This is the second floor. There are restrooms over there in the corner. Right now, this is where the restrooms would remain for the restaurant use. A large storage area in this area here. And then a lunch area, which is what it's called there. And just a large open space where the staircase from below leads up to this back area or the mezzanine level, as they call it in the old plan set. It's hard to see on this photo here, but there are some lines here and flags, which I can understand now are difficult to see, but that is where the bottom of that deck will be. So not much higher than here. All of this will be demolished and bring the floor level down considerably. So when this is all gone, you'll have about a a 35 36 foot drop from the top to here down there which is not what it is today right now it's about 15 feet so it's going to be considerably lower than this uh next slide please Here's the rendering I was speaking of earlier, which I think gives a better idea. It's a little bit harder to understand and you know, the floor plan concept, but you can see right here, here's the existing historic bank building. Rear structures here, here are those imposing retaining walls, the access point to the restrooms right here. This is that glass paneling I was discussing. There's the hot tub in the back corner and a stair set up to this little hangout area and then up to a landing. And then up to the deck, which has been considerably reduced in size and all access to that deck will now be inside the property and interior to the retaining walls. So we can go back to this rendering in the future if we want to look at it for some questions, but there you have it. I think this is a much improved design on what was presented before and what was approved before. And I think it respects a lot of the wishes, the neighbors and really helps kind of minimize any impacts on the surroundings. Next slide, please. Here's just some sections of that. This is looking back at the elevated deck. Electrical area up here, which is measured at 5'6", so it does not count as floor area. This is above the restrooms. Here's kind of the guest amenity area. The hot tub right here, which you can see, the hot tub is nestled right up against this rear retaining wall and 36 feet down. A very large concrete retaining wall. and above that are this whole staircase system that links up to the first kind of elevated deck landing and then the view large concrete retaining wall. And above that are this whole staircase system that links up to the first kind of elevated deck landing and then the view deck up top. Next slide, please. Just another section of that whole setup again here. Hot tub right here, as we can see very down at the bottom right now. So up against the back stair system to the first kind of elevated deck landing and then the view deck above next slide, please. So I just want to talk a little bit about this property surrounding it, because we did receive an appeal from this neighbor to the rear. In green is the Bridgeway property. It's in 1-5. Behind that is a vacant lot, which you can see right here, 12 excelsior. It's a 45-foot sloped lot that extends from 14 excelsior down. the deck which is the main issue with for the noise up here is 20 feet above the ground level a 45 foot slope down and another 35 feet down to the hot tub in the amenity area so just kind of want to highlight what this distance is I mean talking about a hot tub that's over 100 feet away from a deck and we have hot tubs in our residential neighborhoods that are much closer to adjoining decks than that. So just want to kind of paint that picture for you next slide please. Yeah. And just kind of looking at that in reality too, here's the deck up here, highlighted in red sloped empty parcel going down. And then the top of the retaining walls back here for seven, one, five bridgeway before the Excelsior stairs go down and Finna Delmar park. Next slide, please. Um, there was also a lot of concern expressed, uh, from the neighbors over at the Del Monte apartment buildings, which is this building right here in this L-shaped building that also abuts the Excelsior right away. Um, as you can see, I took some photos. Uh, there were some concerns that people living in this area, which has a bit, this is a big deck right here that looks out to this direction. Um, we're going to see and be, you know, looking at people and the noise. I just, I wanted to show a photo that actually this is the view that you get and that view is not changing. um these We're going to see and be, you know, looking at people and the noise. I just, I wanted to show a photo that actually this is the view that you get. And that view is not changing. These are very large, thick retaining walls. And all the majority of activity down in the lower will be happening 35 feet below. And the upper deck is far in this corner over here. There was someone who said, you know, they live in this unit right here. And that they're going to see, you know, all the stuff going on, all these people. And you know what? This is probably the only point in which you will see the deck even a little bit. And it'll be up in this corner here and it's only the top's going to be right around there. So in this one unit, you may glimpse some people up there at some point, but you also have a public stairway that people are passing on frequently right in front of you. Next slide, please. So a number of use permits are required for this project. We need a conditional use permit for the hotel use in the central commercial zone. It is allowed on a second floor pursuant to SMC 1044190DA, which provides exceptions to residential requirements for qualifying projects. As some of you or all of you are probably aware, this ordinance was recently amended and approved by the City Council on May 20th and officially updated and went into effect on June 20th. So this ordinance is now in effect. It provides exceptions to providing residential uses on upper floors in certain circumstances where projects qualify, in particular, when a project's received a COA. like this project has in a historic building, it can qualify for this exception, which this project does. Conditional use permit is required for the sale of alcohol. Pretty straightforward. A conditional use permit, which is a new permit going in front of the commission today, is required for a parking waiver pursuant to our parking standards. If a building, if a new project is preserving historic structure in a historic district, which this project does, it is then entitled to a parking waiver through a conditional use permit. I'd also like to point out that all of the hotels existing in the CC district rent parking spaces from the city out of their lots. Not one of the hotels that we have in the city can support the parking that's required for the number of rooms that they have. So this is a very common practice that the city rents out parking spaces to the to the hotel and to the guests. And it's typically that that cost of parking is typically passed on to the guests as well by a number of hotels. If you look at their web pages, they typically have a thirty dollar per day fee for that. So this is a really standard thing to not be able to park a hotel. And this is only three rooms. Minor use permit is also required for outdoor dining on sidewalks. Sidewalk dining encroachment is required from CDD once this is approved. This is typically a permit that's heard by the zoning administrator. However, because it's bundled with this project, it's being approved by the Planning Commission today. Outdoor dining is subject to a number of conditions in the municipal code, which are also listed in the draft resolution. and the outdoor dining will be for 16 people on a 12-foot wide sidewalk and is nearby a number of other multiple outdoor dining areas in the CC district, which we'll look at now next slide please. Yeah, so just want to highlight again, here's the property, so M15 Bridgeway. The stars are approved MUPs for outdoor dining, Copita, Cultivar, which should hopefully open soon, Lappert's, and Napa Valley Burger Co., all just on this one short block here. There's a number of others this way and that way. So a lot of good synergy here with, you know, other restaurant uses and outdoor dining uses. I'd also like to point out there's two hotels right here and right here as well. Next slide, please. Um, this is the layout for the proposed outdoor seating, uh, four tables with, uh, four people at each table for 16 seats. Um, this project originally came in first at 20, um, when it was first approved by the commission, that number was conditioned down to 16. So that's what the applicant is presented here today. And there's the passive travel right here of four feet wide, which is the 48 inches, which is required by our municipal code. Next slide, please. So sign permit again pretty straightforward largely mimics the original signage that was here with the wells Fargo building doesn't increase the total signage by more than you know, a quarter of a square foot. So pretty much identical here. So this was approved recommended for approval by the HPC which kind of has a stricter and harder approval process when it comes to the signs in historic district. So these will be illuminated as well. Next slide. And here's just some examples of what that will look like some light illumination. I know these are a little bit hard to see, but a black with kind of a white light coming through soft. Um, there'll be a little led stripped installed and recessed in the cornice above the building as well to light the, in the pocket sign above. Next slide, please. Um, certificate of appropriateness, which was recommended by the HPC for your approval. Um, all of the defining features, including, uh, let's the decorative freeze terracotta medallions, Corinthian column capitals, copper grill work and sash, as well as the Romanesque arch windows will all be preserved, all remain intact, restored and maintained. Next slide, please. So let's talk about some of the conditions of approval, because I know that that's a hot-button issue. We've heard a lot about managers and potential rowdy guests, that there's a lot of fear about that. We have built in a condition here so that a hotel concierge or welcome ambassador shall be on site during the operating hours of the restaurant, which certain days run to 11 p.m. and 12 a.m. the concierge or welcome ambassadors shall be available for contact by hotel guests 24 hours a day for which certain days run to 11 and 12 p.m. and 12 a.m. the concierge or welcome ambassador shall be available for contact by hotel guests 24 hours a day for any issues that arise outside of those operating hours. A 24-hour manager, I just want to make this clear to everyone on the commission, is not required by the SMC or the general plan in any way, and it's really typically not seen with boutique hotels or limited-service hotels such as this, especially for a three-room boutique hotel. Hotel Sausalito across the street, which has 16 keys, Um, and, uh, the Gables Inn, which has 13 keys located on princess street, do not have 24 hour manager staffing at the front desk. If you were to go down the front desk at three, four in the morning, there's not someone sitting there. They have phone numbers and emails and things that you can contact people just like this hotel would have, um, also doing a. you know, brief kind of scan through our code complaints. We've not found any record of existing code complaints for any hotel uses in Sausalito. I've certainly not heard of one since I've been with the city. So it's not like we have a rowdy hotel culture in this town that we're going to be augmenting by adding another hotel, especially with three keys. Use of the hotel common area and amenity area, including the elevated decks, must be limited to registered guests and will be restricted by key card access. That's built into this resolution. I spoke to the applicant about this, and he also wants to make it clear that guests of registered guests may also use these amenities. We wouldn't want to not allow someone who has a friend staying at the hotel to come, you know, have a glass of wine or hang out and, and, and check out the room. So as long as you're with a registered guest, you could have access to those amenities as well. So we might be tweaking that condition a little bit in line with the applicant's wishes on that to clarify that. Otherwise, it could appear that only registered hotel guests are the only people allowed in the hotel. Use of the hotel common area and amenity area, including the elevated decks, will be prohibited from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. And the use of these spaces must comply with the city's noise ordinance, which is found in SMC 1216. For any noise complaints, you have the manager there on site during operator hours, as well as reachable via phone 24 seven. If, if you need to fall back on additional things, anything else happening, there's always this hospital, the police department, as well as our code enforcement officer, who we heard from earlier tonight. Next slide, please. So with that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving this project for a new joint hotel and restaurant use in the historic building at 715 Bridgeway. The proposed project is designed appropriately, will not result in a substantial adverse impact on the historic resource or the district. The proposed project is conformance with all the findings in the Sausalito Municipal Code for the permits requested. The Planning Commission and HPC both previously approved this project unanimously in 2024. The proposed use fills a very difficult vacant space in the heart of our town, in the Central Commercial Corridor, in a historic building, and preserve that building. The proposed uses, the restaurant and the hotel, are also a boon for economic development and vitality with sales tax and TOT tax coming in from those. And of course, the approval will be subject to the conditions provided in the resolution, as well as any other conditions that are added tonight and voted on and approved. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions from the commission. Thank you. |
| 02:42:39.37 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. That was a lot to get through, especially for a second time. I appreciate it. Appreciate your presentation. We're going to have some questions from the commission, I'm sure. Commissioner Marlott, welcome back. Would you like to start us off any questions for Matthew? |
| 02:42:54.59 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you very much, and thank you, Matthew, for another presentation. It feels like I've seen this before, but it's always good to see them again. This is more of a technical nature. I see in the draft resolution that small change to the use of the common area must be limited to registered guests. It still says that in the draft resolution. So is staff requesting effectively that the commission, if we approve tonight, add that as a condition of approval? |
| 02:43:22.53 | Matthew Mandich | The one that I just discussed in it. Yeah. So that was feedback from the mechanics. |
| 02:43:23.97 | David Marlatt | Yeah, so that was feedback from the... |
| 02:43:26.04 | Matthew Mandich | Feedback from the applicant on that condition, just trying to clarify that language a little bit that, you know, as long as you're accompanied by a registered key folding, yes. Yeah. So some clarity on that. |
| 02:43:35.76 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. |
| 02:43:36.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:43:37.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:43:37.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:43:37.13 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:43:37.21 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:43:37.38 | Matthew Mandich | Yep. |
| 02:43:39.12 | Fred Moore | Thank you, Commissioner Moore. You had to be an auctioneer sometime, right? Appreciate that. And I really do appreciate that you added some additional slides there from last time presentation, especially concerning the property immediately behind the project as well as across the street. We've obviously gotten numerous public comments regarding those. So I think those photos add some significant clarity to the distances between those homes and the proposed views, as well as the height difference as well in the views. I had three pages of questions, but you answered a lot of them. So let me go through here and see which ones remain. |
| 02:43:44.67 | Fred Moore | Yeah, very quick, so. |
| 02:44:22.73 | Fred Moore | answer about the project behind where it was in relation to it. But you also indicate about the other hotels that they don't have some of the conditions that some of the comments were asking for. |
| 02:44:39.79 | Fred Moore | about the parking. You also indicated that all the hotels, they're renting parking, they don't have parking on site. |
| 02:44:46.23 | Matthew Mandich | Correct. |
| 02:44:46.69 | Fred Moore | At the house, how far the house is away. The setbacks are going to remain the same, built it within the retaining wall. I appreciate you reiterating that. You've had a lot of comments about Excelsior Lane and the use of Excelsior Lane. So my understanding is Excelsior Lane is a public street. The staircase is a public street. And is it correct to assume that there's no limitations on the residents on that street about deliveries they can have, parking they can have? There's nothing specific to those homes that we would have to impose on the project as well, right? |
| 02:45:21.77 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, that is correct. It is a public right of way, both the stair set and the street. And I will, you know, reiterate here just for the concern of those neighbors back there that, you know, that's not really an entry point to the hotel that, you know, or the restaurant specifically that people will be using, um, all, you know, deliveries access is all intended to be from bridgeway. That is a public right away. Of course, you can't say you can't use the street. So, um, to, you know, walk to a certain use, but, um, that's not going to be a heavily trafficked area of this site by any means. Um, the entrance to both the hotel and the restaurant is on bridgeway. And that is the easiest place to do deliveries, get things in and out of the building. This is where the big doors are. Trying to carry things down through a stair set or up and down stair is just not practical. So any concern, I understand there being previous concern about guests using Excelsior to exit the building, go up the stairs and go onto the deck, that's not been eliminated. Everything is contained inside those retaining walls. So there really shouldn't be any kind of activity on those steps related to the hotel really in any significant way, any more than there is today. |
| 02:46:30.91 | Fred Moore | So I appreciate you also answering the question about the staffing of other hotels. They don't have this 24-hour on-site staffing. So imposing on this project would be very unique. You just mentioned the access points. They did change that. So the access point now to the stairway from that deck area, that's for emergency only now? |
| 02:46:37.35 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:46:50.03 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. It's intended to be primarily for that use, yes. |
| 02:46:52.69 | Fred Moore | Okay. And the signage program, so one of the signs is, I think it's on the west side, is a projecting sign. Um, That's only the three signs, right? The sign at the top, the sign on the left, and then the projecting sign, or is there a fourth sign? |
| 02:47:09.05 | Matthew Mandich | There's a force sign on the Southern facade that mimics the one on the Eastern facade says the pocket. It kind of has a corner wrap. |
| 02:47:16.62 | Fred Moore | So it doesn't, it's not protruding. It's actually on the building. |
| 02:47:16.66 | Matthew Mandich | Uh-huh. It's a wall sign, yeah. |
| 02:47:26.55 | Nastassya Saad | You really do have three pages of questions. I'm looking. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 02:47:29.08 | Patrice Storm Taylor | isn't |
| 02:47:29.53 | Miranda Mingus | Thank you. |
| 02:47:34.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair. I just have a few. Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate this welcome ambassador that we put in last time that the applicant agreed to was great. And I think I suggested at the last one the interior stairway, so I'm happy to see the interior stairway, and it moves the upper deck even farther from the steps, so that's good. I had a question on the stairs just confirming not only does it only have the one access rather than two that they had before to the stairway, but it's exit only. They're not intending, since you can get in from the inside, it would be locked, basically, and people could exit. It could be emergency exit, but generally, no one's going to be going in that way. Is that what you're understanding? |
| 02:48:23.01 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, the idea is to have the main access point be from Bridgeway. And I can let the applicants speak on this a little bit more. They're probably better equipped to answer some of those questions about the logistics of that gate. But, yeah, the intention is to enter on Bridgeway. I mean, that's the front of the building. |
| 02:48:36.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. And I just had a question about FAR. On that hot tub, which I think was under a roof before, if you were to put a glass trellis or just something over it, I'm not sure you would do that over a hot tub, but it just would, and if it's completely open on the sides, it's not counted as FAR, is it? |
| 02:49:01.38 | Matthew Mandich | So, I mean, there's a, in the code when it comes to the FAR, um, it says weatherproof materials. So, I mean, I would assume that like a, something glass, it depends. I mean, we'd have, it'd be something that you would have to look at to determine whether or not, I mean, if you're closing it from side to side and enclosing that whole space with like a glass roof, I mean, that was part of the problem with the FAR before. And now we want to add that back. I mean, they've made significant changes to address that issue. Um, there's also, you know, a stair set that kind of hangs over that area too, and it's deeply recessed, um, down to the very bottom of those retaining walls. Um, so I don't know how much noise is going to be an issue there with all of the other things going on, putting a glass roof over it, I think, kind of defeats the purpose of, you know, shrinking the deck and addressing these FAR issues. |
| 02:49:14.44 | Attorney Rudin | to do. |
| 02:49:55.28 | Matthew Mandich | I mean, that's something that you can obviously ask the applicant about, but, um, Yeah, that's just my interpretation of that. If it's weatherproof and metal and it would be considered far, it says, you know, weatherproof material. |
| 02:49:59.13 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 02:50:07.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not suggesting putting it around it. I was just thinking of a sound reflection, something that's not doing anything. Let me ask you, I sent you some condition language in a document that we could bring up, which I'd like to bring up so that we can do this before the applicant and before public comment, if we could bring that document. |
| 02:50:29.93 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, we have that ready. Yep. Receive that. |
| 02:50:44.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The one from today. Yeah. I picked that type. |
| 02:50:44.64 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 02:50:46.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:50:47.04 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:51:28.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh... Did this in advance because I thought it would be so important. We had it queued. Simple. Don't pressure. |
| 02:51:31.77 | Fred Moore | Oh, yeah. I'll be straight forward. |
| 02:51:33.98 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, don't pressure Maria. She'll get there. Give her a second. |
| 02:51:38.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. It's just a one page. |
| 02:51:40.30 | Nastassya Saad | Get in. Thank you. Well, that's happening. Can I just ask a question then? Can you please |
| 02:51:43.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Please. |
| 02:51:45.97 | Nastassya Saad | um explain the square footage on that deck, because it was reduced. It's reduced quite significantly. Do you know what that reduction is? |
| 02:51:57.73 | Matthew Mandich | the absolute number of how much it went down. I don't often tell you my head. Yeah, we'd have to look. But yeah, it was cut by like basically half. |
| 02:51:59.68 | Nastassya Saad | I don't often tell you my own. Okay. THE END OF THE END OF THE It looks significantly small, right? Okay, just wanted to check. Thank you. |
| 02:52:06.37 | Matthew Mandich | Not more. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, there we go. Thank you for that. Thank you. |
| 02:52:12.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, so these are additional conditions that we can discuss when we get to deliberations, but I'm suggesting... |
| 02:52:14.18 | Matthew Mandich | some additional |
| 02:52:24.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | As the Commission remembers most of the big Commission, we did a parklet and outdoor dining report to the City Council where we require, and part and parcel of that was to require five foot minimum for sidewalk clearance. As well. I'm suggesting in this particular case, given the stairs and the bus stop, and they have enough room to do it that we require a five foot minimum. And this is a standard that the commission gave to the city council that we wanted to foresee for outdoor dining and parklets throughout Sausalito. And then, Most of the, in that document, most of the chairs and tables are against the building because it stops the tables coming out. This is true of most of the ones that were shown on the building, along with Angelenos and others. So most of them that are along the sidewalk, right at the building, they don't have the chairs at the building because if you push the tables out and the chairs out, people have trouble getting by. So I'm suggesting that, and we can talk about those more later, but those were all part of the Parklet report that we sent to the city council. I'm suggesting adding the construction management plan, which we talked about in the earlier case, and then I'm suggesting adding no deliveries for construction and hotel and restaurant operations will occur on the vehicular portion of Excelsior Lane. That is, the applicant was okay with that the last time. I don't think they're going to use it. The neighborhood's concerned about it, and it is difficult to turn around. So putting it in as a condition seemed to make sense. I just wanted to lay this out here now so that if the applicant or public have any comments, a lot of this is to address the concerns of the people who live on Excelsior Lane that there aren't going to be trucks coming down Excelsior Lane which can't turn around. So with that, I will yield back. |
| 02:54:25.85 | Matthew Mandich | Can I possibly address some of these just very briefly from a staff perspective? So I think the five foot clearance could be manageable. It's not what's required by our current municipal code. But if the applicant's amenable to that, I think it can be managed based on the size of the sidewalk there, which is 12 feet. As far as pushing the tables flush against the wall and not having seats facing out to the park and the bay, I don't know if they would be amenable to that, but I will let them answer. As far as the construction management plan, so yeah, this came up. It's been coming up recently. Our submittal checklist requirement, just so the commission's aware, does not require a construction management plan be included in a planning submittal. What it does require is a construction staging area be identified on the plan set, which it was for this. So if we want to put in a construction management plan as part of our submittal checklist moving forward and take that on as as something that the commission would like to see or like to have included or if you want to just have this be a boilerplate condition of approval moving forward as this is submitted before the building permit phase this is certainly something that we can continue to move forward with i just want to clarify that it's not a submittal requirement for the review right now um and we could also it doesn't have to be it could also just be a boilerplate condition we have 10 kind of standard conditions that are template conditions that we apply to every project we've worked with Attorney Rudin on those. And if this, you know, needs to be condition 11 that we move forward with on all projects that certainly something we can take on board. As for the 12 on the deliveries, I think the applicant might be amenable to that. I don't know if that's fully legal to condition use of a public right-of-way by the deliveries. I think the applicant might be amenable to that. I don't know if that's fully legal to condition use of a public right away by the planning commission. So again, I'd let attorney Rudin weigh in on that. But yeah, those are just some initial comments on those. But thank you for providing. |
| 02:55:29.84 | Sandra Bushmaker | now. |
| 02:56:06.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, can I just have a follow-on on the construction management plan? This is too early for them to do a construction management plan. They need to do it at the building permit stage. The only point to have it here is not that we want it in the application or in the documents. We want them to know that at the time of the building permit, they're going to have to tell the CDD department where are the workers going to park, how is that going to work, if they have to close the street with flagmen, how is it going to work? Who's the general contractor? What's his phone number? So I'm saying this should be a standard condition. I'm not saying we want to put it in the application checklist because it's too early. |
| 02:56:46.64 | Matthew Mandich | Got it. Understood. Thank you. |
| 02:56:48.70 | Nastassya Saad | Appreciate that. Thank you for pulling that up, Maria. Thank you, Matthew. Vice Chair, any questions for staff? No questions for staff. And we can get to this later. I just want to want to, it just looks so greatly reduced on that deck that I would just love to know what the old square footage was versus the new one. But we can get to that shortly. So thank you. Commissioner Marlott. |
| 02:57:14.08 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you very much. I had two questions, Matthew. Yeah. One is, if we can go back to that slide that showed the neighbor's property, the 45 feet wide property. And while they're doing it, my question is, the total vertical distance between the appellant's deck is 20 feet vertically, and then whatever the cross slope is of that 45 foot which if it's two to one, that's 22 feet vertically or something like that. And then another 35 feet. Yeah, correct. So it's something like 65, 80, 85, 90 feet vertically between that deck and the hot dog. |
| 02:57:42.74 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. down. |
| 02:57:53.35 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, probably something like that. Okay. |
| 02:57:54.85 | David Marlatt | Okay, and now that's important. I don't think sound can travel that well, but we'll talk about that later. My other question, if you can put up the slide, it was section one in your slide. And this might be for the applicants who just tell me, it was a section that was kind of through the upper roof deck and the whole building. |
| 02:58:15.39 | Matthew Mandich | Okay. Oh, yeah, the section. Yeah, yeah. A little bit further. |
| 02:58:17.94 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 02:58:18.14 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Once we get to the variants, yeah. |
| 02:58:20.00 | David Marlatt | And what I was looking for in the drawings that I didn't see is with your laser point or something, can you approximate where the natural grade would fall from the upper right to the lower left? |
| 02:58:23.05 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, there they are. |
| 02:58:27.77 | Matthew Mandich | Yep. |
| 02:58:34.64 | Matthew Mandich | Well, it kind of falls along the line that you're seeing of this retaining wall here, cause that's where the stair set goes. |
| 02:58:40.16 | David Marlatt | That's the wall from Excel. |
| 02:58:42.96 | Matthew Mandich | Oh, you want to know about back here? Yeah, then that's like kind of like right in here. |
| 02:58:44.55 | David Marlatt | Yeah, the natural. from there. |
| 02:58:48.50 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, where that lot is. Yeah. |
| 02:58:50.22 | David Marlatt | So is it correct then that this new observation deck, if you had a, think about it from a lot coverage point of view, where you take a sort of a virtual natural grade, the, if the grade had continued across without this 35 foot cut, that observation deck would actually be below the natural grade. |
| 02:59:08.36 | Matthew Mandich | Uh, yeah. |
| 02:59:08.39 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. So if it was, and again, this will come up later maybe when we discuss the variance. So if this was just a sloped lot, you know, didn't have this cut in it, and they had a 15-foot rear yard, they could build anything up to two feet above the natural grade without a permit and without lot coverage. |
| 02:59:29.54 | Matthew Mandich | That's correct, yes, for an accessory structure. |
| 02:59:32.66 | David Marlatt | No, for a death. |
| 02:59:33.71 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, which is an accessory. In this case. |
| 02:59:35.23 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 02:59:36.96 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. Okay. But yes, for a deck, yes. Anything that's under two feet average natural grade does not count as building coverage. Right. |
| 02:59:44.67 | David Marlatt | Right, right. So someone could have parties out there on their deck in their rear yard. |
| 02:59:50.41 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 02:59:50.77 | David Marlatt | Okay, thanks. That's my question. |
| 02:59:51.00 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not. you |
| 02:59:52.83 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thanks. That's my question. Thank you, Commissioner Marl. Appreciate that. Appreciate the details. Okay. Thank you very much, Matthew. So we are going to go ahead and turn it over to whom else? |
| 02:59:57.55 | David Marlatt | I appreciate that. |
| 02:59:58.28 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 03:00:09.23 | Nastassya Saad | The applicant. Hello. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't see you there. I think you moved up. Welcome. Thank you for being here again this evening. We appreciate it. Very nice to see you. You're going to have 15 minutes. I think you know the drill. You're welcome to save some of your time for rebuttal after public comment if you wish. But the floor is yours for the next 15 minutes. Perfect. |
| 03:00:12.91 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 03:00:12.92 | Unknown | I didn't see you. |
| 03:00:17.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:00:29.41 | Kent Ibsen | um i think i i'm gonna start by well thank you all for it's nice to see you all again uh but uh start by uh kind of hitting on some of these things first uh commissioner luxembourg at we have no uh, Excelsior up there. No one wants to carry 200 pounds of bone and rib eyes down 48, 50 stairs. So we'll take all, all of our landings and everything. And it's also where the elevator is. And if you're going to go, it's easier to take an elevator up than just to park there. That was one of the things that the con. So I, I, I have the whole sheet that the cons had sent a door, their council had sent to you. So I wanted to kind of go through that systematically as well. Um, But yeah, that that's not an issue. And then also with regard to the, um, the egress out to excels here, the cons had asked that that be conditioned that it, um, that it be emergency exit only. I'm absolutely fine with it for the exact same reason that the cons want it. I want to monitor anyone that comes in the restaurant. We own the building. We own the. the restaurant. We own the hotel. I have no interest in having a bunch of yahoos trying to get in a side door. So we're fine with that, too. And I think the construction management, just make it a condition. We're going to submit the project with it. So I can't recall whether there was something else, but I'm sure you'll bring it up. The reason I want to guests of guests, I just that's just not If any of you can bring up one hotel that you've ever gone to that they said you, your guests can't have guests. Um, then maybe I would consider it. It's just not a thing. guests of the end, they they can have. We're not talking about parties, we're talking about two businessmen that want to go over a project before they go and present it. They they got to be able to come in. So I think I think and I did have a long conversation with the Miss Cons counsel. even on the drive in here today. So we worked through a lot of these things. Um, I, I even looked at my phone prior to coming up here to see if we were all good, but, um, I didn't hear back. So she'll, I'm sure she'll come in through, uh, zoom. Um, With regard to They had some things about residential noise ordinances as opposed to commercial noise ordinances. I just want we're on we're on the corner of A&A at 715 Bridgeway. I just want the same noise ordinances that every other hotel has, which is the commercial noise ordinance. We have to be. compliant to that. Otherwise, even, you know, the compliance officer that was here earlier today, he was like, no, this guy's got a different one. You know, he's the guy in the middle. He's got a residential and the commercial, we're fine with that too. They had asked for us to not have vegetation go up above the wall. We actually put the vegetation in, to Long story short, all the cons had cut down their trees because they were scrub trees, I guess. And then they kind of didn't like what they saw. So we said we will we will plant and. Now, they don't want them above the wall, so that's fine. They won't be above the wall. There was another thing that they asked for. It was on the same line as the emergency exit. They asked to not have a fire pit there. We want the fire pit. I mean, that's an amenity to our guests. It accommodates like two people, three people. And just to give some perspective here, what we're talking about too, because it's really hard if you're not looking at it three dimensionally and spinning this thing around, which clay did make it three dimensional. But when I'm standing on this deck, I measured this the last time I was here for the city council hearing that roof. That's the top of the wall. So if there's a couple sitting there having a glass of wine, Or even more so if they're down in the hot tub and they cheers a glass of wine that needs to travel up 20 feet hit the stairwell climb around the stairwell hit the wall go up 11 feet turn the corner go do West and go up another 60 feet. It's just, It's that's a, that's a lot to ask. So the fireplace itself on that secondary deck is a good. 20 feet, 18 to 20 feet below the top of the retaining wall. So it doesn't benefit anyone. And to your point, um, about the covering the, uh, the hot tub, this, this kind of the, the new, plan, the genesis of it was the FAR. And we calculated it. 0.76% below the 1.3 and it was calculated by another commissioner is and and confirmed by the city it's 0.76 above. the the wall. 1.3. So the entire adjustment, it was made, which actually made it better because we could take all the stairwells inside and make it better that way. But, um, a big part of that was. Opening up that space. Now, if we covered again. we could be back in the far. But I think to put everyone's mind at rest, you're asking sound to do a lot. you know, to actually get to the base of the Cons Home Foundation. So I think we're okay there. So that was one I didn't really want to move on. But making an emergency exit, totally fine with it. And then this thing about the 24 hour on site. So I. This is not pie in the sky for me. We've done this in Carmel for the last five years. We have over 500 bookings, so we've put it to the test. I would like to say that everyone has given me these great star reviews because of my brilliance as a designer and what I've done to it. But I think the majority of it is the interpersonal connection that we make with our welcome ambassador and they make relationships. As soon as that person comes into the parking lot across the street, they grab their bags, they bring them in, they bring them into the restaurant, they introduce them to our staff. Then they take the bags upstairs. If they have a cocktail or if they have a beverage with them, they get that upstairs. That person is in charge of that group until they put their bags back in the car. It's a butler. Services, a concierge service. They also take care of restaurants, not just mine. We'll push them to mine, but also other restaurants. And, you know, whether they want to go boating or whatever they want to do, that person is there for it's not. Not knocking a Holiday Inn Express, it's just not that. This is a full concierge service, and this is what has worked for us in Carmel. And in that regard, I'm going to toot my own horn for just a second. Over 500 bookings, we have a 4.985 star rating. So some jerk, two jerks gave me a four. Otherwise, all fives. So it works. It's a system that works. It makes it much more personal. And, um, and then I did call Jane Burton. That's the person that runs it down in Carmel. She's moving up here to Sausalito to run this project. So that's already etched in stone. I asked her how many times do we have a guest call us after 10 o'clock in the evening? She said, we've got three. One, they couldn't turn off the golf simulator because they forgot where the switch was. One, we had a power outage and the surge protector was buzzing. Didn't know how to turn that off. And the other one, we have an electronic bed that comes out of a wall. They couldn't find the button. Those were the three. So, you know, it, the system works and typically then the rest people from the restaurant, if we've got to get a bed out, then someone will go up and help get the bed out. but so we have people on site and, uh, you know, trying to, trying to work with the cons attorney, trying to, uh, you know, find neutral ground here. We did a really good job. It's just, there's a couple things that, um, it adversely impacts the economic viability and the beauty of the project. And that's where I kind of lose my flex. I'll reserve my time for any additional questions. |
| 03:09:10.29 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. If we can ask you just to stay up here at the podium, you do have six minutes and 21 seconds remaining. So we appreciate it. We will... Mo- |
| 03:09:25.16 | Kent Ibsen | Thank you. |
| 03:09:25.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:09:25.23 | Kent Ibsen | state my name. |
| 03:09:26.51 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, we'd appreciate that. |
| 03:09:28.33 | Kent Ibsen | Kent Ibsen. |
| 03:09:29.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. So I'm going to just open it up to the Commission to ask some questions. Commissioner Marlott. Thank you. |
| 03:09:36.77 | David Marlatt | I don't know. No questions at this time. |
| 03:09:38.27 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, Commissioner Moore. No questions. Thank you very much. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 03:09:45.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I just had one you didn't answer, but that was very thorough. In our downtown, when it gets crowded, and we're hoping your restaurant gets crowded, most of the places we have a minimum of five feet walking through. So we want to put a condition on, you have five feet. In most of the cases, and your sidewalk's slightly wider, the tables are against the building, and the reason for that is you have to put the tables in every night. You're aware. You have to put the tables inside every night. So they're movable. So what happens is your guests start to move them out, and if you have them against the wall, make sure you maintain the five feet. But the most important part of that is a condition to maintain the five feet. Do you have any issue with that? |
| 03:10:17.77 | Karen Levon Eloyan | Right. |
| 03:10:17.98 | Sandra Bushmaker | Right. |
| 03:10:33.65 | Kent Ibsen | So I'm okay with the five feet. The one thing that we wanted, we maybe want to consider here. I think when I was at the planning commission hearing last time I I conditioned myself because you conditioned me with tables and I was like you condition you should condition me with seats because I can make a big table and so it's 16 seats we did this at our restaurant this new restaurant we have in Clayton called N.A. Latin table we have a very similar situation where we have a tight dining area seven feet and what we did is we built in So we put planters all around it because I feel like we need more soft scape and we need to soften up the facade of the building. It's a lot of, of of hard surfaces. So we put planters around that were relatively thin. But then we had counter, it's kind of like the counter that is at the barrel house that sits out and looks out to the water. |
| 03:11:31.30 | John Diamod | Okay. |
| 03:11:31.79 | Kent Ibsen | And it goes and outlines the patio because we have to do that for the ABC. We have to we have to keep everyone inside a wall so to, I'm OK with the five feet, but we have to be very creative with how we do it, because if you do planters and then for your barricade for the ABC and then you keep getting back, you will have seven feet in total. And so the service and everything can't get around it. So, um, you know, I, I'm, I'm happy to take it to Matthew and, and we stay with the 16 seats, but then your vantage is out to the park and your vantage is out to the bay. Um, if you turn the way you're talking, just not looking at anything, it's not very fun. Um, but, um, We have no problems with complying with the 16. In seats, it's just how they're configured once we, because the other option, the thinnest thing that we can do to create an ABC barrier is put up, go to Home Depot and put up a railing. And that's freaking ugly. So we want to do something that's pretty... that draws people, and especially when they're coming off the ferry, that really softens the space. And sometimes that, and then you do those at bar height, then it's just truly lovely. As opposed to just sticking four tables up against a wall, it doesn't seem very well thought out. |
| 03:12:57.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, no, my biggest concern is the five feet, because I knew that the ABC is going to require what you're saying. But realize that the conditions that are already there for this require, as the other people do on Bridgeway, take all this stuff in every night. |
| 03:13:04.90 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 03:13:16.26 | Kent Ibsen | Yeah. Unless it's permanent, right. Unless it's like a permanent piece of, of stone, if it's a counter, but then we take the chairs all in and everything, but that border would stay. Um, |
| 03:13:28.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, that's a possibility, but you haven't proposed that and we would have to approve that. |
| 03:13:35.04 | Kent Ibsen | Let's just stick with what we've got right now. And, uh, and, but yeah, I mean, you can go to the dance with the girl that's getting us here and we'll go visit that some other time. |
| 03:13:38.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And, uh, Yeah, I mean, you can have some... You have some letters that are physically, you just bring them in or whatever. But the intent is at night the area will be cleared. |
| 03:13:50.69 | Kent Ibsen | I'm okay with also the five feet clear from whatever that barrier is for the ABC to the edge of the sidewalk. I'm fine with that condition. |
| 03:13:58.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And then at night, you'll have all 12 feet supposedly. That's the way everybody does it. |
| 03:14:04.98 | Kent Ibsen | No, everything will come in. It just want to make it, um, attractive. |
| 03:14:08.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, and we would like you to make it attractive as well. All right. I'm mostly concerned about the five feet. I'm done with questions. |
| 03:14:17.50 | Nastassya Saad | Great. Thank you. Um, face chair. Thank you. I, too, don't have any questions. We appreciate you. Okay. So you can go ahead and sit down. And we do have a lot of public comment. The last I checked right before this meeting, I think I counted 31... |
| 03:14:24.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:14:36.52 | Nastassya Saad | pieces of public comment that were posted to this agenda. So it's a hot topic item. We did receive that in writing. We have all read that. We do have a lot of folks online and in the room. So I'm actually going to limit public comment to two minutes a speaker this evening in the sake of efficiency because it is 9.45 p.m. already. I am going to turn it over to our assistant city manager, Phipps, to help facilitate it. Thank you very much. |
| 03:15:04.70 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Sure, thank you very much. Happy to facilitate. I'm sorry. Happy to facilitate. Sir, if you'd like to provide public comment during the public comment period, which is now, Yes. |
| 03:15:17.68 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. for members of the public, we have somebody in the chambers that are speaking. Just to clear that, yes, I am entitled to limit public comment to whatever I see fit, and I'm going to stick with the two minutes due to the excessive public comment that we've already received, but more than that, we have plenty of people that wish to speak. So everyone will have their time. We'd like to move forward since we have a lot to get through here. Director Phipps. |
| 03:15:46.53 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Chair, thank you. Welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 03:15:57.43 | Babette | Thank you for acknowledging me. First of all, once again, I want to say nice job, team. I'm just really pleased that you guys are like drilling down on details, all y'all. And really this matters because it just gets more complicated. I almost feel like these are warm-up drills. Just remember, I think as a resident, from the resident perspective, the biggest problem, perhaps, if it is a problem, is the change in the use of the building. It used to be a Monday, Friday, 9 to 5. And so it was quiet in that neighborhood at night. So to the extent that now it's going to become, it's probably going to be a truly happening place. And, The smaller tables on the sidewalk, I don't have too much trouble with because it is called the pocket after all. So that kind of fits. But the other thing that I also would like to point out is that if you look at the history of this neighborhood, For those of you who know the no-name bar, the no-name bar had to go through all kinds of histrionics just to tamp down the sound from all the live jazz music that was disturbing the neighborhood above. And ultimately, over time, they found a resolution. So I think we're moving into a time. where hopefully Sausalito's nightlife will kind of kick up a little bit. And so that means we're going to hear, like I do, from the cruising club, Because we live in an acoustical bowl in Newtown. I live in the, this is Newtown. And everything, you hear everything where I live. I mean everything. whether you like it or not. So it's an acoustical ball. I can't describe it scientifically. I just know it exists. So it's possible downtown has a similar dynamic. I don't know. But I will say that change equals paradigm shift. And any time we can take a neighborhood that is desperate to bring economy to life, I say let's work with it. Thank you. And I think over time, the neighbors, I think we can strike a better balance if we need to. Thank you. |
| 03:18:00.40 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, Ms. McDougall, for being present this evening and for your comments. Next speaker is Carolyn Revell. Ms. Revell, welcome. You will have two minutes. |
| 03:18:11.73 | Carolyn Revell | Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. I support the conversion of the Wells Fargo building to a restaurant and boutique hotel and urge the members of the commission to approve the project with the various variances and conditions. This thoughtful adaptive reuse of an historic building will enliven the central business district. It meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The Sausalito Historic Guidelines received a preliminary certificate of completeness, whatever it's called, the Historic Preservation Commission. It will reinforce the enhancements that are going on downtown, work we're trying to do in the bid, et cetera, The city of Sausalito is so fortunate to have a developer with a successful track record as current developers in Carmel, who's bringing his experience here. Let's go forward with this project. I'm quite aware of the concerns of the neighbors, but it seems as if the developer has been trying very hard to address them with the reduction in the size of the deck and the access only from inside, with just the fire escape access and the condition that you were concerned about, Commissioner Luxembourg, about no construction access during... inside with just the fire escape access and the condition that you were concerned about commissioner luxembourg about um no uh construction access during uh on excelsior lane it sounds like the developer is on board with that so let's go forward with this project it's gone on too long and we really need to uh see it happen thank you |
| 03:19:29.11 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, Carolyn, for your comments. Next speaker is Mr. Bass. Welcome. I have two minutes. |
| 03:19:40.30 | Wright Bass | My name is Wright Bass. I live on Excelsior Lane, kind of kitty-corner to where that observation deck is going to be. And I can see it from my deck out front. I'm not right next to it. Anyway, I've lived on that street on and off since 1965. In 1965, we're on that lot that's now vacant between Sharon's Place and the bank. And hippies would go down there and sleep and whatnot. And you can hear them. We could hear them. So the sound does carry up. Just want to let you know that. Anyway, I think that the security for his guests isn't that good because it's really easy to look over that retaining wall from the stairs or from up above. And even climb over it during Christmas boat parade. Some guy climbed up on the roof with smoking a joint there on the bank. So he's going to have some problems with that. I think if he would enclose that area more, it would help with the sound. And it would also give his guests a better experience, a more secure experience. Because at those prices, you know, you don't want strange people looking at you. And that's going to happen. I can guarantee you. I've lived there forever, you know. So anyway, yeah, I'd like to see the noise handled. And that's about it. |
| 03:20:50.84 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:20:59.12 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Eric Lieb. |
| 03:21:10.52 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thanks, Eric. Welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 03:21:15.76 | Eric Lieb | Thank you. I've been a resident for almost 15 years on the Excelsior. Sorry, it's kind of hard to lean down here. on the Reed Lane side of Excelsior there. And to the comments about the sound and everything else, I can assure you that those are wrong because we can hear anything coming up from the people on Excelsior walking up the street. It's like it's coming in through our front door. So I can only imagine what something like a party deck or people out there would happen to the noise there. So I really asked for just reasonable accommodations for the sound because some comparisons have been made to the Gables Inn and the Hotel Sausalito because really that outdoor space is a differentiation point. Neither of those hotels have an outdoor area. Neither does an above tide. The only one that does is Casa Madrona and they have staff on site 24 hours a day. And to me it is managing that noise. So for people who are up there. So there's a guarantee for the residents that either there's some baffling in place. or people to deal with it would be, I think, a reasonable accommodation. Because if you talk about a concierge service, something like that, if you have a butler, you have a concierge, and they're only working 12 hours a day, I'd question they're really concierge. The Excelsior, that is a great thank you for adding that in there. I think that's a very reasonable accommodation because that's all a red zone too. You talk about a public right away. So if anybody's pulling up there, they're automatically breaking the law. So to shunt that onto the residents, to have to deal with people who would be parking there or making deliveries, I think that's a very reasonable accommodation to ask. And to the exit only on the side of Excelsior, if that could be just part of the conditions that it is only an exit to just limit the people that are coming and going through there. Again, I think that's another very reasonable accommodation too. Thank you all for your consideration. Really appreciate it. |
| 03:23:11.31 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, sir, for your comments. Next speaker is Catherine Streetman. Catherine, welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 03:23:19.20 | Catherine Streetman | Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for giving me this chance to speak tonight. This project has unfortunately been exploited by the City Council majority and property owners in this historic district who wanted to and did use this project as a vehicle to drastically change the residential second floor housing requirements in the Central Commercial District. and inclusionary housing program and all the Sausalito commercial districts. The Sausalito city attorney admitted last week's council meeting that sweeping amendments were made to section 10.44 of the Saul City Municipal Code specifically for this project The changes essentially eliminate the requirement for second story residential in the Central Commercial District and sharply reduces the inclusionary housing program, which requires at least one affordable unit for new multifamily projects in all commercial districts. This puts approximately 116 current second story residential units at risk and an unknown number of future units for this current small commercial project. There was no notice of the proposed ordinance changes to residents living in the second floor units, neighbors or owners directly affected by the ordinance changes. Sausalito has never made changes that reduced existing housing programs, let alone on almost no notice or public engagement and never to benefit one Karen Hollweg, Small business and three high and short term rental units at the expense of hundreds of existing and future housing units, unfortunately, this project has been exploited to perpetuate one of the largest wholesale rollbacks of housing protections in sauce lito in the history of sauce lito. Karen Hollweg, One more page. With the recent amendments to section 10.44 of the Saucyut Municipal Code, which essentially eliminates the requirements for second story residential and central commercial district and the inclusionary housing requirement program for projects of five or less units, the amendments should be paused or vacated. Thank you. |
| 03:25:19.84 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is John Diamante. |
| 03:25:24.28 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to ask for decorum, please, just so we can get through this and be respectful of everybody. |
| 03:25:31.39 | John Diamod | Good evening, Commissioner. My advice is please take no decisions tonight. Continue the hearing process. Request more information. Number one, regardless, those code changes last week, I don't think will stand up. So number one, the rooms are not permitted. Hot topic number one. Number two, the intended restaurant. At this particular location, is totally impractical. because the building is possibly the most vehicle-deprived, vehicle-constrained commercial property in Sausalito. There was no curbside access, no parking. no lawful use of the frontage of the building. Number three, the only use of the roof must be compatible. Good for the neighbors, residents, and the neighborhood. The reason these three statements are true |
| 03:26:44.39 | John Diamod | because they've been recited in submissions in such great detail, which you have, to this third occasion of deliberations by the city, not addressed at all. |
| 03:27:00.40 | John Diamod | Grateful. to the owner's interest. in our town. but, when circumstances might develop where you had to get a bus. Where are you going to sit your ass to wait for it? Where are you going to sit your ass to wait for that bus? |
| 03:27:19.59 | John Diamod | When I think of a building of heritage, and heritage potential. I think of the name associated with it. as a permanence. a kind of immortality. That's what the owner could deserve with a singular unique purpose. |
| 03:27:38.88 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Mr. Diamante, thank you very much for your comment. |
| 03:27:40.53 | John Diamod | One, two, three. Rooms. |
| 03:27:43.38 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, sir. Next speaker is Branka Popowich. Thank you. You have two minutes. |
| 03:27:55.57 | Branka Popowich | Thank you. I came here this evening with a little different perspective, but I must say I'm pleased and nice to thank you, Mr. Epson, for the accommodations and some of the work that you put in to try to help the residents. Although I am still very much concerned with the noise, not only just the people, but I'm also concerned about the mechanical noises that will be surrounded. And when you say, you know, noise, we're giving too much credit to noise. No, we do have to give credit to noise. And my other concern is certainly the bus situation where those stools are now, where the benches, the marble benches do accommodate a lot of people. I live there. I walk by it every day, especially during tourist season. Those benches are constantly used for the buses. So maybe we can relook that or make some accommodations for the residents and the tourists that will be using that area. Thank you for the evening. |
| 03:28:47.51 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 03:28:55.02 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments and for being here this evening. Next speaker is Paul Mallory. |
| 03:29:03.44 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Paul Welcome, come on down. you you You'll have two minutes. |
| 03:29:08.08 | Paul Mallory | did on the refrigerator. For those of you who come on down has a little popular culture, David Buhlman- Meaning so I hope, thank you guys. David Buhlman- I really hope that what's sinking in here is that this is an exceptional project it's going to be an exceptional success and it's also an exceptional project requiring a lot of accommodations by the city. changing the laws and impacting the housing situation. It is receiving a lot of support, a great amount of support. I would like to see a little more support for the neighborhood, for the people who have lived there. Families, I think, I'm the pastor at the church, at the Presbyterian Church, who's been there since 1906. The cons, I think, have been on that land for over 100 years. A lot of these, I want to tell you, all these people are my neighbors. I live at Bulkley between Reed and Excelsior. You have a really large percentage of people here. The sound thing is no joke. And I said this when I was here a couple months ago, I was the only one here that was taken off the agenda. When I first moved there, I went outside because I thought a seal was coming up the driveway. This is really, really true. It is unusual. And Matt talked about how it's terraced. And this is what Wright was talking about. the you need to go over there and actually look at it, because as you go up the hill, you could say, well, this is 30 feet high, but actually you are right next to it. It is a very unusual, very steep place. by the way, sound doesn't travel around corners, have to turn. It doesn't need to go over hills. Sound travels in waves and it comes up. By the way, sound doesn't travel around corners, have to turn. It doesn't need to go over hills. Sound travels in waves and it comes up. And the fact that that's the idea. And one last thing, part-time security equals part-time safety. |
| 03:31:15.45 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments, sir. Next speaker is Chris Godowski. Chris, second attempt. |
| 03:31:23.55 | Nastassya Saad | With all due respect, I don't want to have to ask again. Chris, you'll have two minutes. So I'm going to ask for the last time for decorum. Please do not applaud. Please do not speak out of turn. We have to respect our speaker at the microphone, and please do not react. Everyone has a fair shot here. Hi, welcome. Thank you. |
| 03:31:26.18 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Chris, you'll have two minutes. |
| 03:31:39.09 | Chris Godowski | Hey, thank you. Thank you, everybody. So I've been living at my apartment at the Del Monte apartments right across from the proposed area for about seven years now and echoing a point that's going to be echoed more and more. The noise is, of course, a very serious, serious issue, but I'm also concerned not just here for myself, but also a lot of the residents, of course, in Sausalito, but also in this building are of a senior age as well. And you know, for, for anybody in the, in the building, once eight nine o'clock hits and bridgeway starts clearing out, you really can hear a pin drop in that area. So just wanted to reiterate that, that there is of course concern there, not just in the daytime, but also in the nighttime as well. So I appreciate the continued discourse and the continued effort to accommodate for us on that. Thank you. |
| 03:32:34.93 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, sir, for your comments. Next speaker is Beth. Beth. Welcome, you have two minutes. |
| 03:32:44.45 | Beth Swerke | Hello, Beth Swerke, 10-year resident. Appreciate your time today. I'm here to express my strong support for the approval of this project. I'm hearing concerns tonight about noise and bus benches. I'm concerned about all of the empty storefronts we have in our town, and I'm concerned about our town literally going out of business. There's no doubt that this project will be a fantastic addition to our downtown area. The new hotel and restaurant would bring much needed economic activity to our community. A few months ago, I was planning a trip to Carmel and a person I was speaking with, knowing nothing about the efforts here, proactively and enthusiastically highly recommended I go to the pocket. She said it was the local gem of Carmel and a special place. So a few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of going to the pocket in Carmel. I brought my out-of-town friends. We loved it so much, we went twice. It was a charming place that caters to both locals and tourists. It will no doubt bring in tourists and all of our surrounding communities and the city. and neighbors to Salt-Toledo. It will also represent the heart of our town. Coincidentally, when I was arriving to the house that I was staying at in Carmel, it was literally next door to the pocket. I'd say it was 10 feet away, not 100. I was there for multiple nights over a busy tourist weekend, and I can personally attest that the pocket team and guests were respectful and quiet neighbors. I never heard a peep from them. It feels like a home when you walk by The lighting is subtle. They perfectly blend into the community. I didn't even know they had hot tubs or fireplaces until you told me tonight. And they want to be here. While dining there, I met the team who would be opening this location. Shout out to Jane. They were lovely, personable, eager, and excited to be a part of this community. We'd be lucky to have her and the rest of the pocket team, along with their business that they would bring to our town. I'm particularly impressed with the thoughtful measures that they've been taking to address potential concerns. The developers have clearly considered the impact on nearby residents and have implemented strategies to mitigate any disturbances. This shows a commitment to being a good neighbor and contributing positively to our community. Thank you. |
| 03:34:46.49 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Anthony Coscio. Anthony. |
| 03:34:49.09 | Beth Swerke | ANTHONY. |
| 03:34:52.65 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 03:35:00.99 | Anthony Coscio | Good evening, commissioners. I'm a 20 year resident of the Del Monte Apartments. And my main concern is the noise because on weekends, it's not every day, but on weekends, a lot of tourists who are inebriated make a lot of noise on the stairs. They go up the stairs and it's right outside my door. And that's my main objection to the. I mean, I understand there's a, manager on duty. I would like to get his number in case that happens again, the noise, I mean. Now, another thing which is kind of off the subject, but it was mentioned multiple times this evening, the stairs on Excelsior Lane. The street sign is gone now. It was removed when there was construction next door at the chocolate shop. They did some sewer work and they just tore the pole and the sign down. So I don't know if that's been noticed by anyone here at the... City Commission, but I think that's important to have because, you know, it affects people delivering packages to us. Okay, and that's, well, thank you. |
| 03:36:28.55 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments this evening. That does it for comments associated with received speaker cards, Chair. I'm going to look to the Zoom application for raised hands. We'll call upon them in the order they were raised. First hand raised is that of Anna Welch. Anna, welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 03:36:48.67 | Anna Welch | Anna Welch here representing Sharon Kahn. I do want to focus on the seven conditions of approval that we sent to the planning commission earlier today. I did have a chance to speak to Ken Epson right before this meeting. And while we made some progress, we went backwards in other areas. And just to give you context, we're asking for these conditions in the context of a general plan. that still calls for residential quiet use on the second floor and specifically states the reason is because to mitigate the impacts of commercial use on the surrounding residential neighborhood So here we have a hotel with a large entertaining space, Two fire pits, a hot tub, an elevated deck, zero lot line right against the residential zone. And that's what makes this project unique and different from the analogs that you cited earlier today. that don't have 24 hour on site management here, 24 hour on site management is merited by the unique situation that this hotel is placing itself in. So the first condition of approval, we still are asking for 24-hour on-site management. Second condition of approval, which was already approved by the Planning Commission, if you change it to guests of guests are allowed, then that just eviscerates any meaning for that condition of approval. So what in these conditions of approval are going to bar this from becoming a party spot? How are guests going to know that parties aren't allowed? So we need stronger conditions of approval that communicate that to the guests. And then the sound barrier over the hot tub Again, that was touted before as an important sound mitigation factor. We've heard a lot about the slope. You've heard a lot about acoustic bowls. I've worked on a lot of noise nuisance cases, and it's true. Sound travels unpredictably sometimes. |
| 03:38:51.50 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much, Ms. Welch, for your comments. Moving on to the next raised hand, that is the hand of Sophia Collier. Sophia, welcome. You will have two minutes. |
| 03:39:02.91 | Sophia Collier | Hi, it's Sophia Collier, and I want to register my support for the project. I want And to mention that I had worked on a lengthy project in the historic district as part of the odds peer review and committee. And one of the greatest concerns is protection of a treasured historic district. One concern that threatens the district actually is vacancy and lack of investment in the existing buildings. So this project is exactly the type of project we want to see in our historic district. It adds vitality. and new energy to the district. The applicant's sensitivity to the district and its context are commendable. I hope the Commission and the staff can develop a framework to address the neighbor concerns and move forward to approval. Thank you. |
| 03:39:48.94 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much for your comments. Next speaker is Robert Kahn. Robert, welcome. You will have two minutes. |
| 03:39:56.69 | Robert Kahn | Hi, I'm Robert Kahn, and throughout this process, every attempt to compromise, the applicant has moved the goalposts further away from compromise. at the City Council. Council planner Mandrake announced that the applicant had agreed to staff the project on site 24 hours. The city council agreed with this and recommended to this commission that that should be included in the conditions of approval. Now they've gone back on that. Secondly, at the original hearing on this project before this commission, based on the applicant's assurances of how the amenity space would be used, this commission added a condition that the amenity area was only going to be used by registered guests. That was not a misdrafting requiring clarification. The applicant is now saying that these amenities are actually not going to just be used by registered guests, but also guests of guests. So when a wedding party rents this out, The fire code allows for 78 people on the patio and rooftop deck. 78 is the only enforceable rule if you tweak that condition of approval as staff is asking you to. The noise ordinance won't help because perversely, the very high commercial standards will apply, even though they're placing this on a rooftop and, aiming it at a residential neighborhood, something that was never ever contemplated by the noise ordinance. And the photos presented are truly misleading about the impact of the sound travel. I just say that all of us neighbors are not worked up about nothing as has been implied. For the people, you know, citizens who are sort of upset at the time that this process is dragged out, I would just say that it's the applicants stonewalling and refusal to speak with us and goalpost moving is the reason why this process is dragged out. And so I'd ask the planning commission tonight to consider not just the popularity of the project, but also its responsibility to protect the rights of the minority neighbors. And I'd say that there really is a compromise to be had here, but unfortunately by all appearances, that compromise is not gonna be made by the applicant themselves. A compromise would require this commission to step in and place reasonable guardrails on this project that we've requested so that we can have a project that works for everyone and isn't gonna end up being an ongoing problem for city police to mediate. Thank you. |
| 03:41:56.65 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Mr. Khan, thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Michelle Dumont. Michelle. Welcome to Minutes. |
| 03:42:05.92 | Michelle Dumont | Hi, thank you. I'm here to support this thoughtful proposal Downtown Sausalito has incredible charm. That's why we all love living here. And the key to that is projects like this that help it continue to thrive. I truly believe that welcoming new businesses, especially into vacant storefronts, it's key to keeping our streets active, connected and inviting. And this proposal brings new life into the historic Wells Fargo building far more than any bank ever did for downtown. filling it with people who are coming together and eating, And like, just like someone else on this call, last time I was in Carmel, I was looking for new places to go and the pocket was recommended. And although I didn't make it that time, once I heard it might be coming to our town, I was pretty excited about it based on Brave reviews, it is getting in Carmel. I'm just really excited to see that same thoughtful vision and commitment brought to Sausalito. And I encourage you to vote to move this forward. Thank you so much. |
| 03:43:18.85 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you very much, Ms. Dumont. Next speaker is Denise Buffett. Denise, you'll have two minutes. |
| 03:43:29.33 | Denise Buffett | This is the original reason why I was coming to this meeting. So I'm strongly in support of the pocket. Again, being a resident here over 20 years, having walked downtown Sausalito, and seeing it. it has been deeply concerning to see the number of vacancies and the number of vacancies that have recycled. in downtown. I strongly believe that this unanimous vote by the historic society is a stamp of approval that I trust and respect. with regards to how thoughtfully it's been designed, the compromises, and that it will be an anchor for the area that is needed. I think that it is You know, something that Small business owners being one as well. We need to trust it is not in us business owners. interest to have become a nuisance or a noise ordinance. And the fact that they have experience in Carmel, Again, you couldn't ask for a better um, project as far as I'm concerned with this. And In addition to that, I also understand residents' concern with noise. I lived around the corner from Smitty's. I also live near, currently, Taste of Rome. And yes, we live on the hill and the noise does move up. You can. work with the businesses, it's really important we live in a community and that We support the small businesses and allow them, even with the things when we're talking about the tables, I'm looking forward to eating there at the restaurant. I'm looking forward to sitting at the tables. I would hope that we would not drag this onto the minutiae of saying that we can't have chairs in between the wall of the Wells Fargo. |
| 03:45:32.89 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Denise, thank you very much for your comments. Moving on to the next speaker. Adrian, welcome. You'll have two minutes. |
| 03:45:41.14 | Adrian | I thank you for taking my comment. I just want to express my support for this project. There's a lot of concern about the noise and rightly so. And I think the question is how much noise is appropriate for our downtown and I would say that now Our downtown is unusually quiet because it's not doing very well. If we go back in time and we look at, say, when the Altamira was open, the Altamira is up the hill from this site, and they had the ultimate party deck. It probably had 100 people on that deck for 40 or 50 years, and they made it work in the neighborhood. Just down from that is the Presbyterian Church. They have weddings. They have events there. They make it work in the neighborhood. The women's club is around the corner. They're in the neighborhood. They make it work. I think that we've got to look at this as a community. And I think that the business coming in from what I've learned, they're gonna come in and be a part of our community. And we work with them to make sure that the noise is appropriate. Right now, the noise is too low. It cannot be that we hear a pin drop at nine o'clock in our downtown. That's a sign of a sick downtown that needs to be revitalized. So let's get this project moving. And get our community back on track. Thank you. |
| 03:46:57.14 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Adrian, thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Ron's iPad. You'll have two minutes, Ron's iPad. |
| 03:47:03.83 | Ron Albert | Ron Albert, Yes. Good evening, Clay. Thank you for your patience and your public service. My name is Ron Albert. I previously served on the planning commission. Um, When I was in your role, I would often hear concerns expressed about traffic and noise and of those projects that I was part of the approval process for I can't remember a single one where anything close to the fears that were expressed Thank you. came to fruition. They're invariably overblown. This project is a godsend. It's hard to imagine a more desirable reuse of that Wells Fargo building. So please approve this project tonight. That's all I've got to say. Thank you. |
| 03:48:02.35 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Ron, thank you very much for your comments this evening. Next speaker is Lindsay. Lindsay. Lindsay. You'll have two minutes. Thank you for being here. |
| 03:48:13.70 | Lindsay | Thank you so much. I just wanted to register my strong support for this project. I also, and in alignment with the previous speakers around being deeply concerned with the amount of vacancies that we have in our historic downtown area. I think this is a perfect project that will bring much needed economic activity to our downtown and From what I've understood and read about the applicant, it's a gift to have them be. so intentional with how they plan to restore and take care of this historic building. What a gift for our city. I personally, as a resident, I'm excited to have another gathering spot and dining option in our town. And just want to thank the applicant for working with our community to amend the concerns that are on the table and look forward to hopefully this passing and having a new vibrant spot in our community. Thanks so much. |
| 03:49:21.48 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Lindsay, thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Jeffrey S. Jeffrey, welcome to Minutes. |
| 03:49:24.77 | Jeffrey Stafford | Thank you. |
| 03:49:24.92 | Lindsay | Thank you. |
| 03:49:24.95 | Jeffrey Stafford | Thank you. |
| 03:49:30.01 | Jeffrey Stafford | Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jeffrey Stafford and I'm a resident of Sausalito. And I would like to express my very strong support for the proposed restaurant and boutique hotel on Bridgeway. This is exactly the kind of thoughtful and forward looking development that I think will really enhance the character and vibrancy of our community. The design and vision that's been presented are both sophisticated And it's still sensitive to Sausalito's unique charm. And so I think this project just seeks to elevate that and we should embrace that. Sausalito has always been a place that inspires creativity and a sense of connection. So welcoming in groups like this that wanna bring fresh high quality ideas, really embraces the smart growth and values the design excellence and hospitality that I think we should all |
| 03:50:20.17 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 03:50:20.64 | Jeffrey Stafford | forward to, so I hope we can extend kind of a warm welcome to the pocket and show that Sausalito is truly open to those who want to invest in our future thoughtfully and with integrity. And Yeah. Thank you for your support. And thank you for your time. |
| 03:50:39.25 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Jeffrey, thank you for your comments. Looking for additional raised hands. Charles Melton. Welcome. |
| 03:50:47.05 | Charles Melton | Thank you. |
| 03:50:47.10 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | That's what it is. |
| 03:50:49.26 | Charles Melton | Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments tonight. Really appreciate the robust discussion about this. I think first and foremost, one of the key challenges Sausalito has is our downtown. There's many issues that plague our downtown currently, and especially those issues are exacerbated when you have a historic building like the Wells Fargo Bank building. If this building sits vacant for if this project does not get approved, what is going to be the impact to our community of having another vacant business downtown right in the core of our downtown? This building and the proposal that goes forward is very thoughtful. It adds in not only sales taxes, but also much needed TOT taxes. Our city talks a lot about revenues. What would be the revenue loss if we gave up this project, denied it for the sake of noise? |
| 03:51:13.49 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:51:33.62 | Charles Melton | There's a lot of comments tonight in regards to busing and transportation and parking. I welcome all those comments and actually encourage my neighbors to speak up in City Council regarding parking plans downtown. What actually is the city's parking plans for lot 1, 2, 3, and 4? What is the city's transportation plan regarding rapid bus transit or getting buses through our city regarding congestion and parking? What are our plans regarding enhancing the ferry in regards to making sure that our ferry serves the needs of our community members and people commuting for work? Um, Thank you. These are all key things that are critical for our city. These are also things in the commercial district that add noise. Buses and park benches for buses add noise. Um, Parking, cars finding, trying to find parking spaces, add noise. This is the commercial center of our city. And as a previous commenter said, if our city is as quiet as church mice, then we have an issue in our downtown. We cannot take a project like this that's been thoughtfully considered and kill it with a thousand like duck bites. We have to be thoughtful and that's exactly what this project is. is here before us and I encourage the commission to prove this project without delay and appreciate the pocket for coming forward and being a thoughtful member of our community and look forward to having you join our city. |
| 03:52:50.25 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, Charles, for your comments. That does it. For existing raised hands, I will give folks who have perhaps waited the final opportunity. This is your shot. Any last speakers on the Zoom application, please raise your hand. Going once, going twice, and it's back to you, Chair. |
| 03:53:09.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you to the public for all of your comment. Again, we have received all the written public comment and have read it prior to this hearing. I do want to offer the time back. The applicant still has 6 minutes and 21 seconds. You're more than welcome to use it however you wish. If you'd like to just approach the podium, you can either continue with any form of your presentation or make rebuttal to public comment. The time is yours. Thank you, Maria. |
| 03:53:38.80 | Kent Ibsen | Yeah, just really one item. There's been a lot of positivity here, and I think that we're all moving in the right direction. um, And I don't want to cloud this whole thing with Mr. Poopy pants, but I got to set the record straight here, When I started this project, I was told I should write a letter to all the neighbors. I wrote a letter to all the neighbors. The cons asked me to meet with them. On my first meeting, I was met with an attorney, and I've dealt with that attorney ever since. I've been drugged through the mud. And that's part of the game plan. And to drag him until he's worn out. And so The reality is, and I will get this confirmed and I'll give my time up, But I have continued to work with them, even to the point where this attorney just came on. I was on a phone call with her for an hour. making concessions again, changing the entire design and for them to say, that, you know, that I've moved the goalpost is just 100% untrue. I've tried to fit in and just meet, be. as little causes little disruption as possible. So the only reason I'm coming up here is I'm okay with this. I've done this like 10 other times. I'm a big boy. But. having my character assassinated is just unacceptable for me. So, um, Those are untruths and to set the record straight about the 24 hour thing. That was accidentally put in by the city. That's when they baited us and said, hey, if you do this, we won't appeal. It's been appealed all the way down the road. So I will let this be confirmed. |
| 03:55:26.47 | Matthew Mandich | I think you can. Yeah, I would like to put that on the record as well. The condition that wound up in the city council resolution that night was a mistake by myself, city planner Matthew Mandich. That's how you pronounce my name. So, yeah, that was an error. It was discussed at the council hearing. They were attempting to condition the project with that. There was a whole discussion on that. You can go back and rewatch the tape. At that hearing, Attorney Rudin chimed in and said the council cannot condition a project that it's remanding back to the PC. So we chose to just kind of hold ground there and not move forward with kind of rebutting and rebuffing that. But that was never anything that the applicant was really willing to do. That was a concession that was on the table. There was many emails passed back and forth that day before the council hearing and when the resolution was coming up. And that condition was put into the resolution erroneously by myself. So I apologize to Kent for that. and really you know if Kent wants to get into a little bit more his with the detail of how onerous that condition is financially I can let him do that but it's just not something that's practical for a project of the size of three keys to have someone sitting there at 3 4 a.m. in the morning when you're going to have a concierge and a butler that can be available at the. touch of a phone. It just doesn't really make sense. And it's a big financial burden and one that he would have to carry with him for the life of the project. So that is just not a condition that the applicant's willing to accept. And I'm willing to take the blame on that error and that weaving its way in there and creating more consternation in this whole thing. So apologies there, but I don't want it to be seen like Kent was putting something out there and taking it back and moving the goalposts and this and that. He's done a lot to appease the cons and to appease other neighbors in the neighborhood. This is a difficult process that we have here with Sausalito. The appeal process itself, you know, is fraught with kind of injustices and imbalances in that process. And that's something that we all work with and deal with and something that's been the case for a long time here but that said you know we're trying to move forward he's been I think very amicable and responsive so I just want to end the story on this 24-hour condition and that whole thing and just set the record straight on that and the reason we didn't speak up more about that as counsel at the council hearing was because attorney Rudin chimed in that you know the council cannot condition that project that attorney mandy back and it cannot condition in this way so we just kind of let that be but um i regret that now i wish i would have spoken up at the time so i just wanted to set the record straight on that thank you |
| 03:57:57.16 | Unknown | We appreciate that. |
| 03:58:00.80 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Apologies, sir. Thank you. If we could maintain some quorum in the chamber, that would be appreciated. |
| 03:58:04.48 | Unknown | Sir. Okay. I definitely appreciate it. |
| 03:58:09.70 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | You're going to have to. I appreciate that you're. |
| 03:58:09.97 | Unknown | I appreciate that you're leaving |
| 03:58:11.35 | Robert Kahn | Thank you. |
| 03:58:13.31 | Unknown | Hey. |
| 03:58:18.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:58:18.54 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to need to ask everybody to stop talking. This is inappropriate and unacceptable, and I'm fed up. So if we're not going to have any form of decorum, I'm just going to have to ask you to leave. And that's too bad because we're almost at the point of deliberation. So please just respect your neighbor and everybody in here, including the applicant, including each other, including this commission. Thank you. So with that, we are now closed on the public hearing section. And I'm actually going to take a total point of privilege that I never do. And I'm going to start this discussion because of the behavior this evening. I want to say to everybody here, especially to the people that have lived here a long time, that I get it. I'm born and raised here. I don't want to have to date myself, but I turned 40 this year. When I was 10 years old, there was no noise. There were no children around. There were three kids down the street from me. You didn't even hear other children speak. When I was 20, there was more noise. When I was 30, there was even more noise. And now I turn 40 and my neighborhood character has changed. We have young families move in. And during COVID, I listened to their children crying on the deck behind me. all day while I work from home. And that's part of living. Living in a community and a neighborhood. I am in a residential neighborhood. This is part of living with other people. This is what happens. And things change, and sometimes we don't like it, but we have to accept that noise is a part of living in a community. I live in a residential community. I am 1,000 feet away from the cruising club, as one of our other members here said. I hear the noise from the parties Friday, Saturday night. I hear conversations from the basketball court. Late night, summertime, kids are playing late. I hear people hanging out in the parking lot, which is a new thing lately, till midnight, in my bedroom while I try to sleep. So to have this concept of no noise and not be able to hear anything It just doesn't even make any sense. To live in a commercial residential area, it has to be expected. And also on Excelsior Lane, it's a public access. People can walk. Another person made a comment. People walk around any time. There's no law to say you can't walk around at 2 a.m. and have a conversation on that street. I sympathize because I understand. It's irritating. But I want to make a point about another item that we had before this commission not all of us were present but we approved a restaurant called Cultivar that's directly across the street and that has outside dining and that was a massive project massive we had multiple hearings on it and I was the only commissioner to ask to reduce the hours of the outside dining until 1030. I did not get that. We negotiated and my colleagues, we all ended up agreeing on 11pm for outside dining. And I did that specifically because I also know the elderly community does live right across the street. I have friends there that I check on, my neighbors at Excelsior Lane all my life. So not one person spoke up about noise and cultivar is greatly going to affect the noise that travels up that hill. multiple hearings, no comments. And it's just quite shocking to not, I'm, I cannot believe that the applicant has actually made as many concessions. I think you're a star applicant in terms of how you've worked with the community. Really, we've seen a lot up here on this commission. We've seen stonewalling. We've seen problems. And it bums us out, quite frankly, to have to see people not work together. So we appreciate. that the concessions that you made i think there are some really good points in here i think reducing that access from excelsior makes good sense i think commissioner luxembourg makes great sense on the five foot clearance for the sidewalk because it is a bus stop and people it's a very busy area and people do hang out there people sit on the excelsior steps with a with an ice cream cone and they hang around so there's a lot that's in here, but to have such an excessive attack on the potential noise from a deck that's so greatly reduced when you're adjacent to a public place that anyone can be at, when there's zero comments on cultivar, which really, when it does open, is going to greatly affect that neighborhood. And as we saw this morning, or excuse me, this morning, but earlier at the start of this meeting, we had good enforcement. We have noise ordinances as part of our municipal code. It's always been there. And it is not great to have to call the police when there's a noise ordinance complaint, but there are resources. It doesn't have to necessarily be this mistaken 24-hour concierge person who's responsible for the behavior of their guests. There's no one responsible for your neighbor's behavior. If there's a problem, you have to call the police. People have decks. There's a long deck that runs across that apartment complex. Should people not have a deck? Should the cons not have a deck? There are decks up and down Excelsior Lane. Should other people not allow to... have a gathering on their deck, it just, it's, it's, It's quite maddening to me that there's this much conversation about something that is in a commercial residential district when there was absolutely no conversation beforehand. And we all know that noise travels up this hill. So I just want to start there. And I'm coming in hot because I think the behavior in the chambers tonight was frustrating. But it's just a mischaracterization, I think, of what the intent is for that space. I think that with the changes that are coming to downtown, and somebody just recently said, Commissioner Feller, who is a former commissioner, and I had asked for a master plan. Many cities do this. This would have been an effort to see when there are new projects in town, comprehensively what's happening to our town, not just what's happening with this project and what's happening with this project. What's happening in town? Because parking is an issue, and it would be nice to know like the ferry landing project we've reduced some spaces already now we have another reduction because we're going to waive a parking requirement these things matter and i appreciate the public's concern around that we don't have a master plan that wasn't approved to move forward but that's the kind of thing, tool, in the tool belt that can help some of these concerns in general. But I just want to start that I am in favor of this project as is, I think, with the additions that Commissioner Luxembourg has already brought up. And Matthew can correct me if I'm wrong, if he's here, but I, sorry, I didn't quite see you. I don't see hours of operation for the outside dining. in the conditions, I think it would be appropriate to be equitable and fair to put something that is equivalent to what their neighbor right across the street is going to have. Maria was helpful to help me get that, and that was till 11 p.m. for outside dining. That's what we did at Cultivar and approved. But I don't have any other... issues here and I think we have to be cognizant that everything's in context. So if you do live in a commercial district, commercial residential, it has to be expected that there is going to be some level of noise. And I think the distance between the properties, especially up the hill in relation and seeing those types of photos, it's just an overreach in my opinion. So I would love to hear what the rest of the commission says, but I just really want to put that noise argument on the table for discussion if anyone else wants to chime in, but that's definitely where I am in relation to that. Otherwise, outside of my own condition, again, for 11 p.m. for outside dining and Commissioner Luxembourg's, I don't have any other additions for this project. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 04:06:59.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I want a second that was excellent summary of some of the issues that it means to be in a urban community like Sausalito This is a very complicated project but from the city's perspective It preserves the architecture of an important building in downtown It creatively Reuses that building. This is a site that I walk by probably three times a week, both on the steps, both on Bridgeway. The bricks and mortar of a bank, given the online banking, we don't need that anymore. And the large interior spaces, we needed something creative, and this applicant has done that. This is a proposal with an effective design which turns a white elephant into an elegant inn in restaurant um the internal stairway access they've added i really appreciate that i think that's great uh and i think that um the concerns for the noise that we understand that but i want want to second Farisad's comments. The noise on the steps is going to be worse than this deck that's set back. If there are problems, there will be ways to manage that. There will be people to call. The conditions that I had put up before, I think the five-foot sidewalk is an important one. Given that I was responding to the diagrams of the 16 chairs, I like what's being suggested by the applicant better, where they put a little bit of landscaping. That's what we have elsewhere in the downtown. It's movable, but they can do that. And so I don't think we need to restrict how they design the space, because if they have some sort of barrier, which they'll need for the Alcohol Commission anyways, as long as that'll be better. I was worried that the tables were going to get moved. And if they're putting a barrier, they can't be moved. So that's good. |
| 04:07:21.53 | Sandra Bushmaker | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:07:21.69 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 04:07:21.73 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 04:09:03.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I would suggest the five-foot criteria, as was shown on the screen previously, the construction management plan, which we should have on all projects of this type, and the applicants agreed to no deliveries on Excelsior Lane. But I think if we put that in for the neighborhood that lives on Excelsior Lane, if they see something there, they can call the code enforcement that we had earlier and say that's violating a condition of this project. So I think that one's important. And then the tables against the building, I would suggest we not do that one. Anyway, so those are my thoughts. I want to thank this applicant. I think that this applicant will be part of our business community who will care about Sausalito. I'm heartened to hear what they've done in Carmel, which is a similar kind of community as Sausalito. So with that, I yield back. |
| 04:10:00.67 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Marlott. Yeah. |
| 04:10:04.44 | David Marlatt | Well, thank you. And I also can echo Chair Assad's excellent comments on setting some context to this entire discussion with respect to noise, and wholeheartedly agree with those comments, as well as Commissioner Luxembourg. My comments are much shorter. We saw this project in December. We approved it unanimously, and now it's better. And I'm sort of full stop right there. My only condition that I would suggest, more or less, that the applicants and staff's suggestion is on hotel use condition 8. Use of hotel common area must be limited to registered guests and their guests, and will be restricted by a key card or keypad access. So we need to include that in our conditions of approval, but otherwise I'm ready to support this project. |
| 04:10:05.18 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 04:10:57.20 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Commissioner Moore. |
| 04:11:02.37 | Fred Moore | I'd like to reiterate and agree with Chair Saad's comments and both commissioners with respect to the noise, respect to the project. I'm not sure I agree with all the conditions that Jeffrey asked for the project. I think we need to go through those one by one because I don't want to over restrict the project. I think some of them are going beyond what we need to do. For example, Excelsior Lanes, a public street. We're not restricting the residents from coming down that street to have deliveries to their homes or to have remodels and have their contractors come down there. So I don't think that's something we need to hinder the current applicant for. I greatly appreciate all the comments from the residents who came out to express their opinions, both written and verbally here. I know I'm the newest member of the commission, but I can probably say that all five of us share the same position that we take every comment seriously. and take it to heart and evaluate it and spend hours and hours reading all these comments before we come. But I also believe that no matter how thin the pancake or the issue, there's always two sides. And I think it's important that we don't lose sight of the fact that reasonable minds can differ. I think some of the city's outdated and arbitrary FAR requirements actually made the proposal a little bit worse. I think the larger deck was a good plan. They've now been forced to reduce it in half in order to come up and meet some minor minuscule percentage of a FAR requirement. So I think the city council hopefully in future meetings will take up the large task of how to deal with 1022 to make it more reflective of what the city needs versus some of these arbitrary and outdated requirements This project is not some massive downtown project that doesn't consider the charm of Sausseli to the historic nature of our downtown. The architectural style impacts on view. Rather, the applicant has been mentioned numerous times today, has gone through great effort with staff to take into account those situations for the project, and has come up with a great project. I applaud the applicant's desire to venture into hospitality and restaurant business like he's already done. It's got to be one of the most difficult businesses to make money, so I wish them great success. I understand the potential intrusion for the residential properties by inappropriate actions and noise at night. However, ruckus parties and noisy parties are not limited to hotel guests. Like Commissioner Assad said, there's all sorts of open decks alongside here for residences. No one's asking them to enclose the decks, limit their parties, limit when people can come with the music. It's all related to the city ordinances that deal with noise and potential impacts to address the noise. We have the noise ordinance in place. I agree with the applicant trying to make some sort of modification for the noise ordinance to residential standards for commercial property different from all the other commercial properties which butt up against residential projects. It doesn't make sense. Why are we picking these people out? Sure, I made one comment. It was a great comment that this has a different amenity than some of the other commercial properties. Maybe give you pause to consider whether or not the noise ordinance should be different. But the noise ordinance could have created exceptions for commercial property. If you have this use or that use, then we're going to change it. But they didn't do that. So I think the noise ordinance as it stands is perfectly appropriate. And as Matthew mentioned in his presentation, other hotels don't have 24-hour management on-site, so the thought of trying to mandate a 24-hour person on-site because of the anticipation that there's going to be ruckus parties out here doing the hot tub is totally inappropriate and contrary to potentially the success of this business. The worst thing we would have to approve this project, have it built and have it fail because of onerous conditions and I think that's a good one. and contrary to potentially the success of this business. The worst thing we would have to approve this project, have it built and have it fail because of onerous conditions and excess economic burden on this particular property, hotel and restaurant that others aren't sharing. to go on and on but I'm not going to I strongly support this project as is I think that Chris Luxembourg's additional conditions while be some of them may be appropriate but I think we should go through them one by one because I think some of them are overly restricting the applicant where we don't need to because we already have city ordinance in place or other items to ensure that that occurs All right. |
| 04:15:44.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Vice chair, wrap us up. Thank you. |
| 04:15:47.37 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. And I want to really commend and thank the other commissioners, especially Commissioner Saad or Chair Saad. Really wonderful comment and excellent for the record and could not agree more with every word you said. So thank you for that. I'm going to take it for first off. You know, thank you again for coming back, Mr. Ibsen and hanging in there with the city. It's not easy to do business here, and we're doing our best to try to make it easier. I do think, frankly, that one of the I'm going to take the words out of Ron Albert's mouth, one of our positive commentators. This is a godsend to San Francisco, not only the business, you know, the business generation and, you know, revitalizing this this this area. As I said, you know, months ago, |
| 04:16:10.47 | Sandra Bushmaker | and everything. |
| 04:16:33.17 | Andrew Junius | Historic renovation projects like this are really, really hard, and Sausalito is really lucky to have you here to take a shot at this. If this doesn't happen, God only knows how long it's going to take for this building to get relet. I personally know as a land use lawyer in San Francisco and other communities, there are communities, especially in San Francisco, littered with buildings like this that would have had a great use if the city had just been more cooperative, if the rules had just been a little easier to deal with. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you for hanging in there. I think you're going to get a good vote tonight, but I do want to shift gears a little bit. |
| 04:17:03.46 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:17:04.30 | Fred Moore | So, |
| 04:17:07.51 | Andrew Junius | And the record we're making here I think is important. The property owner to the rear is not happy about this project. We've heard that for sure. They've hired legal counsel. We heard them tonight. That legal counsel over the last number of months has written a number of letters raising various legal issues, and I'd like to address some of those because I do feel it's important that the record clearly show why those legal issues should be rejected by this commission this evening. The first one I want to start with is regarding the general plan. We had a few comments, and several times the letters from the lawyer referenced violations of the general plan, the fact that the general plan and the zoning ordinance are not consistent. Well, frankly, cherry picking provisions from the general plan and claiming that there's no that there's a conflict is easy, but it really doesn't survive a close look. With respect to the first issue that I think everybody seems bent in a shape about residential uses on the upper floors. There's no question that traditional development patterns in older downtowns like this have included buildings with ground floor commercial space and residential uses above. That's typical in older towns. But the general plan in no way requires that as a specific development pattern. And in fact, there are many multi-story buildings in the downtown of Sausalito, including throughout the CC district, that do not have residential uses at the upper floors. The Barrel House, the Sausalito Hotel, Inn Above Tides, Casa Madrona, the Trident, Two Ballet, Hanson Gallery, Gene Heller, none of those commercial buildings have residents above, and this one isn't required to either. Thank you. Another portion of the general plan that I thought was interesting that was skipped conveniently when the attorney was pointing to provisions of the code immediately follows the portion that talks about upper floor residences. It specifically states that the vast majority of the parcels in this area are located within the city's historic district and all development must respect its historic character. Well, my goodness, that's exactly what this project is doing. It's required to respect the historic character of the district and the building, and this owner is saving this important historic resource by reimagining it as a hotel at the ground floor restaurant. Thank God. This project, again, if it doesn't move forward, I think we've made a huge mistake, so we've gotta, we've gotta get this going. The references to parking, I wanna congratulate the staff. I think the staff report this time was outstanding. I thought a lot of the references to some of the obvious issues, the parking issues, the noise issues, the proximities to the various properties was excellent. Again, back to the general plan that's maligned in some of the letters from council. |
| 04:19:36.43 | Sandra Bushmaker | Thank you. |
| 04:19:51.81 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. the land use policy number 25 states in part hotels can have minimal impact on nearby residences with with good location management we've talked a lot about that and adequate parking well tons of testimony tonight both from count both from staff and we all know there's 200 spaces right across the street in lot one in lot two in the new madden space there is more part we have more parking now 50 spaces. We have 50 more spaces in the South City Yacht Harbor parking lot. So there's plenty of parking. And I don't think that should be an issue at all. So I wanted to make sure that got into the record. One more comment with respect to claims. You might have read allegations that somehow the city council illegally spot zoned this property in an effort to get this project approved. Well, first, as an aside, oftentimes cities change their ordinances to make things work. That's the whole purpose of good governance. That's what city councils are supposed to do, keep working the code so that it makes the city better and advances city goals um you know frankly the the argument with respect to spot zoning here is just doesn't connect with recent case law and case law history with respect to spot zoning um in uh there's a case from a few years ago called foothill communities coalition versus county of orange 22 cal lap 4 1302 and that court discussed spot zoning at length I frankly don't think this is spot zoning But even if it was under that foothills communities case You can do spot zoning in its legal as long as it's in the public interest and all we've heard tonight from the staff and from this commission And for many speakers is how this project is connects with the public interest and advances the goals of the general plan and the city. So I hope that puts that one to bed. |
| 04:21:31.76 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 04:21:37.48 | Andrew Junius | Finally, we heard a little bit about 1022. I think that's relevant to just raise here at the end. You know, last time we saw it, I agree very much with Commissioner Moore It's still a good project. It was fine to begin with. It was better to begin with. It was more flexible, more, you know, more, uh, opportunity for you to, you know, create the, the economic environment. That's going to make it work. It sounds like you're still can do that as long as we don't change it any further. Um, but many of us are aware that ordinance 1022 passed by the voters in the 1980s It caps the far the floor area ratio in this zoning district at 1.3 done. Can't go one foot above that or you're in violation of ordinance 1022. The property owner here, as we've seen, has made heroic efforts to twist themselves into a pretzel to get the economically viable project into this 1.3 arbitrary in the limit set 40 years ago by the voters of Sausalito. And the design works, so I'm very happy about that. Unfortunately, we still have people complaining that that's somehow in violation of the codes we were asking now, people are asking, like, well, why don't you cover the hot tub? Well, that just, you know, bumps you right back over the F.A.R. So the problem here is not the project. The problem is 1022. The city really needs to go back and look at 1022 and figure out a way to get rid of that because it's been a problem for this project. It's going to be a problem for other projects in the future, and it really must be addressed And I'll end it right there. I wish you the best of luck. Thank you so much for being here and hanging in there with us. So back to you chair. |
| 04:23:11.91 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I appreciate the deliberation. And I think to Commissioner Moore's point, we should go through, and thank you, Maria, for bringing them up. So the proposed additional conditions that are on the screen, just for the members of the public and everyone in the chamber still, these are suggested conditions from Commissioner Luxembourg. We've discussed these already at the beginning, but if we want to just go through them one at a time and have discussion. The first one here proposed by Commissioner Luxembourg is outdoor dining. The applicant shall always maintain a minimum of five-foot clearance between tables and chairs and the curb for pedestrian flow on the sidewalk. I'm just going to go, I'm going to look to see if there's any conversation in opposition. |
| 04:24:04.24 | David Marlatt | Yeah, well, thank you. And I don't know if it's exactly in opposition, but if I understood correctly, that concern has been somewhat mitigated because of the ABC requirements that exist anyway. And also, I would just add that having less than four foot clearance between the tables and chairs would be a violation of the ADA design guidelines. So that would be another set of codes, but not allowed on another level. So is this still a valid? |
| 04:24:33.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the concern is most of the ones in the downtown may have a five foot clearance. And this commission sent a report, did a whole analysis for three years, suggesting a standard of five feet. The handicap code only requires 48, four feet basically. And if we do not add this condition, then those planters that are being suggested could go out to the four-foot level. The alcohol thing, I was concerned that people were going to move the tables and block the way. But if we do not put this condition in, the applicant could start to put the planners up to the four feet because that's what's on their plans. So I think this condition is very important. It's consistent with what this commission sent to the city council. It is any less than this. I'm seeing, and I walk the downtown many, many times a week, people walk out into the street because there's not enough room. five feet is reasonable the applicant is okay with the five feet uh i don't see any reason not to have the five feet and this commission spent three years headed by chair feller at the time uh submitting this to city council requiring a minimum of five feet and the places where people start to move tables in where it's less than five feet is where i see people walking out into the street which is a safety issue and we have to make under the minor use permit we have to make findings on safety and i think anything less than four feet in this particular location given stairs, given the bus, I would not be able to make that finding. And the applicant is okay with this. So I don't see any reason not to do this. |
| 04:26:28.42 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry, just as a point of note as well, just because I didn't go back through the cultivar application. We also did this at cultivar on their outside. Cultivar is required to provide food as well. |
| 04:26:35.08 | David Marlatt | cultivar on their outside. Yeah. OK, well, I just put out if we want to do this properly, so to speak. You say there's five feet of clearance between the tables and the curb, and not between the barrier for ABC and the curb. So you could still put the planter or the barrier at four feet, for example, and the table is one foot behind the barrier. It doesn't actually solve the problem that you have. Yeah, I mean, we had new information in the theme. |
| 04:26:37.46 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:26:56.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I mean, we had new information this evening, so I agree with you, Commissioner Marlott, we should change this. The applicant shall maintain a minimum five-foot clearance on the sidewalk for pedestrian flow. Take out the reference to tables and chairs. OK. I agree with that. |
| 04:27:03.40 | David Marlatt | between the area and the area. |
| 04:27:12.61 | Charles Melton | Thank you. |
| 04:27:12.63 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 04:27:12.73 | Nastassya Saad | REGULATIONS. |
| 04:27:12.78 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:27:12.83 | Fred Moore | That's what I'm saying. |
| 04:27:13.07 | Nastassya Saad | employment. |
| 04:27:13.54 | Fred Moore | serious. you Thank you. |
| 04:27:16.99 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I agree with that. Are we in agreement on this? |
| 04:27:21.66 | Fred Moore | Well... Probably not. If the four feet's the minimum, I would say four feet. Why do we need to over-legislate at the five feet? I'm pretty confident that five feet doesn't exist on downtown and other areas where I agree with you and where it doesn't. It may have issues, but I know Lapperts is not five feet between their bench and the building. I think at Pojo's, I don't think it's five feet. So if 48 inches is what it is, that's the requirement, then why do we need to add another condition? Why don't we just have them comply with the 48 inches and go from there? |
| 04:27:54.50 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. Because this commission spent a long time analyzing this during the pandemic, and this commission has a report, and I have other documents we can bring up this evening, which show this five-foot minimum standard was what the working group and DPW and CDD came up with as a standard, and we need to solve it going forward. We set a standard with cultivar with five feet. We've used this throughout wherever we've done this on other projects to revise this to four feet in a case where the applicant's willing to do this and where we'd be contrary to what we did in other places seems wrong to me. We have precedent here. I can bring up other stuff. I didn't think I was going to have to do it, but I have other documents we can look at that show this 5-3 that we can present if we need to go there, but |
| 04:28:52.48 | Nastassya Saad | I don't think we need to go there. I think Vice Chair might want to make a comment. Just at the late hour, I want to try to get moving. |
| 04:28:57.88 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, let's move this along. I do think I'm in general agreement with Commissioner Moore. Listen, Bridgeway, with in front of all the rest of us, is a mess. We all know that. The street trees and the utility boxes, and people are in the street because there may be four or five feet, but there's a giant tree in the middle, and you can't walk through a tree. So it's kind of a weird conversation we're having. I'm really curious, though. I don't necessarily recall that, and I'm curious if staff has a comment about the finality of the street of these wits. And I'm specifically interested in the fact that I think this, as I recall, if once the bench goes from in front of the bank, There's nothing else there. It's like one of the widest, cleanest. I don't think there's a street tree there. There's plenty of room if it was four feet, it'd be the best place you'd ever see because there's no tree, there's no mailbox, there's no nothing. You can walk right past the Wells Fargo and four feet is plenty fine. But I'm really curious if staff has a thought on that. |
| 04:29:52.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I just comment on there is a trash receptacle that's going to have to be relocated. That's there. Can we bring up the other document? I do have some comments. |
| 04:30:04.05 | Matthew Mandich | I do have some comments just to let Matthew respond. Yeah, just to respond to that. So the five feet that Commissioner Luxembourg is speaking of is, you know, from a draft policy document that was never formally adopted by resolution. There was a lot of time and energy spent on that by DPW, by the Planning Commission, by CDD. We even reworked several revised copies back in 2023 and 2024 of this document. However, none of those were ever approved or adopted by resolution. Unfortunately, priorities changed with the housing element. That was a project that was no longer considered a high priority. We didn't take it to the finish line. So I appreciate what Commissioner Luxembourg is trying to say. And I know there has been a lot of time and energy spent on that document. It is just a draft policy document. And the letter of the law and the code is 48 inches. And that's also what's required by ADA. So if you want to do a five foot, |
| 04:30:05.25 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 04:30:05.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:30:05.36 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 04:30:05.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 04:30:05.41 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 04:30:05.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to. |
| 04:30:05.55 | Fred Moore | to. |
| 04:30:05.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let Matthew respond. |
| 04:30:53.86 | Matthew Mandich | you know requirement or condition that's something that the commission can do of course but it would be a special condition it's not something that's required by any formal documentation or policy |
| 04:31:04.04 | Nastassya Saad | I appreciate that. So I think, again, in context, I actually support what Commissioner Luxembourg is saying specifically because of the location. There's a bus stop there, and actually this is something separate, but I will want to ask about the benches and the sign that were brought up from public comment. But it's a busy area. There's bus stop people hang out there they do sit at those benches obviously that won't be the case but um it's it's a very busy corridor um and i and we did this at cultivar so i don't see any reason to in precedent aside it just makes good sense specific to especially also to the excelsior stairs where people come and take pictures and hang around so i would be in in favor of a five-foot since the applicant is amenable. So I think we've got a two, three right now, but let's see where we can get. |
| 04:32:00.72 | Andrew Junius | The cultivar, I'm curious, the cultivar got a sidewalk widening. It's got this massive area. I don't recall the four feet or the five feet even coming up, but maybe there's a lot of things I've forgotten over the years. There were a lot of details in there. |
| 04:32:11.01 | Nastassya Saad | There were a lot of details in there. It's only because I looked at it. But yes, you're right. It did. It definitely got widened. The sidewalk definitely was widened. But anyway, it's 11. If we want to put a pin in that one, we can. Just one last comment. There we go. |
| 04:32:24.40 | Fred Moore | My concern is that there's a lot of arrows being thrown at this project. So add another condition that's not a standing ordinance. Just allow someone else to say, oh, it's 4 feet 11 inches. It's supposed to be 5 feet. You've got to shut the whole restaurant down. Why are we setting them up for potential failure and attacks by, we know, numerous residents in the community? If 5 feet is something that should be adopted because of all those studies, I applaud that, but then let's bring it back up and get it adopted. Since it's not adopted right now, I say we stay the course with 48. |
| 04:32:58.60 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to respond to that. I, The working group and DPWs, we spent three years on this effort. And CDD, because of the housing, did not have time to finish this document, finish getting this into code. What we decided as a working group, and again, I understand that more than a majority of this commission is now new. What we decided after this analysis, after the pandemic and when we had problems with people getting by, was we would need this five-foot standard. When we did this, we decided that rather than codify it in this code and do what Commissioner Junius is harping about, which is why do we keep putting all these rules in the code? We were adopting these as a policy document that the staff would use ministerially. But it was an identified issue that we talked endlessly about. And it is a problem. People do walk on the street. It is dangerous. We did do it at Cultivar. I think we've done it on a couple other places. And so ever since we've had this, it's been the standard that we've used. If you have only four feet here, I think people will walk out into the street where the buses are, and it's unsafe. If you look at Copita, there's five feet. If you look at Lapperts, it's a problem. It blocks the street. I think when we approved the other Lapperts, we had to make sure there was five feet. I can't make the five. I'm going to ask to bifurcate this and take out the minor use permit so I can vote against, because it's a safety issue. Somebody's gonna get hurt, and I'm adamant about this, but obviously if the votes aren't there, we'll separate out the minor use permit, and I will vote against that, and the majority will vote for it. But I really believe this is right. I have another document that we can bring up that shows this, if we could bring up the other document. |
| 04:35:08.15 | Nastassya Saad | So with all respect, Commissioner Luxembourg, let's table this one just for a moment, and let's try to see if we can move through the others first before having to come back to outdoor dining and a five-foot clearance. So the next condition was tables shall be placed against the building. I actually think I heard you say- That's not needed. Exactly. So I think we're going to scratch that one. The standard construction management plan, I think we have talked about at length, right? I'm going to thank you. |
| 04:35:27.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Or do you say six? That's not needed. |
| 04:35:40.87 | Nastassya Saad | And then condition number 12, no deliveries for construction and hotel and restaurant operations shall occur on the vehicular portion of Excelsior Lane. Go ahead. |
| 04:35:54.22 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 04:35:54.25 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:35:54.32 | Fred Moore | Commissioner, my comment is we don't we don't need that we don't need to condition the property that the applicant said they don't anticipate using it practically doesn't work very well like you said going down the stairs. So practically it's a public street we're not limiting the residential uses on there, so I would say we can take that out and maybe I'll agree to the five feet if there's enough room if you agree to take that out. |
| 04:35:54.83 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:36:17.07 | Nastassya Saad | I actually will agree with you, Commissioner Moore. I don't think that's an appropriate condition. Commissioner Marlott. |
| 04:36:25.96 | David Marlatt | Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, it's somewhat redundant with you know, red curbs and other regulations that we have in place. So I don't have strong feelings about it. I would support not including that as a condition. |
| 04:36:37.98 | Patrice Storm Taylor | . |
| 04:36:38.03 | Nastassya Saad | chair. |
| 04:36:39.16 | Andrew Junius | I'm with Commissioner Moore. I think it's unnecessary. And I like the horse trade idea. |
| 04:36:42.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. OK. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 04:36:47.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | my concern there was it would make the neighborhood feel a little bit better. The applicant's not going to use it. It's got red curves. It is a highly difficult place. The only thing I would suggest is I'm happy to take it out and do the horse trading because I'm out of it about the five feet. I would strongly encourage the applicant when they write their construction management plan that they tell their contractor preferably not to use it. We did this up on, I think there's one on Santa Rosa. They have a sign at the bottom, delivery trucks have to do these things. So I'm happy to do that in the construction management plan and not put it as a condition, but keep the five foot in. |
| 04:37:35.96 | Nastassya Saad | All right, we're getting somewhere. I'm going to add my last condition, which was again, to replicate what we did at cultivar to limit outside dining to 11 PM. Do I have? |
| 04:37:50.62 | Andrew Junius | That's fine. |
| 04:37:51.33 | Paul Mallory | Thank you. |
| 04:37:51.55 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 04:37:52.01 | Paul Mallory | Thank you. |
| 04:37:52.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I agree with that as well. |
| 04:37:52.97 | Paul Mallory | Thank you. |
| 04:37:53.14 | David Marlatt | That's fine. |
| 04:37:53.66 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, and I think this would help us. |
| 04:37:55.18 | David Marlatt | It's already limited Monday through Friday, the restaurants. Right. Let's do the 11. |
| 04:37:59.37 | Nastassya Saad | Perfect. |
| 04:37:59.72 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:37:59.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:37:59.84 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 04:37:59.87 | Nastassya Saad | And that's great. |
| 04:38:00.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And we need to have the guest of guests, which. And, and yes, I. |
| 04:38:02.91 | Nastassya Saad | And yes, I think we need to have the guests of guests. Oh, thank you. Attorney Rudin. |
| 04:38:10.23 | Attorney Rudin | Yes, I was just going to comment on our hotel use condition of approval number two is just limited to regular registered guests. So that would be true. Thank you. |
| 04:38:21.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Yes, it does need to be changed. I think staff's quite clear on that one, correct? Yes, they're all nodding. Excellent. Do we have any other points of discussion on tonight's item? And I just will look also over to the applicant that they understand these conditions. I know we talked about them, but do I have a nod? Yes, thank you very much. We have a confirmation that the applicant understands and agrees to these conditions. So I'm going to look for a motion at this point. |
| 04:38:48.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | i'm happy to make a motion for approval of this project pursuant to the resolution that's attached with the following changes uh the condition related to guests should say guest a guest or guest of guests uh we should have a um the condition uh for hours of operation uh will not exceed 11 11 o'clock uh in the similar wording that we used on the Cultivar project, that we add to condition number six, that the applicant shall always maintain a minimum five-foot clearance on the sidewalk for pedestrian flow, and not include the stuff about tables and chairs. We had the standard construction management plan condition and I think that's it. |
| 04:39:46.40 | Attorney Rudin | And so just to restate that, that's condition number six, outdoor dining is gonna include language requiring the applicant to maintain a five foot path of travel for pedestrian flow, We're modifying the hotel use condition number two to include guests of registered guests. We're modifying the outdoor dining conditions of approval to add a condition of approval related to hours of operation to not exceed 11 p.m. for outdoor dining uses. I think that's all of them, yes. |
| 04:40:18.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. We're adding number 11, which is our standard construction management plan. Yes. |
| 04:40:25.54 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | And just to restate, it is the outdoor dining component of the Inn at the Pocket that we would like to close at 11. Yes, please. Only the outdoor. Only the outdoor. Very good. Thank you. Correct. |
| 04:40:33.69 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, please. Only the outdoor. Very good. Thank you. Correct. Yes. Thank you for clarifying. Okay, we have a motion. Who has to second? I'll second it. Thank you very much. Assistant City Manager, Ipsk. you |
| 04:40:46.02 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Very happy to call the item. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. |
| 04:40:50.83 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:40:50.90 | David Marlatt | and |
| 04:40:52.74 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Yes. Vice-trigion, yes. Emphatic, yes. Cherisant. |
| 04:40:52.82 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 04:40:53.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:40:53.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 04:40:56.87 | Unknown | you |
| 04:40:56.89 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 04:40:57.82 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Motion passes. Thank you. |
| 04:40:59.24 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. |
| 04:41:00.25 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | difference. |
| 04:41:00.64 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Congratulations, we appreciate it. Last item, adjournment. Okay, thank you very much. Have a wonderful evening. |
| 04:41:09.31 | Assistant City Manager Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public. Have a great evening. We'll see you next time. |