| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Nastassya Saad | third meeting to order the time is 6 34 p.m. Thank you everyone who's here on zoom and in the audience ACM director Phipps could you please take roll |
| 00:00:13.36 | Assistant City Manager | Absolutely. Thank you, Chair Saad, and good evening to you, Commissioners, Vice Chair Junius, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is 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. With that, I will move to call roll. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:00:36.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | presence. |
| 00:00:37.14 | Leslie Schoferman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:37.70 | Assistant City Manager | Commissioner Merlotte. Thank you. Here, Commissioner Moore. President. Vice Chair Junius. Present. Chair Assad. Thank you. |
| 00:00:43.77 | Nastassya Saad | here. |
| 00:00:44.04 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. We have quorum all over in attendance. Back to you to share. |
| 00:00:47.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Item number two is the approval of the agenda. |
| 00:00:52.28 | David Marlatt | So move. |
| 00:00:52.70 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. |
| 00:00:52.75 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:00:53.51 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. |
| 00:00:53.52 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:00:53.64 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 00:00:53.73 | David Marlatt | . |
| 00:00:55.92 | Assistant City Manager | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:01:05.25 | Nastassya Saad | Item number three on the agenda, public comments on items that are not on this agenda. DCM Phipps. |
| 00:01:11.83 | Assistant City Manager | This is the time for the commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes the commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct that the subject to be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. It may also be augmented by chair. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right. That is Maria Hernandez this evening. And if you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you'll be called upon when it is your time to speak. And to raise your hand from a phone, go ahead and press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. |
| 00:01:22.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:02.19 | Assistant City Manager | Chair, any received speaker cards, Ms. Hernandez? Okay, looking to the chamber for folks who may have not had the opportunity to fill out a speaker card, who would like to comment on this, but comment on items not on the agenda. Seeing none. Chair, I'm gonna look to the Zoom application next for any raised hands. And I am seeing none. Back to you. |
| 00:02:26.74 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I would just like to note then for the record, I think we did receive one written comment for public items not on the agenda from D. Johnson, and it is noted and on public record. Item number four tonight is the approval of Planning Commission minutes. 4A are minutes from July 9th. Any discussion or questions on the minutes? Otherwise, I'll look for a motion, please. |
| 00:02:52.32 | Andrew Junius | Move to approve. |
| 00:02:53.51 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:02:57.27 | Nastassya Saad | Anyone would like to second? Second. Thank you. ACM. |
| 00:03:03.07 | Assistant City Manager | Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair San. |
| 00:03:06.57 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Yes. |
| 00:03:09.66 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. |
| 00:03:09.71 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:03:09.76 | Assistant City Manager | Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:03:11.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Item five on the agenda are communications. Any updates from city staff? |
| 00:03:18.16 | Assistant City Manager | Yes, thank you for the opportunity, Chair. One communication item from staff this evening. As the commission and the community is aware, the City of Sausalito adopted its amended and certified housing element on May 27 of this year. And as part of the amended housing element, the City has approved a program of rezoning, which accommodates the City's RENA of 724 units. As a part of the housing element's program of rezoning. Certain sites are included that happened to be impacted by local voter initiatives. Those local voter initiatives are 1022 and 1128 1022 applies to our commercial districts 1128 applies to our public parks with that in mind in order for the city to implement its certified and adopted housing element in accordance with state housing element law, the city must submit a ballot measure for a special election to the county of Marin to amend each of those local voter initiatives aforementioned. The submittal of a ballot measure to the county to amend those initiatives will be considered by the council on August 5. So just wanna make sure the community and commission is aware of upcoming meetings and upcoming next steps in connection with our housing element implementation. Thank you, Chair. That does it for staff communication items this evening. Back to you. |
| 00:04:34.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. And thank you for calling that out. That is a major effort from the city. And that August 5th hearing just for the public to reiterate will be a critical meeting for the community. So we encourage you to join. I'll first look to anyone else if you have any communication items this evening. I only have one. We haven't done a working group in quite a while. And I think there's been a good amount of opportunity. that we've seen in various examples for potential edits and revision to our code. So I'd like to make a working group for code review, and I'd be honored if the following commissioners would indulge me. Vice Chair Junius, I think you'd be a wonderful addition, and Commissioner Marla, I think you'd be the other addition to that working group. And the intent would be to go through parts of the code from both of your expertise, provide edits, and bring it back up during communications to the commission so we can help the city and help the code move forward. |
| 00:05:41.01 | David Marlatt | I'd be happy to help. |
| 00:05:42.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:05:42.15 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. Wonderful. |
| 00:05:43.24 | Nastassya Saad | Wonderful. I appreciate that. And with that, I will close the communication item up here and then turn that over for public comment. So if there's any public comment right now on any of the communications that you've heard this evening, Assistant City Manager, I'll look to you to facilitate. |
| 00:06:02.17 | Assistant City Manager | Absolutely, Chair. No speaker cards received in connection with this item. I'll look to the Zoom application for interested speakers. Going once, going twice, and seeing none. Back to you, Cher. |
| 00:06:14.61 | Nastassya Saad | Excellent, thank you so much. And we're now gonna move on to item six. This is the public hearing section for the evening. Item six A is 487 San Carlos. We have a design review permit with heightened review findings, a variance, and an encroachment agreement. We've got Katie Nelson, our associate planner here this evening to present. And thank you very much, the floor is yours. |
| 00:06:37.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Before we do that, |
| 00:06:38.58 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Any ex parte communication to declare Commissioner Luxembourg |
| 00:06:45.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes, for this item, this 87 San Carlos Avenue is greater than 500 feet from my house, but less than 1,000. But there is no materiality, so pursuant to state statute 18702.2. So I will hear that item. Any decision on this item will not affect the development potential, producing potential highest and best use character Of my property by substantially altering traffic levels intensity of use parking view privacy noise levels or air quality or affect the market value of my property So as I said, there is no material materiality. So therefore I will hear that item |
| 00:07:29.29 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Any further ex parte communication to declare for this? |
| 00:07:35.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have no ex parte communication. |
| 00:07:37.18 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Mylock? No, no thank you. Commissioner Moore? |
| 00:07:37.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Bye. |
| 00:07:39.71 | Nastassya Saad | No. Okay. Vice chair? Nothing. And I also have nothing to declare. Thank you. |
| 00:07:44.26 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. Thank you for having me. Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners, members of the public. My name is Katie Nelson, Associate Planner with the Community Development Department with the City of Sausalito. Tonight I'll be presenting an application for a design review permit and variance, along with a request for recommendation of approval to city council for an encroachment agreement. for the property located at 87 San Carlos Avenue. As mentioned, the subject property is located at 87 San Carlos Avenue within the R16 single family residential zoning district. The site is approximately 8,921 square feet. with a general plan designation of medium low density residential The applicant is Scott Couture, architect, representing the owner, James... Thank you. see Hormel Junior trust next slide. The proposal involves converting an existing 380 square foot parking deck originally constructed in 1956 into a 400 square foot enclosed garage. The existing 85-square-foot unconditioned storage space below the parking deck will also be expanded to 130 square feet. Because the proposed garage construction will result in a setback of two inches from the north property line, A variance to the standard five yard side, five feet side yard setback is required. Additionally, due to the one foot nine inch encroachment into the public right of way, an encroachment agreement with design review is triggered under SMC section 10.54050B13. Next slide. The site currently contains a three-story single-family residence built in 1902 with a legal non-conforming parking deck that was added in 1956. Planning Commission approved a variance in 1969 allowing the parking deck to remain sided one foot two inches from the north property line. The property has an average slope of 39% and is accessed both by sweet Briar lane, a narrow public right of way that presents unique circulation challenges and placement challenges. and San Carlos Avenue to the east. A separate encroachment agreement with security. in 2019 for a new stairway walkway and landscaping walls in the san carlos avenue right-of-way the city has record of numerous renovations on the property over the last 60 years next slide The project will provide two regulation size 9 by 19. parking spaces and a 130 square foot unconditioned storage area below whose expansion is only an opportunity resultant of the minor addition required for the conversion of the parking deck to garage. This slide shows the proposed site plan with the garage cited in the same location as the existing parking deck. The expansion remains modest and the layout supports safe vehicle access from Sweetbriar Lane while preserving landscaping and minimizing grading. The proposed garage is designed with low visual impact. It has tapered, it has a tapered Eastern roof line and reduced Eve height to preserve up here and uphill neighbor views. The overall height is under 15 feet consistent with the code for accessory structures in SMC 10.44020C. Next slide. Here we see the proposed floor plans. The upper level provides enclosed parking for two vehicles and the lower level includes the 45 square foot expansion of the unconditioned storage space to help keep the garage clutter free and maximize off street parking usability. Due to Sweet Briar Lane's narrow right of way, no parking is permitted on the east side of the street. Next slide. These sectional diagrams illustrate the modest increase in vertical and horizontal dimensions between the existing and proposed conditions. The structure remains subordinate to the main residence and retains a low profile to minimize bulk and massing. Next slide. From the street level view on Sweet Briar Lane, the proposed garage will appear nine feet, four inches tall. The structure remains visually compatible with existing topography. and neighboring garages which are similarly located near at the right of way line next slide |
| 00:12:02.23 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry to interrupt you. While she's presenting, can we just please be quiet? Thank you very much. We'd appreciate it. |
| 00:12:12.14 | Katie Nelson | The plan elevations allow us to see how the proposed garage has been carefully designed to remain as minimal in mass and bulk as functionally possible. providing only the space necessary to accommodate two standard vehicles, an EV charger, and sufficient clearance for safe pedestrian movement within the structure. Great effort has been made to ensure that the structure maintains a low profile, both in height and visual impact, consistent with the site's constraints and the surrounding neighborhood character. Next slide. From the rear, the garage's interior height gently transitions with the tapered roof line with a range between five feet, 10 inches and eight feet, nine inches. This demonstrates the intention behind the minimalist design. Next slide. Proposed materials include vertical wood siding painted in a dark gray tone to match the existing house and fencing, a dark standing seam metal roof to reduce glare and debris accumulation, and steel-framed windows and doors. These finishes were selected for visual harmony and durability. Next slide. Next slide. Story polls were installed and certified on July 9th to illustrate the profile of the proposed garage. As seen here, the massing is limited and does not obstruct primary views from neighboring properties. Primary view means any distance Any view distance from primary viewing areas of a dwelling, such as the living room, dining room, kitchen, master bedroom, and deck or patio spaces serving such living areas. A secondary view shall be any view from bathrooms, Accessory bedrooms, passageways, and utility areas. I'd like to note that based on a review of the original plans of the whole much one sweet Briar lane across the street, primary view areas appear to be located on the uppermost level of the residents with the exception of the master bedroom. which on the floor plans was located on the far north end of the lower level with no windows facing east towards Sweetbriar and the Bay beyond. Next slide. The project complies with all zoning standards except the north side yard setback and the encroachment into the public right of way in the front. The existing site already exceeds 80% of the allowable floor area. So heightened review findings have been provided for the proposed project. With only very minor increases in building in impervious coverage, the conversion of the parking deck to the enclosed garage remains well within the site's allowable development capacity. Next slide. Staff has concluded that the proposed project meets all the design review findings in SMC section 10.54050 D. The structure is modest in scale, maintains privacy, and fits within the neighborhood context. No protected trees will be removed, and the project preserves existing landscaping and topography with minimal site grading less than 50 cubic yards. Next slide. The variance request builds off the current position of the parking deck previously approved in the setback from 1956. It can be supported due to several exceptional circumstances, irregular lot shape with nine different dimensional sides, 39% average slope limiting developable area, and an angled frontage on a narrow right of way. literal enforcement of the five foot side yard setback would prevent the owner from providing the required parking under SMC 10.40100B.com. The property would become non-compliant with this zoning regulation by only being able to support one off-street parking space. Granting the variance will not impact public health or safety, nor constitute a special privilege, since numerous side yard setback variances have previously been granted in the zoning district in order to facilitate the construction of accessory structures for off-street parking. Next slide. The one foot nine inch garage encroachment affects only four square feet of right of way and is necessary to maintain the functional parking location that has been in use since 1956. It does not impact public circulation or access and is consistent with six other garages or open parking areas located in or at the right of way line of Sweet Briar Lane. The encroachment will not adversely affect the usability or enjoyment of adjoining parcels and no hazards to public safety will result. The applicant also acknowledges that the encroaching portion of the structure may be required to be removed if future right of way expansion or infrastructure improvements are planned by the city. Next slide. In conclusion, staff recommends the planning commission approve application 2024 dash zero zero two zero eight for 87 San Carlos Avenue and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the design review permit and variance, along with providing a recommendation of approval to city council for the encroachment agreement. Staff finds that the project meets all applicable findings in SMC sections 10.54050D and E, 10.68050, and 10.56060. Approval is subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolution and any modifications and additions stipulated by the Commission tonight. Thank you. And that concludes my presentation. |
| 00:17:40.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Katie, for the presentation. I'm going to go ahead and look to the Commission for questions. Commissioner Marlott, do you want to start us off? |
| 00:17:48.45 | David Marlatt | Sure, thank you very much, yes, and thank you, Katie, for that very comprehensive presentation. I just have two, I think, relatively quick questions, which aren't directly about the project itself, but as you helped me find out, thank you very much. The Suite Byer Lane, sort of counterintuitively, is designated as the front yard, and San Carlos is the rear yard for purposes of this project and that's contained speaking of being in a working group to rewrite the municipal code that's contained in our definition of property line and so it's quite correct my question is is this app is this designation assigned per project in other, not that the owner wants to do this, but should they come in the future with another project where they want to build on the zero, right on the property line on the San Carlos side? Can they designate for the purposes of that application? |
| 00:18:45.29 | Katie Nelson | Yeah, I'm not aware of a provision in our code that stipulates that they have to stick one way or the other. It just is at the discretion of the community development director, and the code stipulates that it can't be injurious to other adjacent properties. So... Theoretically speaking, they could potentially pick a different side for their front property line next time. The interpretation before you tonight is consistent with the administrative design review permit that was processed in 2023 and the encroachment agreement from 2018 and 2019. |
| 00:19:17.99 | David Marlatt | Okay, yeah, thank you very much. And then my other question, just a quick one, regarding attachment five, approved side yard setback variances. Was that prepared by the applicant or staff? |
| 00:19:28.29 | Katie Nelson | It was provided by previous staff. |
| 00:19:30.36 | David Marlatt | Previous stuff, okay, then I won't ask any questions about it. Thank you very much. |
| 00:19:34.63 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:19:37.05 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Again, thank you for the presentation. Very thorough. Appreciate, obviously, the sloped version of the roof. But the encroachment, based on the way the project is set up, the actually front of the garage, where you front end of the car, kind of has a middle section and two back sections at about nine inches. So you push those two side inches, then you reduce that encroachment. So was there discussion why the applicant can't push the garage forward two feet to get out of the encroaching area? |
| 00:19:53.46 | Unknown | and. |
| 00:20:10.71 | Katie Nelson | There wasn't a particular discussion. It was the design that was provided by the licensed professional and it's sticking with the consistent same arrangement of the existing parking deck that's been in use for many years. |
| 00:20:25.51 | Fred Moore | My concern is that It's different when you have an open parking area on that curved part of the street versus a structure. Sure. So 1.9 inches off of an open area, a lot visual than a structure. So, okay, we answered the question. There was no discussion about that. Okay, maybe if the applicants here would be curious if they could make some comments about why they can't be pushed forward since there's nothing in front of the garage that would curb competition. |
| 00:20:32.66 | Katie Nelson | Sure. |
| 00:20:50.79 | Katie Nelson | Sure. I think he intends on presenting and can probably address that. |
| 00:20:54.74 | Fred Moore | Perfect. |
| 00:20:55.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:20:55.38 | Katie Nelson | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:20:56.63 | Nastassya Saad | Great, thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:20:59.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Katie. Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple questions, but they're probably best for the applicants, so I'll hold off. |
| 00:21:05.91 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Excellent. And vice chair? No questions. I just wanted to comment. I think I saw three public comments by the time it was posted. Did you receive anything more, Katie? |
| 00:21:15.34 | Katie Nelson | Just the three. |
| 00:21:16.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. I don't have any other questions, so appreciate it. So if I believe it is Scott Couture, and I don't know if he's here or on Zoom, whoever from the applicant team wishes to present, now would be the time. Thank you. Oh, there you are. |
| 00:21:30.51 | Katie Nelson | Thank you. |
| 00:21:35.19 | Nastassya Saad | You will have 15 minutes for your presentation. If we stop you at any time, it won't count against your time. And you are more than welcome to leave some time for rebuttal after public comment. If you either want to make those comments or continue your presentation, that will be your prerogative. But welcome. Thank you for being here. |
| 00:21:52.03 | Scott Couture | Scott Couture, Perfect good evening Christianers my name is Scott Couture I'm the project architect, the first line we have there is the full site it's highlighted in yellow there, you can see at the top of the screen it runs from San Carlos have. Scott Couture, All the way up to sweep wire lane, the blue section that's highlighted at the bottom left corner, there is the current parking deck next slide. This is sort of a blow up of that. The blue section there again is the current shape of the parking deck. Next slide. What we're proposing is to slightly expand the width of the parking deck. Currently, the width is 18 feet 2 inches inside. Next slide. We also want to expand the length of the parking deck to 20 feet right now, it is 19 feet next slide. We're also proposing to add inside the perimeter of the fence and on the property side, a trash can storage area. Right now it is in the parking deck. Next slide. Thank you. And the green area there we like to keep the majority of the hedge and the fence that's there that screens the property from the street. Next slide. So this is showing the proposed roof overlaid with the blue there, which is the current shape of the parking deck. So you can see we're just making a minor expansion in pretty much three directions. We're going to shorten it a little bit in the sweep wire side, straighten that edge up. You can see the top of the trash can storage area and the existing head, which is going to remain. Next slide. This is the plan of the floor plan of the garage. The car parking is almost in the identical location that it is now. The front of the garage is essentially at the front of the existing parking deck. There are no changes in the current traffic pattern. We think what's there works. Next slide. |
| 00:23:47.27 | Scott Couture | This is the storage area, as Katie mentioned, is about 200 square feet. This is to keep items that generally kick cars out of the garage, keep them out of the garage so the cars can be in there. This is for bikes or brakes or paddle boards, whatever people use around here. Next slide. This is a site section. Top is the existing site section. It shows the relationship between the existing parking deck and the home at 87 San Carlos and also the home across the street at 1 Sweet Briar Lane. You can see the home across the street has three levels. There's a garage below, an entry level with, I think, a couple of rooms there. The entry level and the room that does have a downhill face in view, we have obscure glass, there's no view out of there. And I believe as well as the living levels on the top floor, which is obviously the primary views are from. Bottom slide shows the addition of the garage enclosure. We do believe that it is not impacting views from the primary level, certainly not doing it significantly. Next slide. we are requesting that As Katie stated, the area that's shaded in blue, this is the current variance that the park and deck has. Thank you. We are requesting an expansion of that by 12 inches. That is highlighted in red there. And then we have a small section on the bottom right-hand corner. It's highlighted in orange there, which is basically a four-square-foot area accrocheted into that sort of triangular section where the property line juts back into the property. Okay. Next slide. Um, having a garage in Sweetfire Lane is not unusual. There are, I think there's nine residents that sort of face Sweetfire Lane. Six of them currently have garages. This is the first house on the street, 27 Spencer Avenue. It's got a garage with living floors above it. Next slide. This is the next door house to that. It's 33 Spencer Ave. Again, it's got a two-car garage, a living space above it. Next slide. Further up the street, one house up across the street is 93 San Carlos. Same thing, has a garage with a living level above it. This is directly adjacent to 87 San Carlos. Next slide. Next slide. Directly across the street is one sweep by our lane, you can see it's a three story structure does have a garage on the lower ground floor level and then next slide. And then finally, this is 40 Cooper lane, it also has a garage it's tucked back up on the driveway and looks like it's a single story structure as well next slide. This is a view, basically a bird's eye view from 87 San Carlos. It does show the mass and articulation of the roof line. The roof is essentially a flat roof. It's a quarter inch per slope sloping up from the street. The parking deck below is the same. There is nine feet, four inches between the parking surface and the finished surface of the roof. We have dipped the two corners down, both to help articulate the mass and to keep that edge of the roof line down as low as possible below there is a concrete structure that contains the storage area the architecture that we have decided to use here is basically an extension of the existing landscape and so the concrete base has a vertical ribbed concrete board formed texture to it. It matches the existing concrete walls that make up that patio space. The upper floors have a vertical wood board that ties into the fencing that's around there so that the building is not mimicking the existing house, the 1902 structure. It is more becoming part of the landscaping features that are on there. The colors match the existing house. It's kind of this brownish undertone of dark charcoal or black. Next slide. This is the streetscape view. Looking up, Sweetwire, on the left there's a tree. It's an existing tree that's on 93 San Carlos. You've got the garage in the middle there. It is essentially a garage door with a frame around it, minimum sidewalls, minimum roof line. Next to that, between the garage and the hedge, there's a small pedestrian gate to bring the garbage in and out, but also have just pedestrians go in and out. and then to the right is the existing small pedestrian gate to bring the garbage in and out, but also have just pedestrians go in and out. And then to the right is the existing hedge that we're going to preserve. Next slide. This is the material palette, which we described. Next slide. |
| 00:28:41.01 | Scott Couture | The one thing that we would like to request is sort of a modification of condition of approval number 11. So what we would like to do is have construction access from Sweet Briar Lane. Sweet Briar Lane in front of the existing carport and in front of the proposed garage is anywhere from 18 feet 8 inches to 19 feet 10 inches. So it's fairly wide at this section. It gets a little wider, a little further up. San Carlos Ave is a walking distance of 175 feet. It's a vertical distance of 40 feet. It is, I think, an undue burden to place on the construction, both the cost and the timing, to have all construction access from San Carlos Ave. We fully understand that construction is, it's inconvenient, it can be an impediment for street traffic. What we propose is to not have any debris boxes or any materials stored on the street. We can do all that down on the concrete deck below. We would like to have the ability to have a small work truck, bring supplies, bring people up to the site, park in front of the structure. Work trucks are generally less than eight feet, usually in the six-foot range. That leaves plenty of room for an emergency vehicle to drive by. It leaves plenty of room for a residential car to go by. and I think provides, you know, legal access for the homeowner to access the site. These vehicles, any debris, any material would not be left in the roadway at any point in time overnight or during non-work hours. Any staged vehicle there would be a wheeled vehicle and would be manned and could be moved immediately if necessary. And these are conditions that we are very comfortable with. Next slide. |
| 00:30:37.70 | Scott Couture | And so this has some language I think we would be very comfortable with that no construction equipment, vehicles, dumpsters and materials shall be left in the sweep by a right of way overnight or during non work hours. And of course, at any point in time, emergency vehicle access and access to adjacent properties shall be maintained throughout the duration of the project. We feel that the property owners have a right. This is a public way. They have a right to utilize that street in a lawful manner. to do what is a normal house homeowner transportation, which is construction, remodeling, and maintenance. I think that's it. And I'm open to take any questions. Thank you. |
| 00:31:21.63 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We'll stop the clock. Thank you, Maria. We've got five minutes and 31 seconds left that you can use later. I'm going to open it up to the commission now for questions. Commissioner Luxembourg, do you want to start us off? |
| 00:31:27.52 | Scott Couture | great. |
| 00:31:33.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, Scott. Two questions. One is related to the storage area. So the plans indicate that the current the plan says the current one is 85 square feet and the new one is 130 square feet, but the new one to me looks smaller than the existing one. You've dimensioned it 15 feet by 10 feet as the existing one. So I'm a little confused because it looks on the plans to be smaller. |
| 00:32:02.30 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:02.31 | Scott Couture | So I- |
| 00:32:07.54 | Scott Couture | At some point, the existing storage area doesn't, the ceiling height, I think, is below the town requirements. It doesn't count as floor area. |
| 00:32:18.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So it's an FAR definitional situation. It actually is going to be physically, in the horizontal plane, it's going to be smaller than what's there now. Is that? |
| 00:32:33.30 | Scott Couture | Thank you. In the horizontal plane, it's bigger than what's there now, the available storage area. But yes, in the horizontal plane, it is smaller. Smaller. Yeah, it's a smaller footprint. |
| 00:32:40.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Smaller. Okay. Smaller footprint. That's what I thought. Yep. And second is we did just get some letters from some of the abutters, but when I was out there looking at it, did you or the owner have conversations with any of the neighbors? I saw in the report you had trouble getting a hold of one of the neighbors, but have you had conversations with any of the neighbors on this? |
| 00:32:42.20 | Scott Couture | That's what I thought. |
| 00:33:04.60 | Scott Couture | The owner has had some conversations with them. They were brief, and they were a while ago. There hasn't been any recent conversations. Prior to putting up the story polls, I sent letters out to all the adjacent neighbors on that street, opening up the ability to meet with them, to review the plans, review the polls, but I did not get any responses back on that. The one letter that we sent out that did come back was from 97 San Carlos Ave., |
| 00:33:11.40 | Unknown | as a |
| 00:33:30.69 | Scott Couture | That home is... under sale, it's not for sale, and I don't know, I mailed it to the address, but I don't believe there's a mailbox there, so the letter came back to me. |
| 00:33:41.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Those are all the questions I have, Chair. |
| 00:33:45.28 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg. Commissioner Marlowe. |
| 00:33:48.32 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you, Chair. A couple of questions. One is the project is designated as a conversion. And this may not even be a material difference. But what if the, if anything, what if the existing structure is remaining? Or is it a bit of the thought? is what people... |
| 00:34:05.52 | Scott Couture | How much of the existing structure is remaining? Yes. Probably nothing. Probably nothing. Yeah. This is more of a new construction. It's pretty much a new structure. It's hard to tell exactly what the head wall is at the street. It's buried. So we don't know how far down it goes. Our assumption at this point is there's a concrete wall that's holding up the edge of the street there that that probably needs to be replaced. And that's what we're assuming here. |
| 00:34:10.06 | David Marlatt | This is more of a new |
| 00:34:26.38 | David Marlatt | That's right. That's true. It's been clear we're looking at it as a new construction. Yeah. Thank you. Another question, there was in the staff report, and I think you mentioned too, that you're unable to join the neighbor at 93 Sweetbriar, that's for sale. And that may pose problems with the property line wall. So if you cannot get access to put up your scaffolding and so on for the property line wall, can you maybe describe briefly how you would go about alternatively constructing that? And it has a wood finish, a vertical? It's a wood finish. |
| 00:34:40.63 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:34:58.27 | Scott Couture | It's a wood finish on there. So it's barely zero lot line construction. It's done quite a bit in San Francisco. We've done some, you know, condos and homes there. And they would basically build the whole wall flat side and waterproof and then they would tip it up into place and it would basically be pre-painted. Part of the way we have it constructed with the concrete wall below and the steel beam above allows us to do that and get flashing over the edge of the steel beam. Thank you. |
| 00:35:24.59 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 00:35:24.61 | Scott Couture | So we are prepared to be able to construct this without having an access easement on the neighborhood property. |
| 00:35:35.21 | David Marlatt | Great. Thank you. And my last question, you'd mentioned some modifications to the condition 11. The condition 11 that's in the resolution, was that something that came about through discussions with the neighbors or just from staff? How did that come? |
| 00:35:51.76 | Scott Couture | I had some discussions with Katie on that. When I read that, it does allow some access from Sweet Buyer. To me, it's not clear, but I could also read it in a way where it says all construction access shall be from San Carlos Avenue. Unless it's ultimately necessary, you can't do it on San Carlos Avenue. And we would almost like the language of it to be clear, to be almost the opposite, where... construction access is allowed from Sweet Briar Lane as long as we can keep a lane open and we do it and it's done in a lawful manner. Um, and then some access will be from San Carlos Ave. So if there's a lot of concrete pool that we'll need to do in there, You know, a concrete truck is not Very wide, but it's very long. So there's no way that we could stage a concrete truck on Sweetfire Lane without shutting the lane down. So that we understand that we'd have to park the concrete truck and a pump and trailer behind it on San Carlos Ave will run the hoses up the steps that run all the way up there. and they would pump the concrete up there. So there are some items that we know already that we cannot do from Sweetfire Lane because it would cause street blockage on there. |
| 00:37:14.47 | David Marlatt | OK, thank you. But the genesis of the text of that condition 11 was not coming from neighborhood discussions or neighbor discussions. |
| 00:37:22.16 | Scott Couture | But not for my knowledge. That would be a question for Katie. Okay. All right. |
| 00:37:26.43 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. |
| 00:37:26.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:37:27.01 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:37:27.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:37:27.73 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:37:27.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:37:29.05 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Good evening. Go back to my original question with respect to the possibility of pushing the garage out two feet away from the street. |
| 00:37:39.34 | Scott Couture | So from, let's say, the living level of one Sweetbire Lane, the further we push that out, the more it's going to get into the view. So we've sort of kept it pushing forward towards Sweetbire Lane as much as possible. We wanted to maintain that existing street frontage. It's working now. We didn't want to change that. And then we basically added 20 feet of depth to the car parking area in there. And so that's sort of why we ended up with that one foot nine measurement. It's basically what's there now. So if we push it back two feet, all it does is take that ridge line and pushes it further into any views that may be from one sweep by our lane. |
| 00:38:25.61 | Fred Moore | I'm not following that based on the depictions here. It seems like the view is over the top of it, so going out is not going to be sideways, going to be from 93, not the other case. |
| 00:38:34.93 | Scott Couture | Yeah, the further you move that that ridgeline out this way, the more it has potential to get into the viewscape of the viewscape above it from the angle of one sweep by our lane. |
| 00:38:45.52 | Fred Moore | Right, I saw that presentation. |
| 00:38:47.70 | Scott Couture | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:38:49.76 | Fred Moore | of that. The other question would be with respect to the modification to condition 11. What are your proposals in conjunction with that to keep the street open or to have somebody there? Are you proposing a flag person there or just someone calling if they need to get out? |
| 00:39:06.91 | Scott Couture | Yeah, we would keep it open. There would always be a full lane there. |
| 00:39:11.22 | Fred Moore | Okay. Of how wide? |
| 00:39:13.82 | Scott Couture | 10 to 12 feet. Like I said, it's the existing lane that's there is in the range of 19 feet in front of that existing area. So, you know, most pickup trucks are six feet wide, maybe eight with the mirrors or if they have boxes on them. And that, I think, leaves ample room to allow for a car or a fire truck to go by. Fire trucks are eight to eight and a half feet wide. Thank you. |
| 00:39:38.55 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:39:40.81 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Vice Chair. |
| 00:39:42.41 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. I had one question. Could we bring the, we're probably not gonna be able to see it with the girl here, but the slide with the views on it, there was one line in there I didn't understand. So, I mean, I understand your issue about pushing it back. Certainly, I think it's a little bit- The two sections? The two sections, yeah, with the two on top of each other. |
| 00:39:57.39 | Scott Couture | I think it's a little bit... Thank you. |
| 00:40:11.42 | Andrew Junius | There it is, right there. No, go back. When we're back. There it is. All right. What is that line? Is that a telephone pole? It looks like it's three feet in front of the garage to the right. You see the line that almost touches the view? Yeah, that line right there. What is that? |
| 00:40:29.64 | Scott Couture | That is a property line, but it's it's since the property sort of goes at an angle. That is a property land at one point along the street footage. |
| 00:40:38.23 | Andrew Junius | So it's a property land. It's not a physical structure on the – it's not a telephone pole or a fence or anything like that? Correct, yeah. That's all I need to thank you. |
| 00:40:45.34 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 00:40:45.35 | Nastassya Saad | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:40:45.39 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 00:40:45.51 | Nastassya Saad | Correct, yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. I just had one question. Of course, a design review and upgrade is completely acceptable, but is there anything structurally wrong with the existing garage today |
| 00:40:59.71 | Scott Couture | Yeah, the deck is leaking. So the deck needs to be pulled off and waterproof and done, and we don't know what kind of dry water or whatever is underneath there. |
| 00:41:09.69 | Nastassya Saad | OK, thank you very much. Yes. |
| 00:41:13.43 | David Marlatt | Go ahead. I just had one follow-up question, following Commissioner Moore's question about pushing the building back. I think it was in your drawings, but I can't find it right now. What is the total height of the accessory building, you know, based on the averages? |
| 00:41:32.25 | David Marlatt | eight foot four. |
| 00:41:32.97 | Scott Couture | Thank you. |
| 00:41:33.03 | David Marlatt | It's a great thing. |
| 00:41:33.11 | Scott Couture | 14 feet and five as I should have it up to. |
| 00:41:33.13 | David Marlatt | 20. Thank you. |
| 00:41:35.57 | Scott Couture | THE END OF |
| 00:41:35.64 | David Marlatt | or something like that, right? So if you were to move it back two feet, that changes your grade plane, that would lower it. Would that throw you over 15 feet? |
| 00:41:42.59 | Scott Couture | Right. I think 16 feet is the maximum, but I don't believe it would. Okay. |
| 00:41:51.62 | Nastassya Saad | Can you say that one more time? I just want to follow the math. |
| 00:41:54.79 | David Marlatt | The height is determined as the average grade plane. Right. And it's 15 feet for an accessory building. |
| 00:41:57.88 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:41:58.05 | Nastassya Saad | you. |
| 00:41:58.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:01.22 | David Marlatt | Is it 15 feet for the record? Yes, 15 feet. So you're going to say something like 14 feet right now. So by moving it down the hill, keeping the height the same, but the land goes down two feet, and a 39% slope, would that throw your height over 15 feet? |
| 00:42:02.00 | Nastassya Saad | For the record, yes. |
| 00:42:22.18 | David Marlatt | and I'm not asking you to do the math right now. |
| 00:42:24.43 | Scott Couture | I'm pulling up some plans because I have it right now on here. |
| 00:42:26.62 | Nastassya Saad | I have a great day. |
| 00:42:26.82 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:42:26.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:42:30.97 | Nastassya Saad | And if there's any part of the presentation you want us to pull up as well, we can. |
| 00:42:35.21 | Scott Couture | I thought it was in the line. So the current height is 14 feet, three inches that we're proposing. The maximum height is 15 feet. Maybe. |
| 00:42:35.70 | Nastassya Saad | So the. |
| 00:42:45.74 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 00:42:48.34 | Scott Couture | Yeah, because our lower number wouldn't move because it's a concrete deck down below, but our upper number would drop down. Right. Okay. |
| 00:42:57.37 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. OK, no other questions. Thank you very much. You still have five minutes and 31 seconds. We'll call you back after public comment. |
| 00:43:03.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:06.21 | Nastassya Saad | Assistant City Manager, can you please facilitate public comment for this item? |
| 00:43:09.95 | Assistant City Manager | Absolutely. Thank you, Chair. I will start with speaker cards that I have received, and then I'll go to the Zoom application. I will call them in the order that I have them presented to me. Kent Ainsworth, welcome. |
| 00:43:34.42 | Assistant City Manager | Whenever you're ready, Ken. You'll have three minutes. |
| 00:43:40.30 | Kent Ainsworth | I live at, sorry, thank you for Thank you. giving me the opportunity to speak. I live at 70. |
| 00:43:46.93 | Nastassya Saad | Could you kindly speak into the microphone? We have people on Zoom. Thank you. |
| 00:43:50.00 | Kent Ainsworth | Sorry, I live at 73 San Carlos next door. Um, my views aren't affected by this project. Uh, I'm more concerned about, um, the traffic issue during construction. And I did reach out to, um, Mr. Couture and we talked to five or 10 minutes about the, uh, plan that they have in place to mitigate, um, people being able to go in and out because we do constantly go in and out during the day. It sounds like a good plan. Having been in that position in that house for 20 some years, we've seen a lot of construction and I know that the lane can get really clogged up very quickly. So I hope it works. I have one question for you guys. What are the purposes of a variance? |
| 00:44:45.26 | Nastassya Saad | So we are not able to engage in the public comment, but feel free to continue. And potentially staff might be able to weigh in, but this will just be your time to speak. |
| 00:44:54.99 | Kent Ainsworth | Okay, well, it seems to me, I don't know all the issues that come together to create a variance, but the setbacks are five feet on the sides, and I thought three feet on the front, and I don't know what it is on the back, or maybe it's both. So if we have variances, and I'm sure there's a lot of reasons that they were put into place, Why are we questioning? over and over about ignoring them. A variance is a variance. Why not enforce it? Plus, in this case, I was surprised to learn that their front door is on Sweet Briar Lane. when their mail address is San Carlos Avenue. So that sort of surprised me, but anyway. It seems like there's adequate. room to put a garage down below on San Carlos Avenue. That's a big, big lot. I don't see why they couldn't you know, go back into the hillside and build a garage. |
| 00:46:02.15 | Kent Ainsworth | I guess that's those are my main concerns. the egress and getting in and out and this whole issue about a variance. What's the value of variance if it's not enforceable? Okay, that's all I got. Thanks. |
| 00:46:18.35 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you, sir, for your comments. Next speaker is David Levinson. David, welcome. |
| 00:46:27.44 | Assistant City Manager | Not three minutes. |
| 00:46:28.57 | David Levinson | True comments. Thank you. Pardon me. I have two comments to make. The presenter mentioned in his talk that he had reached out to the neighbors either by written form or personally. to ask about our comments. I can tell you He... or the property owner never, never reached out to me. I live right on the lane. The address is 27 Spencer. I'm the first house on the lane. And I never received any communication from the owner or the architect. Further, the young lady sitting next to me, I just also has never heard from anybody. Thank you. Second point is Uh, Someone should, you probably have, I want to call your attention to, if you take a walk down Sweet Briar Lane. My house is at the corner of Sweet Briar and Spencer. My garage is under the house. you go to the adjacent house. The garage there is under the house. You go one more house, which is across the street from the proposed room, his garage or her garage is under the house. If you go into, into, um, Cooper, Cooper Lane, 40 Cooper. The property owner's house garage is under the house. There is a cross from my property, also a San Carlos address, A garage. It is under the house. This would be the only garage. That is it. house is at House level and not under. Thank you. |
| 00:48:15.86 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you, sir, for your comments. Next speaker is Brenda Hayes. Brenda, welcome. You'll have three minutes. |
| 00:48:29.65 | Unknown | Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns related to this project. I think we can all agree that Sausalito is not always the easiest place to live. It's winding streets, and they're narrow, and the steep hillsides pose a lot of challenges for everyone. But I think we'd also agree that it's that vista and quality of life that makes it worthwhile to deal with those challenges. What makes it all work is when neighbors work together, when changes are on the table. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in this instance. The full-time residents of Sweetbower Lane were first made aware of this project when we received a form letter on July 5th. that the story polls would be for the project would be installed the next week. Project plan information was made available on the Commission's website seven days ago. Those documents informed us that evaluation of the project and its impacts on all of us had already been done and there was no issue to worry about. Imagine our surprise and disappointment. The proposed project is not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood and completely crowds and overwhelms an already challenging location. Installing this overbuilt structure will impact accessibility and safety for residents who rely on the lane as the sole access for their homes. The structure blocks iconic and water views that have been for decades enjoyed by residents in the public. that would now only be available to the vehicles of part-time residents for whom Sweetbriar isn't even the primary address. Imposing this structure does nothing to enhance the neighborhood, but instead impacts our usability, enjoying it. and the value of our properties. The heightened scope of the project is excessive and unnecessary. No vehicle requires an eight and a half foot ceiling in its garage. And the gesture of lowering the roofline corners does nothing to minimize the mass of the structure. The current parking deck already encroaches into the lane, and this design proposes a larger, more hazardous encroachment all to enhance parking that already exists for part-time residents at another street address. To be concise, this project is overbuilt, diminishes rather than enhances the neighborhood and grant special privilege to one resident at the expense of all the others. No construction management plan until tonight had even been discussed of how this project would be achieved The constructability questions are staggering. And no effort has been made to engage with neighbors related to any aspect of this project And so we're appealing to the commission to see the significant negative impact this project would have on an entire small neighborhood It's also important to note that 87 San Carlos has ample space to improve their project by adding a garage on San Carlos. where their property address is that would have none of these same impacts We and the majority of the neighbors have opposed this project and submitted in writing. but I ask you to stand in our shoes for just a moment. I'm imagining that you've just been stepped out of your home that you've been in for over 60 years. That's your primary asset. to find your beautiful water view of Angel Island and Raccoon has been replaced by a black shipping container less than 40 feet from your front door. Thank you very much. |
| 00:51:36.17 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you for your comments. Looking to the zoom application for raised hands. Going once, going twice. Back to you, Chair. Seeing none. |
| 00:51:47.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Thank you for public comment. I'm going to turn it back over to you, Mr. Couture. You still have five minutes and 31 seconds. You may either continue with your presentation or respond to public comment. Whatever you'd like to do, Maria will put the clock up in just a moment. And you can feel free to go ahead and get started. |
| 00:52:07.74 | Scott Couture | Okay, let's make a couple of just a couple of points in there. We do believe the size of the garage is actually fairly minimal to accommodate two parking spaces in there. So a standard SUV with a hatchback open has a ground clearance somewhere between seven foot six and eight feet. To be able to open it up underneath the garage door when it's up, garage door requires about six inches of space, low profile garage door. And we have allowed about 10 inches of roof structure in there, and that comprises the nine feet four inches of space that's in there. There's not a lot of extra space in there. We want to make sure that you can pull into the garage. If you've got a pickup truck, the owner has a Rivian pickup truck. They're six feet, four to six feet, seven inches high on the roof line. that the truck can fully fit in there, or if you have an SUV, you wanna get groceries out of the back that you can do it inside your garage with a hatch open rather than out in the street with a hatch open. So the height of the structure is actually, I think, fairly minimal for that. This is their primary residence. I've seen that in a few letters. Again, this is their primary residence. They deserve no less property rights or legal rights for not being here as long as some of the other residents. This is their primary residence. And we have looked at a garage on san carlos side so we did this for the previous owner colin lynn who uh we first designed this garage for colin on the property this was back in 2018 san carlos have um the edge of the pavement the edge of street from san carlos after the property line is 30 feet. We would have to basically have a driveway 30 feet long and cut into the hillside. So there's a pullout area that's down there. There's always cars that are parked there. We would have to remove probably at least three of these parking spaces. This is a prized public parking space. It is chock full of work trucks every day. There's three cars there right now as I drove by on the way to this hearing. So if we put a garage down on San Carlos Ave, it would either have to be fully within the right of way, within that 30 feet from the edge of the pavement to the property line, If we put it over the property line, then whether it's partially over, we would have to excavate out the hillside or fully into it, excavate the hillside 20 feet. that Parkinary is ringed with a series of oak trees that or sit on the top of the bank. you know, one, two, maybe three oak trees, depending on where we put the garage down there. So putting a garage in San Carlos Ave, we looked at it. It has extraordinary number of deficits to it. And we don't think it's a good idea at all. We think it's actually far worse than utilizing the existing parking spaces and just putting a cover over them. Thank you. |
| 00:55:02.10 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Are you going to yield the rest of your time? Perfect. Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. So we are going to close this portion of the public hearing and bring it back up to the dais for discussion. Anyone in particular want to start us off? Commissioner Moore, do you have any initial thoughts? |
| 00:55:26.62 | Fred Moore | I'm still concerned about the encroachment into the right away area, even though I know it's only a small area. I think it has some issues potentially with just the visibility around that corner. So I'm still struggling with that and why we need to have the encroachment. I understand the potential view issue by moving down a couple of feet. I'm not sure that's the view that's going to be a block versus the structure itself. So I'm still struggling with that. |
| 00:55:52.59 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Thank you very much. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:55:58.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I'm struggling with the encroachment because it's such a small area. Why can't we set it back? But in looking at the view diagram, I am a little worried about that because it does hit the view. I looked at San Carlos. I am understanding what he's saying about it would seem logical we could just put it there but it would that what i'm now understanding is that uh area is all in the right-of-way so if they get it out of the right-of-way then it's first of all it's excavation and second of all it'll have a little bit of a driveway through the right-of-way and it's going to take out parking in the neighborhood so uh that's a you know i'm not sure that's the best solution but i understand what the neighbors are saying about the impact on on sweetbriar so i'm sort of at a crossroads here so |
| 00:56:55.95 | David Marlatt | Commissioner Marlott. Thank you. Overall, with respect to the location of the garage, I don't have any problem with that. This is historically a space where the owners of that property parked two cars, and it will be parked two cars. So I just don't see the impact other than providing a safer weatherproof enclosure for two cars. With respect to the height and the encroachment, I started out thinking a little bit like my fellow commissioners, you know, is this really necessary? And I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's kind of de minimis. It's kind of where I come from. It's four square feet. If we look at the way the property line kind of jogs, but the pavement is a smooth curve. Had the property line followed the curve of the pavement, it's a rationalization, I understand, no encroachment would be necessary. So I don't know that it's functionally encroaching as much as maybe it sounds. And also, I do think that it may not be a huge impact, but pushing the entire structure back two feet is two feet closer to the existing house. It's maybe a foot or maybe 10 inches taller. Maybe it throws it out of compliance with the building height. I'm not sure. And over four square feet. And so I kind of come down on that side of that equation. Otherwise, I find the design to be mindful. I think, you know, they've kept them massing to a minimum. They're not trying to park a sprinter van or anything too terribly ambitious. The materials are subdued. And historically, it's been two parking spaces. So I really don't have a problem. |
| 00:58:40.78 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. |
| 00:58:44.38 | Andrew Junius | I'm in agreement. I'm satisfied with the presentation staff report looks good to me and the recommendation looks good. So I would move to approve as proposed. |
| 00:58:57.17 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. I appreciate everybody's feedback. A bit more in the Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Luxembourg camp. I think that there is, I mean, to your point, Commissioner Marlott, there is parking. It's existing parking. So it's not that I have an issue with the location since it's an existing parking structure. I do find the massing, and this is design review, and so with the coloring as well, I mean, I find it overwhelming. And so I can see the concern from the neighbors. I don't like to do the math up here, so I think with that, if we get anywhere close to making a recommendation for a change mathematically, the numbers are going to have to all be run again regardless. So that would probably lean towards a potential continuance. But I'm not sure I am. ready to approve as is at the moment so let's see uh was that was that an official motion uh that was not an official motion was it |
| 01:00:03.26 | Andrew Junius | That was absolutely an official motion, and I'm still waiting for a second, if anybody wants a second. |
| 01:00:06.51 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. So there is a potential motion here on the floor, if there is a second, and we can continue discussion, of course. |
| 01:00:13.58 | David Marlatt | or |
| 01:00:14.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:00:14.05 | David Marlatt | Commissioner Marlott. Yeah, I'll second that, but with a friendly amendment to also adopt the modifications to the condition 11. |
| 01:00:23.85 | Andrew Junius | Yes, that actually, thank you for reminding me of that. That seems very reasonable and makes a lot of sense, and I would allow that amendment to my motion. Thank you. |
| 01:00:32.91 | Nastassya Saad | Can I staff a... Just to weigh in on condition 11, I believe in the staff report it did call it out as a potential concern. Could you give us just a note on this condition, on where it came from, and the concerns that led to include it in the resolution? |
| 01:00:55.17 | Katie Nelson | Sure, thank you. This was a result of discussion with residents on the streets and partnership with the applicant, we had a discussion Initially there was some uh, reception of the access being, um, from solely San Carlos Avenue, but it was later explained to me that his construction plan, um, And the techniques using to build the garage made it feasible to utilize the Sweet Briar Lane access and that he would ensure that it was maintained a full 11 feet at least open for emergency access to be available to serve the properties on the, on Sweet Briar. |
| 01:01:41.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for that clarification. |
| 01:01:45.76 | David Marlatt | it's |
| 01:01:46.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:01:46.46 | David Marlatt | Can I ask that staff? I'm sorry. Does staff support then understand this modification to condition 11? Is that what I'm understanding? |
| 01:01:54.83 | Katie Nelson | Yep. Staff is in support of the modification of Condition 11. |
| 01:01:58.59 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. |
| 01:02:00.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So I have further question on that. So there was a condition 11 and then you modified that and reposted it. And is what being what's being proposed to the applicant different than what you reposted? This is a second modification or |
| 01:02:17.17 | Katie Nelson | No, my understanding is that the draft resolution reflects the current modification that he's requested. It's the same as what he's shown in his presentation tonight. Thank you. |
| 01:02:27.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:02:27.73 | Katie Nelson | That no vehicles would be stored, no materials would be stored within the right-of-way on Sweet Briar Lane, and that it would remain open to emergency access at all times. So it should reflect in the draft resolution those conditions. I believe one is condition four on Department of Public Works and then condition 11 under community development. |
| 01:02:42.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I believe one is. |
| 01:02:43.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:02:50.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:02:51.86 | Attorney Rudin | Can we please put the applicants requested language on the screen? |
| 01:02:56.17 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, thank you, Attorney Rudin. |
| 01:03:21.58 | Unknown | interaction with |
| 01:03:21.70 | Attorney Rudin | I'm sorry. THE FAMILY. |
| 01:03:22.61 | Unknown | I think |
| 01:03:23.99 | Attorney Rudin | I think the next page actually has the language. |
| 01:03:28.41 | Assistant City Manager | That's correct. I'm going to go, |
| 01:03:31.03 | Nastassya Saad | And just for the sake of the public, this is the applicant's request to modify condition of approval number 11, which states that no construction equipment, vehicles, dumpsters, or materials shall be left in the sweet briar right of way overnight or during non-work hours, emergency vehicle access and access to adjacent properties shall be maintained throughout the duration of the project. |
| 01:03:31.05 | Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:03:31.06 | Assistant City Manager | just for this. |
| 01:03:57.71 | Attorney Rudin | And I if I understood the applicant correctly, I thought that the request also included included a request to strike the first sentence of conditional 11, which is to the extent possible construction related access. Um, shall occur from San Carlos Avenue frontage. |
| 01:04:15.06 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, that was correct. That's what I wrote down as well. |
| 01:04:21.67 | Attorney Rudin | So if the commission were to accept the Applicant's request, we would strike that first sentence of conditional on them. |
| 01:04:31.07 | Nastassya Saad | Is that clear to staff? OK, perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 01:04:34.53 | Fred Moore | Commissioner Moore. Just for purpose of discussion, maybe for clarification for me and members of the public, Katie, all the drawings that I'm looking at indicate that the height of the garage roof from the street grade is 9.9. Yet in the applicant's presentation and in the chart, it indicates that the roof height will be 14.3 inches. Could you go through and explain where the 14.3 is coming versus the 9.9? |
| 01:05:01.34 | Katie Nelson | Sure. So we measure the height based on an average of the high and low points of contact. So he's taken a high point of contact and a low point of contact and put an average between the two. And then you measure up from there. And that's where the 14 feet, three inches comes from. And that's how you measure overall compliance with the 15 foot regulation. |
| 01:05:22.24 | Fred Moore | from the existing grade. |
| 01:05:24.89 | Katie Nelson | Correct. From the high and low points of contact and average of them. |
| 01:05:33.53 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so we do have a motion on the floor and we do have a second. And I'm going to, I think, look for further discussion or an alternate motion, perhaps, before we move on. attempt a roll call. nothing then assistant city manager it's could you go ahead and take role on the existing proposal on the floor |
| 01:06:02.67 | Assistant City Manager | Absolutely. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. |
| 01:06:08.96 | Fred Moore | Yes. |
| 01:06:09.27 | Assistant City Manager | Thanks. Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:06:12.39 | Fred Moore | No. |
| 01:06:13.16 | Assistant City Manager | Vice Chair Genius. Yes. Chair Sott. No. Motion passes. |
| 01:06:15.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:06:15.92 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:06:19.05 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, motion passes, thank you. We are now going to move on to item 6B. This is for 33 St. Carlos Avenue. This is a design review permit with heightened review findings. We have senior planner Matthew Mandich here. I'm going to ask you just to hang on for a second while we clear the room and then we will get started. |
| 01:06:54.49 | Nastassya Saad | OK, appreciate it. Floor is yours whenever you're ready. She's going to ask the rest of the audience, well... Just for the rest of the audience, we're gonna move on to a second item. So I'm just gonna ask for a little bit of quiet so we can pay attention to senior planner, Matthew Manich, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Oh, I'm sorry, I do this every time. |
| 01:07:11.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Chair. We need to do ex parte. Thank you, sir. |
| 01:07:14.18 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Luxembourg, you always keep me honest here. Please start us off. |
| 01:07:21.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, 33 San Carlos Avenue. I estimate to be about 580 feet from my house, given the topography in the area. So therefore, it exceeds 500, but less than 1,000. However, and I do not see any materiality. However, given the Marin map shows it at 500 feet, in order of an abundance of caution, I'm going to recuse myself from considering this project. So give me a second. I will get my stuff. |
| 01:07:51.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner-elect. |
| 01:07:55.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:07:55.82 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Thank you for the note. |
| 01:08:07.39 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to actually continue with ex parte communication unless I have to wait for this gentleman to hear nothing. |
| 01:08:12.00 | Andrew Junius | I have not. |
| 01:08:14.11 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner more nothing. Thank you, Vice Chair. |
| 01:08:17.03 | Andrew Junius | Nothing to declare. |
| 01:08:17.92 | Nastassya Saad | And I only have to declare that I did meet with the owner of 25 San Carlos to take some pictures and look at the view. We did not discuss any merits of the project, but that is all I have to declare. So with that, when Commissioner Luxembourg leaves, then you will have the floor. Thank you, Matthew. |
| 01:08:37.85 | Assistant City Manager | on the road. |
| 01:08:49.85 | Matthew Mandich | All right, good evening, commissioners. Yes, the project before you today is a design review with heightened review for 33 San Carlos Avenue. Next slide, please. The site is located in the R16 single-family zoning district, highlighted right here in blue. It is a flag lot that connects to San Carlos right there. This other parcel, highlighted in yellow, is owned by the same owner and was purchased together with 33 San Carlos. It's colloquially known as 33A San Carlos. As you can see here, here is a Google shot overview. the site under construction currently very close to the Sausalito Women's Club at the confluence of Sunshine Central and San Carlos lanes right here. Many of you probably familiar with that intersection. And then it is upslope from the intersection of Atwood, Boakley and Harrison. So in the neighborhood known as the Hill and the lot is 11,280 square feet. Next slide, please. Background of the house was purchased by the current owner, Costas Cousares, in 2017 after being vacant for about 20 years. May, June of 2021, applications were submitted for an ADU and remodel of the existing home. As part of this process, the surrounding neighbors at the time were consulted, site visits were performed, photographs of any potential view impacts were taken, and story polls were erected. On November on november 10 2021 a notice of decision was issued by the city on these projects the projects were approved and the project id numbers are there for you below i've seen some public comments saying that you know there were no hearings for any of these previous approvals that's because these are ministerial permits the adu and the zoning permit they do not require public hearings however were indeed sent to neighbors, which have been included in the staff report, as well as being posted on site. That marked the beginning of a 10-day appeal period. In that 10-day period, no appeals were filed and no objections were voiced, so those permits were officially approved. After several requests for delay, due to delays and requests for extensions, the building permit was finally granted in February of 2024. Next slide, please. And the construction of the project was diligently pursued for about a year until March 11, 2025, when the neighbor at 25 San Carlos with their attorney filed a code complaint for unpermitted tree removal and demolition beyond the scope of approved permits. On April 16, 2025, a site visit was performed by city staff to assess the situation at 33 San Carlos. This included the building inspector, code enforcement officer, and myself. We met with the owner and the design team at that time to do an investigation of the site. We did find that demolition beyond the scope of approved work had occurred. On May 1st, 2025, a stop work order was issued. And the ultimate decision on that was that for this project to move forward, it will require a design review permit, which is why we're here today. Next slide, please. So the current situation up at the site, this is indeed a stalled project, an open construction site. Owner and applicant dealing with a loss of time and materials right now and a heavy financial burden. Certainly there were some mistakes made in the process of this construction. However, both the applicant and the owner have been working diligently with the city to correct these issues and move the project forward. A new design review permit application has been filed with the city. And as you will see today in the presentation, this project compliance with the zoning standards and required findings. Next slide, please. So the proposed project is a design review permit with heightened review to add 1,683 square feet of new net floor area, a one-car garage, and an interior ADU, which is not under the purview of the Planning Commission this evening. Next slide, please. Thank you. Here's just a juxtaposition of the site plans with the former building and current here. As you can see, the current structure, current construction largely mimics the existing. Many of the walls that were there were replaced like for like in the same locations. The perimeter envelope is nearly identical, so very much takes advantage of the existing site and construction that terraces down the hill from San Carlos towards Atwood. Next slide, please. Here's just some diagrams of the floor area. I'll start at the lowest level down here at the bottom. As you can see, there's the ADU in the corner here, interior ADU, a kind of a den game room area, and then a stair set and elevator leading up to the upper level. This is the second level, kind of the main level, the viewing level. It's a large great room, open floor plan with a kitchen, living room, family room, and a large deck, as well as access to an outdoor space. moving one level up and this is actually the kitchen living room family room and a large deck as well as access to an outdoor space moving one level up and this is actually the level that's on the same grade as San Carlos Avenue you'll have the one car garage the primary suite bathroom and another viewing deck as well as a green roof. bunch of calculations there that were shown in the plans and discussed in the staff report about how the school where footage was arrived at and exemptions that are given to the project due to circumstances, including the subterranean basement here, as well as the elevator shaft and stair sets. Next slide, please. The parking was another issue that there was some confusion about. There is a one-car garage that's right here, as we already saw. This is accessed via an easement over 33A San Carlos, which is owned by the same owner. And while technically a separate parcel, practically it functions as one large parcel. There's also a parking spot on the driveway, which is contained within the 33 San Carlos parcel, as we can see here, that's the property line right there. And that fits one car's parking space and it allows for another car to travel through the easement into the garage. So there are two required parking spaces. Next slide, please. So height has also been an issue that's been discussed and brought up. The height of the proposed project is actually several inches shorter than the existing, pre-existing home. So the highest point of the project is right there for the proposed project. The highest point of the pre-existing home is right there. So, yeah, a few inches shorter. Both of these homes were under the 32-foot height limit. I believe the proposed project is 30 feet 8 inches while the pre-existing was 31 and 3 inches next slide please oh actually sorry go back sorry I just want to highlight too that you can see this is the elevation of the proposed home overlaid over the pre-existing home and while it does match the height very similarly it is adding some additional bulk and mass up on the third floor which will be a topic of discussion today next slide please So zoning data table, as we can see here, this project complies with all of our objective design standards, setbacks, it meets, height, it meets. It actually took a little bit of building coverage away from the previous home. The previous home was actually nonconforming with building coverage over the allowed limits. We brought that a little bit under. Floor areas increased as discussed, and the impervious surface calculations have actually gone down a little bit too. As you'll notice, these are very close to the limits that are allowed by the code, which is why we have a heightened review findings today. Next slide, please. So some neighborhood context, just to, again, discuss some of the issues that were raised in public comment about, you know, the house being too big, the site being overbuilt, not, you know, being in line with other structures in the neighborhood and scale of an existing homes. I just wanted to highlight here for the commission that, in fact, at 5,040 square feet, the house across the street, 5,200 is larger. The Women's Club, which was Julia Morgan's old home, which is a house 4,700. It's about a hundred feet away from another home of 10,000, over 10,000 square feet. As you can see around the area, this is a single family zoning district. There's a number of large plots and large homes. As you can see here, there's several that are 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, 8,000 square feet. So definitely in line with the neighborhood context at the size and scale of these homes in this area. Next slide, please. So the potential view impact, which is definitely something that requires desire of view. Finding number four, the proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of public and private views from primary, primary views from private property. I can make this finding. I believe that the proposed project does indeed has been designed to minimize the obstruction of views. You can see right here in a photo that was provided by the neighbor at 25 San Carlos. I attempted to schedule a site visit, but was told that there wasn't a free time until August 19th. So unfortunately, I wasn't able to get photos myself, but this was provided by the neighbor. And you can see that there is some obstruction of the water view right here. However, the photo itself is a little bit misleading. As if you can see here, this is actually the line of the rooftop right there as represented in this orange kind of netting, which is here. You can see that the height of the railing, which is this railing right here, is the orange line actually extends out above. of that which would be about waist high and then the green line that I put there would be more of kind of a head height eye view so you would be looking over this roof from a higher elevation looking down so you'd be looking down on the roof below next slide please. Just want to remind about the definition of view in our code here. While the San Francisco Bay is certainly considered a protected view, the term view does not mean an unobstructed panorama of all of the above. As you can see here, The House at 25 San Carlos enjoys a staggering 180 panoramic views of Angel Island, San Francisco, all the bridges. The proposed project, which I've highlighted in this red arrow here, here and here would have a very minimal impact on the views enjoyed by this property. Next slide, please. The tree alteration, another issue that was brought up in the code complaints, been discussed by the neighbors. We have our code enforcement officer investigating this. This is a current code enforcement case that we're dealing with. Our code enforcement officer's priorities are life, health, and safety. So that's number one. He'll be dealing with things like building without permits, unsafe living conditions, hazardous conditions, mold, things like that. These are what take priority. You know, a tree that may or may not have been illegally altered. We're doing the investigation. It certainly appears that there's been alteration to the tree. That's something that is being investigated and will certainly be processed. Also, these tree alterations, when they're done unpermitted or illegal tree alterations, there's a very specific process for this in our municipal code in 11120 12050 b which outlines the administrative citation process the city has followed this process at least since uh you know now assistant city manager phipps has been in charge Many or several of you on the Commission will remember some of these citations coming before you in the last couple of years so fines have been issued for these and these have been processed accordingly. The same process will be followed for this tree alteration as well. The tree alteration that occurred several months ago is not pertinent to the new DR permit as this is a past action and is under the purview of the code enforcement officer. Next slide, please. So with that, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving design review permit with heightened review for the proposed project at 33 San Carlos Avenue. The proposed project conforms to the objective design standards in the Sausalén Municipal Code. It is also in conformance with all the required findings required for design review and heightened review. The project is also subject to conditions approval attached and any other additional conditions that the Planning Commission may add this evening. That concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. |
| 01:20:37.32 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much for the presentation. Appreciate it. And I think some of us reached out to you too, so thank you for all the earlier conversation. Gonna go ahead and turn it over. Commissioner Marla, do you have any questions for staff? |
| 01:20:49.57 | David Marlatt | Yes, I do. Thank you very much. And thank you, Matthew. I have a number of questions. One is I've just kind of cut to the chase. I've read Inspector Henry's report from April concerning demolition, looked at the architect's drawings. Effectively, 100 percent of the building has been demolished. Can you explain why this is not a new home rather than an addition? |
| 01:21:13.02 | Matthew Mandich | So, I mean, technically not 100% of the home has been demolished. There's still some walls remaining, foundation stuff. I mean, you can see in the demo plans. But, yeah, a lot of it's been demolished. Historically, this has always been considered as a remodel. It's pretty much replicating what was there before many of the walls are being replaced like for like. So I'm just carrying forward kind of a legacy interpretation. There is no difference in the findings for, you know, a remodel versus a new structure. So it's really just a procedural administrative point, which I'm happy to take on board. |
| 01:21:46.28 | David Marlatt | Well, this might be something for when this comes back up to the dais. But I just wanted to hear an explanation about that logic. I think you had mentioned too that there was extensive dry rot removal. |
| 01:21:55.41 | Matthew Mandich | That's correct. Yeah. So many, the house, like I said, had not been inhabited inhabited for over 20 years. Uh, many old stucco house, many of the walls had experienced significant rot, which is why they had to be replaced, but they were indeed replaced in kind in the exact same locations that they were previously. Um, especially the whole envelope of the building. So it is very much matching, you know, that was the original project that was approved, um, was under. a zoning permit, which, you know, had a lot of existing to remain. And many of those walls that were existing to remain had to be demolished due to the dry rot. However, they were replaced in the same locations. |
| 01:22:30.48 | Nastassya Saad | Just going to hold you for half a second. Attorney Rudin. |
| 01:22:33.55 | Attorney Rudin | Yeah, and I will also comment on the issue of whether or not this should be treated as a new new project. If this was a new project, i.e. this exact project was being proposed on an empty lot, This project will be subject to the housing accountability act because it poses the construction of two units. So the Planning Commission would be severely constrained in its ability to deny that kind of project. |
| 01:22:59.83 | David Marlatt | Interesting, okay. Which actually, thank you. Good. Which segues into my next question is the previous project ID was 2021-00158. Now this one is 2025-00105. Is this a revision to the permit or is this a new permit? |
| 01:23:26.59 | Matthew Mandich | Well, I mean, that's an interesting question. Those permits were activated. There was a building permit, you know, issued and, you know, construction was diligently followed. So we have an interruption in that now a stop work order was issued due to over demolition. So the applicant has come in now with a project that is slightly different than what was previously approved. Um, and that is the design review project before you today. |
| 01:23:52.00 | David Marlatt | OK, so this will be a revision to a current from the country. |
| 01:23:54.92 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. So if you want to think about how it's going to be officially processed, I mean, if we get the approval tonight, it would be submitted as a revision to the existing building permit, and then that would be carried forward. |
| 01:24:05.37 | David Marlatt | Part of that question is that applicants' drawings are referencing the 2019 building code rather than 2022, and so I didn't know if it's a revision. I guess that's. |
| 01:24:15.29 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, they technically have a building permit, that is have a stock work order put on it. |
| 01:24:20.40 | David Marlatt | Okay. The next question, I know about the code enforcement case related to the trees. Is the CEO considering any code enforcement cases related to over demolition or exceeding the permit? Okay. |
| 01:24:34.14 | Matthew Mandich | Well, I mean, yeah, the stock work order was issued due to the over demolition. So that's why we're here today. |
| 01:24:39.86 | David Marlatt | but there'll be no other penalties or, |
| 01:24:41.70 | Matthew Mandich | Well, we don't have a process for fines or citations for... you know, over demolition or so we're, we're hearing a new permit today. That's the path forward that we've chosen. |
| 01:24:52.45 | Nastassya Saad | I completely understand that line of questioning, but I think what's in front of us is our design and heightened design review findings. So I think we just have to put the code enforcement case one step over. |
| 01:25:05.27 | David Marlatt | Yeah, fair enough. But it does have something to do with whether it's timely that we make this decision or whether we need to defer for other processes to take place. |
| 01:25:06.39 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:25:09.98 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 01:25:13.44 | David Marlatt | Sure. But that was my only question. We should not have to. Yes. Thank you. And I know we're not supposed to talk about ADUs, but I have one simple question. Have staff verified that the ADU that's proposed has independent access to the public way? It does, yes. |
| 01:25:14.45 | Nastassya Saad | We should not. Yes, thank you. |
| 01:25:25.76 | Matthew Mandich | It does. It's disgusting. The staff report. |
| 01:25:29.26 | David Marlatt | Okay, so I might bring that up with the applicant if it's, because I don't see it on the drawings. Also, is it correct that the third floor, although I know that there's a modification to the 2021 plan, so the third floor, by the documents that were submitted, is about 25% larger than the 2021 third floor. But was it determined that new story polls were not required? The story polls that we see, I understand, have been up there for less than 10 days. There's some ambiguity or some confusion about that. |
| 01:26:00.73 | Matthew Mandich | No, that's correct. Yeah, so... Given that the project was pretty fully framed out already on the third floor, I did not require story pulls for this particular case. If it were, you know, a new build, new construction, blank site, of course, story pulls would have been required as they were initially for the remodel. But, I mean, we do have frames of reference to identify where the tops of the building is already there. So, really, the story pulls are an alternate form of noticing. That's what they, that's the purpose they serve. And I felt that the structure in its current state, you know, gave a good idea of what that was going to look like already. |
| 01:26:35.00 | David Marlatt | So the current story polls that are actually there, because I rode by a few days ago, are those, for lack of a better term, sort of courtesy story polls? |
| 01:26:38.83 | Matthew Mandich | you know. Yeah. |
| 01:26:42.54 | Matthew Mandich | Correct. Yes, I... Ask the applicant to please put those up to give, you know, we've had some consternation from the neighbors about the lack of that. So ask them to do that as a courtesy to give an idea and perhaps help with some of the photos that we saw this evening. So. |
| 01:26:55.45 | David Marlatt | And has anyone verified or certified? The architect certified their heights, yes. |
| 01:26:57.81 | Matthew Mandich | The architect certified their heights, yes. Accuracy. Yeah. Okay. I was actually with him when he did that. And so... |
| 01:27:01.16 | David Marlatt | Oh. Okay. You know another answer just because I know this will come up in some of the people who are opposing the project is a feeling that drawings were submitted and rushed. Do you feel like staff had adequate time to fully vet the drawings in the project that's before us? Because it's quite quick. |
| 01:27:19.67 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, I do. Um, I'm confident in the calculations. I've been working closely with the architect on this project. Um, we've, uh, been working diligently on it. I felt that the corrections that I asked for were made and, um, I took them before the commission. And we do have an open construction site. I discussed the current conditions that are at the site right now. You've driven by, you've seen photos. We have a recess coming up. Our next meeting is until mid September. So I was trying to get this in the, you know, in the vein of good customer service and trying to be respectful of the issues at hand here to get this at least heard initially in this hearing tonight, rather than waiting another six weeks and, you know, Another, you know, over a month of carrying costs and all those types of things. So trying to be sensitive to the, the situation at the site and the fact that we have an open construction site with, um, time burning and materials going unused and being compromised by the weather. |
| 01:28:14.55 | David Marlatt | Sure, I appreciate that. And my last question, and I'll turn over the mic. Has staff reviewed or confirmed any of the terms of the access easement? For example, will any work be required on the 33A site in order to interface with 33 that's going |
| 01:28:30.59 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. There'll be some paving paving work. That's done to repave there. Yeah. Paving. |
| 01:28:33.68 | David Marlatt | Taping. Mm-hmm. Okay. And then ADU has right to have access across that easement. Yes. It does. Okay. I think those are all my questions at this time. |
| 01:28:43.33 | Nastassya Saad | Great question. Thank you very much, Commissioner. |
| 01:28:45.95 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:28:45.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:28:46.05 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:28:46.17 | Nastassya Saad | more. |
| 01:28:46.20 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:28:46.22 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:28:46.30 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:28:46.49 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:28:47.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:28:47.81 | Fred Moore | Matthew, I'm not sure I have many questions. I know you included a lot of the information back in 2021 with story polls and views, et cetera, et cetera, which now have been significantly changed. The project back then, the type of minimal construction versus a greatly expanded project now, has there been any explanation from the applicant why from a minimal expansion in addition to a much different project today? |
| 01:29:15.63 | Matthew Mandich | Um, I don't know if I necessarily agree that it's that different. Um, there's been some changes, um, to the upper floor, but not really a considerable expansion. I mean, there, the ADU permit kind of covered that square footage before. Um, so it was a thousand over a thousand foot square, uh, square foot ADU that was being added on that third floor. So, um, there's really not a ton of changes that occurred to the elevations. |
| 01:29:44.14 | Assistant City Manager | And just to reiterate to the commission, that this project as proposed does comply with the city's objective standards. |
| 01:29:53.59 | Matthew Mandich | The project does comply with the objective standards as discussed in the staff report and presentation. |
| 01:30:00.39 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair. No questions. Thank you. And Matthew, I sent you some questions earlier, but Commissioner Marlott took all of them. So, but yeah, thank you. No, I appreciate that. We're on the same thought process here. So thank you very much right now. If there are no further questions of staff, then we will go ahead and open it up for the applicant. I don't know who's here to represent the applicant. Hi. You can please approach and you'll have 15 minutes if you could just state your name and uh, Name for the record, please. |
| 01:30:41.09 | Riyad Ghanem | Good evening, commissioners. My name is Riyad Ghanem with RG Architecture, and I'm the project architect. |
| 01:30:48.80 | Assistant City Manager | Hold for one moment as we leave the PowerPoint. Thank you. |
| 01:31:21.18 | Riyad Ghanem | There's another file. |
| 01:31:40.99 | Unknown | you |
| 01:32:14.61 | Nastassya Saad | Well, that's coming up. I'm sure you heard from the first presentation, but you do have your full 15 minutes. You're welcome to use them now. Otherwise, you're welcome to reserve any time after public comment. |
| 01:32:25.19 | Riyad Ghanem | Thank you. |
| 01:32:34.74 | Assistant City Manager | Chair, can I request a two minute, three minute recess? |
| 01:32:37.63 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Let's take a four minute recess and come back at 810. Beautiful. Thank you very much. |
| 01:32:41.00 | Assistant City Manager | Beautiful. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. |
| 01:36:12.66 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you, Maria. We can go ahead and get started. You have 15 minutes on the floor again. I'm going to just ask for quiet in the chambers for our presenter. Please go ahead. |
| 01:36:22.96 | Riyad Ghanem | Thank you, commissioners. Good evening. My name is Riyad Ghanem with RG Architecture, and I'm the project architect for 33 San Carlos. The project has a little bit of history. Next slide, please. So the project, Thank you. was actually started by the Casares family before I took over the project. So there was some time and effort put into beginning the process on it and into looking into the permits. I took over in 2021 and |
| 01:37:08.22 | Riyad Ghanem | I can't read my own screen from there, so it's a little hard for me to. But basically, we did apply for an ADU permit with partial remodel to the building, and that was approved. We then began construction. We filed subsequent structural revision. We were in the process of filing another architectural and structural revision, and then we came to the stop work order for the demolition. Next slide, please. So here are a few photos. Matthew went over some of the issues already, so I can be brief on this. But a few photos of the existing house and the condition that it's in right now. Matthew had pointed out that we are in a situation where the materials are suffering from being exposed to the weather. Um, Part of the building has been framed and we're trying to finish third floor at this point for the framing. Next slide, please. I think one of the important factors of this project is that we are a fully compliant project, and we've made a strong effort, especially with this current process, to make sure that our drawings are clear and easy to read. We hope everybody can understand how we've analyzed the project and how we have confirmed its compliance. And by most metrics, we've reduced the project ever so slightly from what was formerly there, with the exception of floor area, which has increased a little bit. Next slide, please. So the law coverage was the former slide. This is the impervious surface, which has also been reduced, mainly because there was a portion of the lower patio that was hardscaped. And in the zoning in the city ordinance, hardscaped would qualify as impervious. And we removed that. And that's currently removed from the site. Next slide, please. The floor area has been increased a little bit. There is still an ADU in the project, but it was our understanding that in the process of going through the revision that we were planning on, we understood that the zoning for the ADU has changed or the regulations for the ADU have changed and that it can't be above 30 feet. So we moved it down to the bottom floor of the building and there is access from the, there's a public right of way along the north side of the project. And I'm sorry, the south side of the project and that has access to the ADU. Next slide, please. This is an overlay of what was formerly there. The gray is what was the former house, and the red is the overlay on what's the new construction. And what we're trying to indicate here is that we are building largely over the footprint of the existing house. Next slide, please. Similarly, with regard to height and the bulk of the building, the red line is an overlay over the former home that was there. And you can see the final product that's proposed on the right side. And so those are side-by-side elevation comparisons. Next slide, please. Same thing with the east elevation and the south elevation. So we're just showing that we're building largely within the bulk of the current, of the former building Thank you. Next slide, please. And then there are some revisions that we are making as a function of this design review hearing. We think they're minimal, but we're basically the garage is a new addition. We didn't have that in the former one. There was a bit of a penthouse cupola that was coming up out of the roof that we've removed to create even slightly lower height for the building trimmed back some overhangs but we did fill in some balconies that were formerly on the the past proposal next slide please looking from the other side you can see a few more of the changes the purple areas indicate where we filled in some of the balconies. We changed the lower patios I mentioned to a landscaped turf as opposed to hardscape. On the right side, there's an extension of a deck that's for future spa. Next slide, please. And then there's some images of the project that I just want to share. This is looking from basically the front of the house from the San Carlos Avenue side. And I think what we also want to convey is that our intent here and our intent all along has been to design quality building. We're designing a home that meets the intent and the aspirations of the owners, and it's been a long-time goal of theirs. So our intent is not to create an unnecessarily big home or ask for a variance or any other modification to the zoning, but to work within it and in the end to have a good addition that's a quality building to the neighborhood. Next slide, please. This is a view looking from the driveway as you enter the house. The main entry is just on the right of the garage. Next slide, please. This is a view looking from the east side of the house. And so here you can see some of the sculpting. While it does sit on the massing of the existing house, there is a little bit more of a celebration of the indoor and outdoor connection on this house as compared to the former house. Next slide, please. Here's another view looking at the east side of the house, basically straight on. And to work with the massing of the house, there is a lot of differentiation between different planes. And I think it creates a better effect in terms of breaking up the massing. Next slide, please. And again, just kind of wrapping around the house. So now we're looking still at the west elevation, but from the north side. And so you can see more of the same design language carried on where there's different steps and setbacks on the house. Next slide, please. And then this is the side that would be facing 25 San Carlos, although this is a much lower elevation view from that standpoint. But again, these elevations, the contours that you see, these are all existing and that we're working with the same topography and the same footprint that the former house had. Next slide, please. . And that concludes my part of the presentation. I know the owners would like to also share some. |
| 01:44:34.44 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 01:44:34.46 | Riyad Ghanem | Sure. information. |
| 01:44:35.78 | Nastassya Saad | They're welcome to come up at their convenience. Let's pause the clock just for a second. Who are the owners? |
| 01:44:47.39 | Nastassya Saad | The microphone, do we have some? That's OK. Do we have anything available? |
| 01:45:04.84 | Nastassya Saad | So you'll have six minutes and 43 seconds. You're welcome to use all of your time now, or you can reserve some time for after. Please go ahead. If you could just state your name for the record, please. |
| 01:45:14.18 | Catherine Papas Casares | Hi, my name is Catherine Papas Casares, and this is my husband, Constantinos Casares or Costas. I had a presentation, actually, that was part of the other deck that was |
| 01:45:33.52 | Catherine Papas Casares | It was on Riyadh's, it was the one that was there. |
| 01:45:36.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:45:37.93 | Catherine Papas Casares | Oh, I'm sorry. My hands shake. Sorry. |
| 01:45:44.64 | Nastassya Saad | for members of the public that are on Zoom. We're just gonna wait to pull up a presentation so we can continue with the applicant teams. time. |
| 01:45:54.78 | Catherine Papas Casares | Thank you. Could you go into presentation? |
| 01:46:06.68 | Catherine Papas Casares | to go to the next slide, please. So the home, I just wanted to give you a little bit of kind of a visual understanding and maybe answer some of the questions that have been raised. The home was built in 1954. It had the I think the second owners after that lived in it for a very long time, but as they, at the end of their life, they had to leave the home because of accessibility issues. The subsequent owner was trying to improve the home and had put up the story poles there. And I think he was trying for several years. He owned the home for 14 years. The story poles, I think, were up for about a decade. And we purchased the property in 2017. Along with it was the 33A was the adjacent property that had been updated however it is not an accessible property it is sitting right on san carlos the front entrance opens up to the park cars parked vertically right there so there's no accessibility you have to go up several flights of stairs to get to that home so it's not really been something that we can use or I can use. And so we haven't been like physically at the property for several years because of the accessibility issues. Next slide, please. So it's hard to read. I'm going to shift over a little bit. Sorry. Thank you. |
| 01:47:47.39 | Nastassya Saad | however you're comfortable. |
| 01:47:48.42 | Catherine Papas Casares | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:47:50.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:53.21 | Catherine Papas Casares | We embarked on designing a beautiful and accessible and multi-generational home for our family. that will allow us to age in place and dignity. I'm sorry. With these goals in mind, it was critical that the top floor be expanded in order to create required accessibility for our family's current and future needs. due to my disability related to progressive disease and also to support the needs of the aging Yaya, which is a Greek grandmother. this was to be achieved by converting the existing garage. We actually tried in 80 You. conversion. It was allowed by the state. And we actually wanted to convert the existing garage to minimize the footprint of the third floor. I'm But through this process, a third floor ADU is no longer valid. So we have to move the ADU to the bottom floor. Um, The goal here is to create, sorry, |
| 01:49:07.31 | Catherine Papas Casares | sorry, the reason to expand the top floor and add the bulk to the top floor is to create accessibility. That is the only way on the third floor to get direct access to any living space. And over time, the |
| 01:49:31.34 | Catherine Papas Casares | you |
| 01:49:31.36 | Unknown | Absolutely. |
| 01:49:32.84 | Costas Casares | Thank you. What do we want on the next slide? I don't know. I know we talked about excessive demo. However, we did hit several hurdles as we're going on. I think both Riyad and Matthew said, and they indicated that the house was... not livable for 20 years. There were story poles nailed down for a decade. there was a significant amount of disruption in there. And we really, as we were building, we're finding out that a lot of the things that we assumed that we could work, they didn't. Because you know the neither our actors, nor our structures could see inside those covered walls. When we took things down, we found out that it was a complete mess. In addition, A couple of years ago, before we started the construction, we strengthened the hill, right? That little round thing that you see in the back, We had to actually strengthen to hold their hill, and also Laura's house in the bottom. They had to kind of use that for their own home because the hill was just going. So we had to put nails in. So when we start building, The foundation was a peer foundation that we're supposed to do. And we found out that we cannot do a peer foundation. We do a spread foundation, so we don't hit those nails that they had put there. As a result, we had to actually do greater demo on those walls on the outside spaces so that we don't hit those nails and destabilize the actual wall. Now, we submitted this through the city and we got permits, right? So we have not done anything without submitting something, right? We never did something without... on our own type of whim, right? Like all the changes that we did. Any changes that we made. there was either an application to the city or an approval from the city with the respective inspections and special inspections that I'm sure there are in Matthew's doc. Let's move on on the next one. I think they talked about the stop work order And as I said, like this whole idea was we were trying to do this. But moving forward, I want to highlight three things. The way this is going, we cannot really do this, you know, it's this, the impact here besides, you know, us is to, you know, always to do the city. This city for 20 years is to the people that we're working with, all the businesses, all the suppliers, everybody right now are in this situation that we are in. We personally cannot really the more this thing that sits, we're just dipping into our savings, it's hurting us. It's like there's no way around it. It's just being very, I know it's my time, and I'll start out of respect for this, but what I'm trying to tell you is that this is not something that, we can sustain. We really can't. |
| 01:52:56.32 | Nastassya Saad | We appreciate the presentation from the applicant team, so thank you. You don't have any time left to reserve, but that's all right. If you can all stay close, however is convenient for you, maybe we can leave a microphone just because we're going to have some questions, I'm sure, both for the architect and for the applicant. So I'll turn it back up here. Commissioner Marlott, would you like to get started? any questions for the applicant. So I'll turn it back up here. Commissioner Marlott, would you like to get started? Any questions for the applicant? |
| 01:53:27.07 | David Marlatt | Now I have some questions for the architect. |
| 01:53:29.47 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask the architect to come back to the podium? And the homeowners, feel free to stay seated. Thank you. |
| 01:53:38.75 | David Marlatt | Hi, thank you very much. So regarding the third floor, because that seems to be something of a point of contention. In the 2021 set, it was about round numbers, 1,200 square feet, including the ADU. And in the current set, it's 1,500 some odd square feet. And the ADU has moved to the bottom floor. Can you walk us through what are the reasons that the third story had to get bigger? |
| 01:54:04.89 | Riyad Ghanem | Well, we added the garage, so that was one of the components that made it bigger. I was told that the owners felt that there would be better privacy for the neighbor of 25 San Carlos if we didn't have a deck off of the bathroom, so we enclosed that. And then there was an offset of walls on that floor that by, they were just off by maybe 18 inches and a little bit of a relic of the design as it was very first produced. But it creates some structural issues. And just to simplify things, we moved it forward. We took the opportunity to do some of these things that we thought improved the project which did add some square footage to that floor because we were going back through this process and when we analyzed the building and realized that it is still within the zoning compliance those are the things that we wanted to correct from the former application |
| 01:55:09.38 | David Marlatt | OK, thank you. Another question, because I didn't see it in the drawings. And if it's there, just point it out to me or describe it. How does one, if one's in the ADU, have an independent access to the right of the street? |
| 01:55:22.68 | Riyad Ghanem | Yeah, it's a little bit more visible on the site plan. I think that's part of the full submittal that we gave to the planning department, but there's a, on the south side of the building, there is a public walk. And then you can go down there and you can access the property from that side. And therefore you can get onto the property and across the rear yard and over to the ADU. |
| 01:55:52.50 | David Marlatt | Oh, I see, over on the left, okay. Okay, thank you very much. I don't think I have any other questions at this time. |
| 01:55:59.84 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Commissioner Moore? |
| 01:56:02.86 | Fred Moore | The only question was, you mentioned that the balcony had been enclosed and one of the pictures you had up there, the purple area was a deck. Yes. Now it was enclosed. I got the impression that was just done now or was that included in the staff's calculations of the square footage? |
| 01:56:08.88 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 01:56:08.95 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:56:09.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:09.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:56:09.10 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:56:09.47 | Attorney Rudin | Yes. |
| 01:56:09.90 | Riyad Ghanem | Thank you. |
| 01:56:09.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:18.38 | Riyad Ghanem | that was included in the staff's calculations of the square footage. |
| 01:56:22.48 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:56:24.63 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. No questions. There was Maria, not to belabor you, can we bring up the architect's presentation, please? And if you could go to slide 17. |
| 01:56:39.70 | Nastassya Saad | While she's pulling that up, if I took the right note, that was going to be the backside of the house that is facing 25 San Carlos. Could you just comment, is that a bathroom at the top then? Is that what, because there is a window, a small window. |
| 01:56:54.61 | Riyad Ghanem | If I'm thinking of what you're thinking, it should be a bathroom. It is facing 25 San Carlos, sort of. Not directly. Not directly. |
| 01:57:02.34 | Nastassya Saad | Not directly, but yes. And then this is essentially, I guess, an outdoor patio. From a privacy standpoint for your own property, do you have privacy concerns from the deck above from 25 San Carlos? |
| 01:57:22.59 | Riyad Ghanem | I don't, you know, it's obviously not my home, but it's never been brought up as a concern. And there is outdoor space there currently that's been there for a long time. So we're really just repurposing it. |
| 01:57:35.72 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Okay. And then we're going to be as cognizant as we can that we're not here to get into any of the code enforcement case, even though it's all part of the history of this project. But the oak tree portion that is missing, so code enforcement aside, did provide a lot of blockage to the top of this roof line, essentially, from the neighboring property. With that gone, I can see from the landscape, I mean, is there any indication that the applicant would be willing to replace an oak tree? |
| 01:57:47.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:58:21.72 | Nastassya Saad | in order to regrow out that canopy. |
| 01:58:25.37 | Assistant City Manager | Chair, may I make just a quick clarifying statement? Yes, please. So as mentioned, there's an ongoing code enforcement case as related to this tree. I can only speak to the knowledge that staff have at this moment, but our understanding is that no tree has been removed. |
| 01:58:27.01 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, please. |
| 01:58:42.51 | Nastassya Saad | Is it just the branches then? |
| 01:58:44.22 | Assistant City Manager | Correct. The tree has been trimmed. The question that we're looking into now is, has more than 25% of the canopy been trimmed? That would be unlawful in accordance with our code. Less than 25% trimming of the canopy would be lawful. That is where we are. I can confirm at this time. We understand that no tree has been removed. |
| 01:58:51.41 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:59:05.78 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I appreciate that clarification. Thank you, Assistant City Manager. So that's that. And then can you comment, or maybe the homeowners can comment on any conversations with the surrounding neighbors on this project? We can see that there's conversation on the previous project, but this one specifically, can anyone shed some light on that? Thank you. |
| 01:59:27.60 | Riyad Ghanem | I'll let the owner speak to them. |
| 01:59:29.04 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, may I ask? |
| 01:59:29.05 | Riyad Ghanem | Thank you. |
| 01:59:31.69 | Catherine Papas Casares | Yes, we spoke with a neighbor at 25 San Carlos, and we understood her perspective. We offered up the possibility of exploring some mitigation like the green roof. However, she stopped communications and decided to get an attorney. And it became very, I don't know, we became nervous to have further discussions. We didn't know, you know, we don't have an attorney and it became difficult. Her attorneys started communicating demands or requests and such as the privacy issue on the balcony and the garage. Oh no, the privacy issue was from the neighbor and thus we enclosed the bathroom, the deck next to the bathroom. The window that you saw is for ventilation, per shower, it's up high. And the patio below, I mean, sits up very high. So it sits above 33 San Carlos. So the privacy issues are ours actually. |
| 02:00:24.29 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:00:43.52 | Nastassya Saad | Exactly. That's why I was curious from your own perspective on that space. |
| 02:00:47.39 | Catherine Papas Casares | Well, if the I mean, the deck at 25 San Carlos goes out all the way to the end of the property. So there's no... uh, there's not much room as far as planting trees on that side, but there is, um, visual screening possibilities. I think that could probably, that what we, what happened is we lowered the trees, um, at the request of the, the state of the prior owners because they wanted to sell the home. And so they asked us if we could trim the trees and we did. Um, and, uh, than the Then the current neighbor purchased the house in 2023, two years after the approved design on the books where we'd spoken to all the other neighbors. We also spoke to the chauffeur man, or to Les, not to Margaret, about their concerns about the bulk of the building because we flattened the roof. The reason the roof was to put the green, we did, the original project did have an impact on the view of the neighbor directly to the right of us at 37 San Carlos. And we worked with them. We brought back the canopy. We put the green roof, and thus it has to be flat, to help kind of ease the view from her house. And so she was happy. She signed an affidavit with those changes. Trying to think what other neighbor feedback. We had lots of positive feedback from the neighbors. I mean, a lot of people are just saying, can you please get this done? I mean, we've been staring at this eyesore for, over 20 years. Um, |
| 02:02:41.65 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Does anybody have any further questions for the applicant, architect or homeowner? Thank you. Seeing none. Okay. Thank you very much. We are now going to open this up for public comment. Assistant City Manager, I will let you facilitate. |
| 02:02:58.37 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you, Chair. First speaker is Zachary. |
| 02:03:00.94 | Nastassya Saad | is, |
| 02:03:01.38 | Unknown | that's a good thing. |
| 02:03:03.89 | Assistant City Manager | Zachary. |
| 02:03:09.49 | Assistant City Manager | Zachary, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:03:13.91 | Nastassya Saad | And if I can just ask everyone tonight, if you could just say your name and address for the record, we'd appreciate it. |
| 02:03:20.55 | Zach Abels | Zach Abels, Good evening, Commissioner. I'm Zach Abels. I'm a resident at 25 San Carlos Avenue. I'm appearing in opposition of this project. I'd like to just cede my time to Eric Cobb. He's a design professional who will be better able to articulate the reason why this project should not be approved as it's currently designed. So. |
| 02:03:44.74 | Nastassya Saad | So, sorry, just to pull you up, you're going to have your own three minutes, and then this gentleman will have three minutes. Everyone's going to have three minutes this evening, so it's up to you if you want to make any other comments, but you can't give your time up. Okay, thank you. |
| 02:04:04.44 | Assistant City Manager | So I'm going to call the speaker cards in the order that they were received. Thank you. Next speaker is Eric Cobb. Great. You had it right, Eric. Welcome. You'll have three minutes. |
| 02:04:11.64 | Unknown | . |
| 02:04:11.88 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:04:12.44 | Eric Cobb | Yeah. |
| 02:04:12.47 | Unknown | THE END OF |
| 02:04:12.52 | Eric Cobb | THE RECORDING TO Thank you. |
| 02:04:14.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:15.03 | Eric Cobb | Thank you. |
| 02:04:15.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:15.15 | Eric Cobb | Thank you. |
| 02:04:15.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:04:15.76 | Eric Cobb | Eric Cobb, Thank you, my name is Eric Cobb I'm an architect have been working working with the owner of 25 San Carlos regarding a remodel and over the period of time i've been working with her. Eric Cobb, I've been reviewing the plans for this project, do we have the slide deck that I had. Eric Cobb, requested. |
| 02:04:36.21 | Nastassya Saad | Can we pause? |
| 02:05:16.39 | Assistant City Manager | Presently just loading up takes a couple of minutes in some cases. |
| 02:05:43.90 | Assistant City Manager | Okay, Mr. Cobb. |
| 02:05:48.83 | Eric Cobb | Can you full screen that, please? |
| 02:06:04.30 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:06:04.49 | Catherine Papas Casares | Take care. |
| 02:06:08.67 | Nastassya Saad | and night of technical difficulties. |
| 02:06:13.11 | Assistant City Manager | All right, we got it. Mr. Cobb. Thank you. Please start the time again, Mr. Mandisher. |
| 02:06:15.69 | Eric Cobb | Please, please. Right. Just an orientation view of 25 San Carlos and 33 San Carlos to the left. And this slide shows, I think, some of one of the most effective uses of the protected trees in creating buffers between houses, both in plan and in section, creating privacy between structures. Next slide, please. This is a primary view from 25 San Carlos. And one of the canopies of the protected oak tree you can see in the foreground here creates an unbelievable view experience. Looking over the top of the canopy, you see the bay, you see San Francisco beyond. Next slide, please. Aerial view, 25 San Carlos, 33. And you see the large canopy that really is creating this buffer between three houses. Next slide. Okay, the subject canopy that I wanted to address here is highlighted, next slide. Okay, this is an approximation of the outline of the original third floor prior to construction, and you can see the canopy buffer really essentially touches the structure. Next slide. This is an overlay of an approximation of the current third floor proposal. And you notice the projection into the canopy of the tree that was there. Next slide, please. This is a aerial view of the state of construction. So this is the rebuild of the of the house with the original canopy and not prior to the removal of the portion of the canopy. Next slide. Okay, this is the portion of canopy that was removed without permit. Next slide. This is the remaining canopy. Next slide. Okay, aerial view in its current state. Next slide. Okay, based on the area calculations, this is approximately 40% of the original, of the total original tree canopy that was removed. This view from the side shows the extent of removal by exposing the trees and branches. And you notice the impact already of losing the buffer separation between 25 San Carlos and 33. Next slide, please. The protected tree was clearly |
| 02:09:00.12 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you, Mr. Cobb, for your comments. Next speaker is Eric V. Lundquist. |
| 02:09:03.18 | Unknown | next week. |
| 02:09:07.80 | Assistant City Manager | Eric, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. and please state your address as requested by the chair. |
| 02:09:16.27 | Eric Lundquist | Great. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Commission, Eric Lundquist, resident here of Sausalito, land use planner, been practicing for 26 years. We have a land use practice here in Sausalito at 480 Gate 5 Road. I'm happy to present to you tonight. I've been a planner 26 years in the public sector, most recently community development director for the county of Monterey. So I say that because I'm very supportive of development. But when development is reasonable and collaborative, and that is missed here. There seems to be some hidden issues that are done intentionally to avoid certain code provisions, and part of this is the tree issue that Eric just indicated. If it's a strategy to remove trees and we don't have to address code enforcement. And that's a dangerous precedent to be set because everyone is gonna alter significantly trees and remove them and then propose designs. Because the tree is there, it needs to be considered as part of the design review. And that's the further presentation that was Eric was going to complete this evening. There is a lot of erroneous information that has not been verified. As a public sector planner, it was trust and verify. And when projects are rushed, errors are made. I've made them in the past and they are present here today. You saw from the exhibits from the architect, there's a very large elevated patio space that extends out off of what would be effectively the rear yard. That is over two feet in height. In fact, it's 10 feet in height. And per the city's regulations, that needs to be counted for lot coverage. That has not been counted toward lot coverage. In essence, it puts it over the limitation needing a variance or some nonconformity, which is not being presented here tonight. The same thing would apply to the front parking area where the driveway is elevated, extending up into the garage. That also has not been counted to lock coverage, nor has the patio spaces that are elevated on that front yard been included. It is strikingly odd that the ADU is included on the bottom floor intentionally assuming that there's some relaxation to the floor area coverage. In hearing that the opportunity to get to the ADU is only by virtue of the pathway down and leading down the south side. If that ever is vacated, Um, which is possible. then that ADU has no access. One would park and have to enter through the building or some other space would have to be created, which is not being considered here tonight. Due to the bulk and size and massing of this structure, there are features that are spilling out onto the adjoining parcel at 33A and have those been calculated within the impervious service coverage requirements. The documentation that has been submitted indicates that they have not. There was testimony here today indicating that there would be some additional surfacing in order to accommodate parking that wasn't included in the calculations that we're reviewing here as well. |
| 02:11:49.31 | Unknown | And the. |
| 02:12:09.74 | Eric Lundquist | So that is the end of my presentation. We recommend the continuation to a date uncertain in order to address these comments. Thank you so much. |
| 02:12:17.91 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. May I ask just a clarifying question? Are you representing anyone in particular or just |
| 02:12:23.24 | Eric Lundquist | I'm on behalf of 25 San Carlos. |
| 02:12:25.37 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for clarifying. |
| 02:12:26.03 | Assistant City Manager | Bye. |
| 02:12:26.32 | Eric Lundquist | You're welcome. |
| 02:12:28.60 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you sir for your comments. Next speaker is Vicki Abeles. Thank you, welcome. You'll have three minutes. Please state your name and address. |
| 02:12:39.38 | Vicki Abeles | Good evening, Chair Saad, Commissioners. My name is Vicki Ebelies, and I live at 25 San Carlos Avenue, where I moved in June 2023. At the time, it was flanked by mature greenery and a tree canopy that gave me complete privacy, and it was a primary view corridor from my main living space to the bay in San Francisco skyline. The home at 33 San Carlos wasn't visible at all. In March 2024, construction began next door. The lot was scraped and work began on what was clearly a new house. I reached out early and often to the applicants to understand the project, but there was little interest in engaging. When large branches and the canopy of a protected live oak were cut, and a steel column installed that a contractor told me was the third floor, I reached out again to invite the applicants to my home. We finally met on February 15th. We shared appetizers and talked for several hours. When I showed them a photo of my view before construction, Kathy immediately apologized and said they would work with me to mitigate the impact. They also mentioned they only had a permit for a remodel. After our meeting, I followed up several times but got no response when I reached out to the city I learned that indeed their permit was for remodel and edu not for scraping the lot and building a new house by then construction had been underway for almost a year without a proper permit or design review I filed a code complaint the city red tagged the project validating my complaint and effectively rendering the prior permit void. What's before you know is a new project with greater height, massing, and proximity to my home. And it has, sorry, it has not gone through the height and design review that Sausalito code requires. This is the first time the current plan is before the commission. The third floor has not yet been built. The original third floor was 173 square feet sewing room and a 409 square foot garage was proposed now is 1531 feet nearly three times the size based on the uncertified poles it will sit higher and closer to my home affecting my view privacy and experience the prior owners of my home had already raised few concerns in the context of the earlier permit and were assured by a city planner that the primary view would not would be protected in addition the protected tree was illegally altered without a permit arborist input or mitigation plan the story polls were installed just days ago less than 10 days before this hearing and remain uncertified i respectfully ask the commission to recognize this is a new project subject to full and heightened design review withhold approval of the third floor in any design review until compliance is demonstrated investigate heightened tree violations through a certified third-party review supported design change that reduces third floor massing and proximity and mitigates impact on my primary view on privacy require a landscape mitigation plan given to provide a buffer in privacy with and to restore public trust by ensuring this process aligns with Sausalito's municipal code thank you for your time and service |
| 02:15:40.72 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you for your comments. Next speaker is Leslie Schoferman. Leslie, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. Please state your address for the record. |
| 02:15:54.72 | Leslie Schoferman | you Thank you for allowing the public to comment on this project. I'm here predominantly to gain information and to perhaps discuss some procedural process of the construction at 33 San Carlos. I'd like to say that the only information that I received about the project formally was in the year 2020, when the initial plans for the home was distributed to the neighbors. There were some story polls put up in 2021, and those were up and then down, so that was a long time ago. And the recent story polls that were put up were basically finished, I think, two or three days ago. I have had no other real communication with anyone about the project, and I have made some inquiries at the building inspector's window, and also by some telephone calls to try to determine certain things. The major issue that I had what have is that the southern wall of the home. |
| 02:16:13.57 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:17:16.79 | Leslie Schoferman | which is approximately 12 feet from the entrance to my home at 39 San Carlos. That's down Noble Lane, which connects Atwood with San Carlos Avenue, and consists of about 19 or 20 steps that go down. that lane, the The height of that wall was increased, by my estimation, looking at the drawings, by about 25%. And I think the reason for that was because originally there was a pitched roof which was straightened in order to put the organic flat surface on top of the roof. I would also say that the story polls that are currently up did not depict or did not include the size of the roof, the height of the roof. But I did discuss these issues only yesterday with the Casarises, because I realize they have a large financial obligation to their project. And I wanted to see if there was any way we could ameliorate the impact of that huge, tall, billboard-like wall that is the southern part of their home. And we did discuss several options that they would be willing to effect in order to paleate these size of that. |
| 02:19:00.52 | Assistant City Manager | Okay. Thank you for your comments, sir. Thank you for being here. Next speaker is Michelle Dumont. Ms. Dumont, come on down. You'll have three minutes to speak. Please state your address for the record. |
| 02:19:18.27 | Michelle Dumas | Hi, I'm Michelle Dumas. I'm a resident of Sausalito at 514 South Street. And I'm here speaking in support of my friend, Friends and neighbors at 25 San Carlos. Um, you know, that tree was supposed to remain in place next door. It was brought down. And it was in violation of the planning permit. And that's not just a tree law. When you're going to get something approved, if a tree is supposed to be there, I realize it hasn't been removed, there's been a significant portion of it that has, you know, the canopy has been taken back. And that tree screened the original story poles. So the full rooftop massing wasn't visible when the neighbors or this commission or anyone was originally approving it. And I think it really comes down to that. is that now that the tree is gone, it is different. So no one really was able to give objections to the size, the shape, or the materials. Because in all honesty, that tree was supposed... to outlive all of us. You know, they generally do. We like to preserve our trees and in Sausalito especially. Um, but now with those gone, everything's fully exposed and it feels though the staff is treating this as a separate tree issue. Thank you. but that leaves the residents at 25 san carlos with no real recourse and replanting a tree at similar scale might not even be allowed at this point if it is indeed fully damaged it's permanent It changed, and I've been at the home with the tree and without the tree, and I can say firsthand, it dramatically changes the experience, and it's upsetting. It's upsetting. I'm asking you to please momentarily I don't know why I can't say that tonight, but please pause final approvals. Give a little more time to assess the percentage of the tree that's been removed as you're doing. Let's let's understand the full picture. so that everyone can work together and work on remedies. Thank you so much for your time. |
| 02:21:38.48 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you, Mr. Montt for your comments. Let's speak. Next speaker is Tamara Ireland. Tamara, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak, and please state your address for the record. |
| 02:21:52.84 | Tamara Ireland Stone | Thank you so much. I'm Tamara Ireland Stone, and I reside at 512 South Street. I am, I thank you tonight for hearing our community's concerns about this project. I'm here as a Sausalito resident and a friend of Vicki Abley's, who's the next door neighbor at 25 San Carlos. I have seen this project at 33 San Carlos being built firsthand. When I first met Vicki, it was just after she bought this beautiful, quiet home with an unobstructed view of the city. And when I first visited her, she explained there was an ADU being built next door, but emphasized that it would not affect her view in any way. What I've watched being constructed over the last year does not match what she first told me and what I think she first expected as well. Not to belabor this tree, but The tree. This protected tree, or at least a massive part of it, has been removed. It was not altered, as was stated earlier. It's gone. And I realized it's one tree, but it had this massive canopy that gave a sense of separation from the neighboring property. It softened the space between the two. And when you looked out over Vicki's deck, you looked over this beautiful green canopy at the city skyline in the distance. And that can't be replaced. It would take decades to. replace it in a way that would serve the purpose that was serving of beautifying the neighboring lots. Now that the tree is gone, Vicki and her family look at a massive construction site. And if this is completed as planned, they'll look directly at this new structure. It is right in their view. There's no space and no natural buffer without this tree. And like there are with other trees in this beautiful neighborhood. Then there's the structure itself. And as plenty have already said, it's being built on its full lot. It's so overbuilt, much larger and taller than fits the feeling of this neighborhood. My family's my friend's family home next door is lovely but understated. It's most beautiful stunning feature is that city view. And the photos that were shown earlier, honestly, are from one vantage point, and they're pretty misleading when it comes to how this would impact her views from other parts and spaces of her home and her deck. I'm a Bay Area native. I was a homeowner in Orinda for 25 years before I moved to Sausalito two years ago, and I realize I'm fairly new here. But I hope I can have full confidence in a city and a planning commission that's fair to its homeowners. One that listens to them, protects their rights, and acts ethically to protect them. Thank you so much for your time and attention. Thank you. |
| 02:24:30.32 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you very much for your comments this evening. Next speaker is Cece Damner. Cece, welcome. |
| 02:24:45.48 | Assistant City Manager | Okay. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. |
| 02:24:50.05 | Bert Damner | My name is Bert Damner. We live at 1 San Carlos next to 25. and I want to thank you for taking your time to listen to us. And I do agree firsthand about the tree. We have neighbors above us, and we always work with them on tree changes. And it's to the snip of a little limb sometimes that we work with them, and they've been excellent to work with. So I understand the tree issue. But I'm not here to talk about tree issues, unfortunately. When the first plants came out, we were not really contacted to know what the extent of that building was, and we were concern primarily as the construction started. It seemed to be a larger project. One thing I will say, I like the design, but I think the design has exceeded what should have been done on that site. We are, as I say, down the hill, we have an excellent view too, and believe me, a wonderful view is something I really appreciate. One of the questions I also have is to whoever constructs that site. Their turn as you come up San Carlos, go by the club, is very narrow, and there's always cars or trucks parked adjacent to the fence where the second property they have is. And so it's very narrow, so very constrictive. And if a fire truck even, it could be not much fun to examine. One other question I have is because they own the adjacent property, which I understand is probably when you have two properties that are adjacent to the same ownership, I think then you consider that it's a merger of the two properties. And if that's the case, does the other property, its FAR, floor area ratio, then become part of the measurement of the current house because they're on the same lot. And I'm sort of surprised in my, another thing is that the, uh, that the EDU is where it is. Uh, it's to me a very unlikely, um. |
| 02:27:12.41 | Bert Damner | As we've dealt with the construction issues since it started, which has taken a lot of time, it seems an inordinate amount of time to where it is, even though there's a stoppage. And if the current new story polls include the area that we saw, that seems to be not, was not included in the original plans. That's all I have to say, and I do support 25. Thank you. |
| 02:27:41.06 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you, sir, for your comments. Chair, that does it for received speaker cards. I'm going to look to the Zoom application for interested speakers via raised hands. Going once, going twice. And back to you, Chair, saying none. |
| 02:27:58.69 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much to the public for the comments and to Assistant City Manager. We are going to go ahead and bring that back up here for deliberation now. Going to look to see who wants to get us started with some initial thoughts. |
| 02:28:16.65 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:28:17.56 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair, please. |
| 02:28:18.67 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Well, this is another only in Sausalito situation, right? I will say that when this hearing started, I, And I still am. I'm sympathetic to the property owner and what you're trying to do here. It seems like it's the second time in two hearings where we've had an owner come in and try to take a lost property and find its way back into our housing community. I very much appreciate the investment and the effort. complexity of dealing with Sausalito's codes. And I can even, I mean, I'm curious as to what some of the other commissioners who are just as experienced in real estate law as I am, as the demolition rules and is this really a new house or not? I'm not really that interested in those issues. I'm supportive of rational design, and I was in really good shape until I started hearing about the tree. And that's a real problem for me. I mean, we have a lot of rules about trees, and a lot of people don't seem to be phased by them. I can imagine that the one visual, the aerial that showed the tree just obliterated is really, really tough. I don't know. You know, I know a lot of people have different different thoughts about trees, and I think. |
| 02:29:29.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:29.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:30.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:29:48.64 | Andrew Junius | I think our ordinances don't protect the trees enough. You know, you're supposed to get a permit. You're supposed to, you know, only remove 25%, et cetera, et cetera. But the fines are so small, and even when we try to impose them, sometimes they get reduced, that it's just that they're not being protected. This is really a horrible situation when you have a city like Sausalito who's supposed to prize its mature tree canopy. I mean, that tree looked pretty big. That could be a 100-year-old oak tree that just got killed, basically. This doesn't happen very often, but there are situations around town that I just find completely overwhelming when I see a beautiful live oak or sometimes a tree that's not quite as protected but clearly has been here for a century and just gets removed or obliterated or abused or hacked to pieces and nobody seems to care. It's just really difficult for me. I can understand all the other issues, frankly. I know, you know, the folks living at 25 San Carlos, I totally get, you know, views change and things like that but if if you've listened to me at hearings before I'm not that interested in protecting people's views I do think that this tree thick thing is really a problem and I'm also kind of upset that we that unfortunately the staff feels like they have to segment that issue off because our codes don't allow it for some reason to be brought to this issue well we're here we are talking about it now it's going to infect my decision tonight um i just can't imagine how anybody allowed that tree to be uh massacred like that um i've you know i've again it this doesn't happen all the time um there's there's a couple recent situations i don't want to really get into but and frankly on my property when i bought the house I'm living in right now, there's clearly a tree that, you know, decades ago, this happened to, and the tree's barely alive. It was a massive, beautiful tree that was basically cut in two, you know, to accommodate, you know, a piece of a house, and it just really makes me sad, so I'll kind of leave it there. Thank you. |
| 02:31:59.06 | Nastassya Saad | No, sorry, we're in deliberations right now. But I did see Attorney Rudin pop up, so I always like to defer to him. Any comments? |
| 02:32:05.91 | Attorney Rudin | Yeah, I will just remind the Commission that the action before you this evening is not the pending code enforcement matter. It is the design review issue and the commission is required to consider the design review issues in light of the findings and the procedures that are set forth in our design review chapter. |
| 02:32:28.39 | Nastassya Saad | Appreciate the reminder. Thank you, Attorney Rudin. Appreciate you, Vice Chair. Thank you for starting us off. Commissioner Moore. |
| 02:32:38.13 | Fred Moore | I took a couple questions. Maybe we can get the attorney back on. The public access, I guess I have never encountered in my experience a public access to an ADU. So is that an acceptable access route to the ADU? |
| 02:32:55.49 | Attorney Rudin | So the ADU application is not before the planning commission. ADU applications do need to be considered ministerially under state law. Um, And I will just leave it at that. |
| 02:33:08.17 | Fred Moore | I'll go back with kind of paired on the tree issue and understand that's not before us. But had the tree not been removed, the whole design that we'd be looking at potentially with that third floor and that extension of the building would be different. So how can we look at the design review knowing that the tree hadn't remained, the architectural would have been different? |
| 02:33:33.16 | Assistant City Manager | Commissioner Moore, I'd just like to clarify something I stated earlier, which is that the active case and the information that we have available to us indicates that no tree was removed. |
| 02:33:43.43 | Nastassya Saad | So, and just for the |
| 02:33:45.88 | Attorney Rudin | And as a practical matter, I will also reiterate that to the extent that a decision on a code enforcement matter comes before you, the applicant does have, or the, you know, the cited party would have due process rights to review and present evidence. with regards to that code enforcement matter. And since they don't have that opportunity this evening, it is not appropriate for the planning commission to be trying to make a decision with regards to a pending or a potentially pending code enforcement decision that could become for you later. |
| 02:34:17.08 | Andrew Junius | Okay, thank you. I appreciate that City Attorney. I will point out that the very first heightened design review finding that we're supposed to make this evening, it says proposed development of the site maximizes preservation of protected trees. Now, irrespective of the enforcement action, I saw one picture tonight that I assume is correct. There was an aerial view of a protected tree that clearly has not been protected. So that's going to be an extremely difficult finding for me to make this evening. And I think my comments are focused not on the enforcement action, but on finding number one under heightened review findings. |
| 02:34:51.88 | Attorney Rudin | And I think that that is an appropriate thing for the planning commission to be focused on is the design review findings before. |
| 02:34:59.83 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Exactly. I'll let you continue, Commissioner Moore. But I know it's hard to kind of bifurcate the concept in our head, but we do have 13 findings for design review, and then we have subsequent findings, seven findings for heightened design review as presented this evening. So with that, if we can start to have a conversation around any other aspects, feel free to talk about what Vice Chair just raised, because I think that's a fair point. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. But I do want to keep it to the scope of what's in front of us this evening, please. |
| 02:35:35.77 | Fred Moore | Maybe just a clarification for the staff. One of the public comments that was made regarding the patio and the FAR, my understanding with the revised plans by the applicant, that patio was reduced to less than two feet so that it was properly accounted for in the staff report that Matthew presented. Am I understanding that correctly? |
| 02:35:55.95 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, the pool area has been reduced, that decking area, under two feet. So only counts as impervious surface coverage, not building coverage. |
| 02:36:04.42 | Fred Moore | Thank you. I also have some issues with some of the findings. I know we're doing a design review, It's like a great house. Looks like it's going to be super exciting, but I'm not sure I saw enough comparable designs in the area that the architectural style complements the surrounding neighborhood. So maybe during the discussions, people can convince me how we can make the finding there that that is consistent without some modifications to the architecture. |
| 02:36:34.60 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, appreciate that. |
| 02:36:35.96 | David Marlatt | Commissioner Marlott. Yes, thank you. Maybe a little bit like Commissioner Junius, I also have evolved a little bit during this hearing. I was coming in kind of full bore with the idea that, hey, this is a new house. It's not an addition. What are we doing? Until I was informed that, A, it's kind of a semantics issue, and B, treating this as a new house actually creates additional constraints that we don't have before us. So I'm kind of over that now. My other issue, though, and when this eventually gets towards a motion, maybe we have more discussion about it, is the expansion of the third floor. The third floor seems to me to be kind of the sticking point. So in 2021, a third floor of 1,220 square feet was approved. For better or worse, it was approved. And now they plan to expand that to 1,530 square feet for, in my mind, no good reason. They've moved the ADU down to the ground floor. There was a two-car garage. Now there's a one-car garage. If you look at the size of the rooms proposed on the third floor, they're very generous. And so I might be getting ahead, but should there be a motion to approve, I would propose a condition that the third floor be modified to not exceed the 1220. Another reason for that is if they wanted to increase the third floor by 25%, I think story polls would have been appropriate with the 10-day notice and the whole rigmarole. So for me, it's also a way of finding a path forward for the applicant given the circumstances. And I may have other comments after that, but that was the main comment I wanted to get out. |
| 02:38:22.92 | Nastassya Saad | Do you want to feel free to continue? |
| 02:38:24.91 | David Marlatt | No, I mean, they raised issues about lot coverage and the retaining wall, and I assume staff has looked at that, that the 10-foot or so retaining wall does not affect lot coverage calculation. And also, just to kind of remind everybody that even if we approve tonight, it doesn't mean that construction starts tomorrow. Well, I assume, I'm sure, that they still have a long road ahead in submitting their building permit revisions, which involves a complete structural redesign, or maybe not complete, but it's a new house. That's going to take months. So they're really not looking at getting back up and building by tomorrow, or they'll have another stop work. |
| 02:38:35.66 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:39:06.81 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:39:07.32 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. I too, and I'm not able to make all the findings right now. I do think, in my personal opinion, I never like to get into the math up here on the dais to give instruction back. I think we generally provide some feedback to the applicant and to the architect to make sure they understand our general concerns. So math aside from a potential condition, which I know you can do as an expert, Commissioner Marlott, but just to get quite specific, I am having a a hard time making design review finding 13, which is that the project has been designed to ensure on-site structures do not crowd or overwhelm structures on neighboring properties. With that heightened review findings, Thank you. Design number three, site will be developed in a manner that minimizes obstruction of views from surrounding properties. And... Those are the two current sticking points right now. The tree conversation is difficult, absolutely, and it is in my mind as well. Given what's before us currently, it's not part of the scope, but it is hard mentally to separate what was there, knowing what was there versus this new design today. So I don't know if I'm going to be able to make all these findings. I would also be curious because we did have public comment that stated that at least one neighbor, there seemed to have been a positive conversation about some potential agreements that could be made, not knowing those and not wanting to get into those necessarily, but taking at face value that there could be some positive conversations moving forward between at least one neighbor, I think on that alone, I'd make a motion to continue so that can happen and we can provide some very specific direction back. I don't think this is worth a denial by any means. I think that would be an undue hardship on the applicant for sure. So I definitely don't want to deny them. But I do think there's an area of opportunity to get us to make these findings. And this is the first time that this commission is seeing this. Heightened design review is no joke. I mean, it doesn't often get approved on a first round. So it's not terribly uncommon. But that's where I am currently. So I'd love to see where everyone else is. |
| 02:41:49.33 | Andrew Junius | I'll keep the conversation going here. So, you know, absent the tree disaster, Thank you. You know, I was hoping to have a wonderful back and forth here about kind of the semantics that Commissioner Marlott mentioned. It just, you know, I thought it was interesting that the city attorney did raise the fact that if this was a rebuild, it would be two units and protected by the HAA, which is, you know, which is important. But for a single, I don't know, it seems a little also kind of, I've always wondered how a little bit of overkill there for that act to be applied to a two unit project in Sausalito when one of the units is an EDU. But notwithstanding all that, Mr. Goss, I mean, it's it's fine. I mean, the House is actually I don't you know, I'm going to defer to the commissioner, who's an architect and probably support whatever motion he makes. But it really is sad, and I really would eventually. It sounds like we're going to likely get continued here, but I'd like an explanation when they come back as to what the hell happened to the tree and how did that happen. And so that I can make the finding, so that I can even consider making the finding and vote in favor of this project, which, absent the tree issue, I find fine. I mean, I've been up to this location a lot. I've been to a lot of events at the at the Women's Club. You know, this is clearly a You know, in some respects, it is and was an eyesore, but it was really set back, you know, really hard to see. I know the building at 25. It's way out on the street and very visible and very interesting. I like that building a lot. This kind of, you know, it's like in some ways you almost didn't know there was a house there because it was so far down the lane. And then if you really looked, it was that dilapidated garage. |
| 02:43:19.73 | Unknown | I was like, oh, yeah. |
| 02:43:29.49 | Andrew Junius | or whatever that structure was. So, you know, I don't know. really torn here because I can completely understand the stress that the owners and I completely understand the goals that they were trying to do. I was very sympathetic there, but I'm so angry about this one finding and that and what happened to that tree. You know, again, because of it, because of the finding and the fact that we we really prize these extraordinarily old and important trees in our in our city. So that's where I'm sitting right now. |
| 02:43:58.86 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair, you made a comment about a different tree, not, I believe, the one that is potentially code enforcement. Did I misunderstand you? |
| 02:44:07.71 | Andrew Junius | No, I'm close to the line here. I understand that we're not supposed to be talking about the enforcement action, but even if there wasn't an enforcement action, I think it's appropriate for us under heightened design review finding number one about protecting protected trees. Clearly, that's not happened, right? And that's just part of my consideration here, having nothing to do with the enforcement action. Finding number one is going to be a difficult thing, I think, for this commission to make, simply because that tree has been butchered. |
| 02:44:40.11 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for clarifying for me. Okay, so I have a loose motion of a continuance, but do we, Commissioner Marlott, just to your expertise, can we talk some math since it sounds like we're going to have to? Just in a reduction of that third floor, can you expand a little bit on what you were articulating? |
| 02:45:02.57 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:45:02.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:45:02.82 | David Marlatt | Well, I wasn't trying to design from the dais or prescribe specifically how to do it. But the third floor is 1,530 square feet. I'm looking at the plans. There's very generous bathrooms. There's a walk-in closet alone in one of the secondary bedrooms that's 49 square feet by itself. Not to be judgmental of people with large or generous homes. But my concern is partly in deference to the neighbor at 25 San Carlos and partly trying to, you know, kind of a good governance thing. I think that that expansion should have merited story polls because it was significant enough to do that. So I'm trying to find a workaround in some sense to say, well, that's OK, but not beyond what was approved in 2021. And looking at the plan, I think it's very reasonable. The bathrooms proposed are huge. There's a giant study that's something, 30 something square feet on one dimension. So I don't think it's unreasonable to remove and then leave it to the architect to propose specifically how to remove 300 square feet from that floor. |
| 02:46:08.82 | David Marlatt | um, Bye. Go ahead. I was just going to say, I was going to come back if we are going towards motion of continuance to Commissioner Moore's point about style, because I thought that question may come back to me too. I don't have a problem with it in terms of it stylistically. I think it's an attractive building. I think 21 was attractive and the 25 projects attractive. It's not specifically, you know, Julia Morgan or a particular style you can identify, but the large expansive glass look, kind of modern, mid-century modern, I think that it shares a lot of qualities without necessarily literally sharing, you know, shingles and eaves and so forth. So at that level, I don't have a problem. And then variety is good. And I don't think it's an Adobe house with tiny little windows turning its back on the view or something that's totally you know uh in opposition to our environment so i really don't have any problem with that um i do agree with commissioner sad about finding 13. i've got a great deal of trouble with that one as well i'm in agreement about that um that on-site structures don't crowd. And to Commissioner Junius' point, I think it's condition one, but also condition 11 of the findings, the proposed design preserves protected trees and significant natural features. So I think it's both one and 11. |
| 02:46:57.99 | Bert Damner | Thank you. |
| 02:47:05.79 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 02:47:32.32 | Nastassya Saad | And this, I don't know if this is a question for, uh, assistant city manager or maybe, uh, attorney Rudin, um, If we wanted a tree protection plan, as we sometimes have, would that just be a condition of approval? I feel like we haven't done one in a while. Yes. |
| 02:47:51.55 | Attorney Rudin | Yes, it is something that you can require as a condition of approval. Additionally, under Chapter 11, 1.12, section 1.12.30, I believe requires that Um, There be conditions of approval for protecting trees during construction. There are mandatory requirements from municipal code already. |
| 02:48:16.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay, so, well, just a comment, and I, too, have no issues with the design, to be honest. I think it, actually, I really like it, and I think it takes great advantage, provided there's no privacy concerns, even though with all that window and glass, I think it's perfectly taken advantage of its situation. So I don't have any design comments here. I think we're sticking on generally size and scale to sum it up. Obviously, we all care about the trees, so I would be open to adding a tree protection plan condition. as a precaution. But... Are we, we've got some concept here on the table about a reduction of 300 square feet. Where do Commissioner Moore and then Vice Chair, where do you land on that conceptually? |
| 02:49:10.63 | Fred Moore | Thank you. I kind of agree with Commissioner Marlott regarding the reduction of size. And again, to find the heightened review findings on item three, with a reduced third floor, that's much easier to find that finding that the site has been developing there that minimized the obstruction of the views. I think the expansion of that third floor, the enclosing the deck, has an impact on the adjacent neighbor, which makes this finding difficult. And I'll be curious to see where we come back on the code reinforcement. Normally, I kind of favor, hey, if you meet FAR, why are we having all these heightened review standards? It's sort of saying if you meet the standard, but you're 80% of meeting the standard, then we've got to reevaluate the whole thing. So even though we comply with the law, the FAR, we're still going to run you through the hoops of all these findings, which right now are kind of going against the client, against the property owner, where normally we're trying to use these findings to protect the city and protect the property owner. And here we're kind of going backwards a little bit. So I'm curious where the code revisions come out on that. So I would be supporting your concept of a continuance, maybe to work some of these things out, have the applicant go back, work with staff, see if they really still stand firm on their issue of story polls and whether or not the applicant has an opportunity to work with the neighbors on some of these issues with the expansiveness of the third floor. |
| 02:50:41.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Vice chair comments there. |
| 02:50:44.98 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I'm generally supportive of what's been discussed, continuance to work on the architecture and make the third floor smaller is fine with me. I would also encourage the project team, when you come back, to explain what happened to the tree in as much detail as possible, and whether the tree's gonna survive. I'd almost encourage an arborist report to tell us what's gonna happen to that tree now that it's been devastated. |
| 02:51:12.40 | Nastassya Saad | OK, so I never made a motion. I'd prefer if somebody else did, just as the point of |
| 02:51:20.03 | David Marlatt | As I make the motion but I think this one last comment, I think i'm in the minority here, but I would actually support a conditional approval based on the tree protection plan and working with staff directly, as we have with some other projects deferring to staff to reduce the third floor to. The previously approved 1220 square foot maximum. |
| 02:51:20.06 | Nastassya Saad | as a chair. |
| 02:51:42.77 | David Marlatt | I suspect I'm not going to get agreement on that, but I'm just going to throw that out there that I would be in that position. |
| 02:51:42.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:51:42.84 | David Levinson | Thank you. |
| 02:51:42.88 | Nastassya Saad | I suspect I'm about to get. |
| 02:51:47.35 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Are you suggesting to approve with a condition to reduce the third floor? Yes. I don't think that... |
| 02:51:54.42 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 02:51:57.59 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask Attorney Rudin to weigh in on that conceptually? Because then we won't have accurate drawings and. Oh. Didn't we do this? |
| 02:52:05.98 | David Marlatt | Same with the 324 Sausalito where we conditioned |
| 02:52:09.07 | Attorney Rudin | I mean, it is possible. It's just a question of how specific of a condition and what kind of reduction. So, I mean, Commissioner Marlat can articulate exactly the scope of the reduction and staff can And it's clear enough the staff can verify it at the building permit stage. I think that it is permissible. |
| 02:52:28.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:52:30.50 | David Marlatt | Well, as I said, I sense that we're going towards a continuance, but I just wanted to at least articulate what my position would be. |
| 02:52:36.44 | Nastassya Saad | Yep. Thank you. You have all the right to make a motion. So if you want to give it a go, I'm just very curious to hear how you're going to articulate it. Yeah, me too. Yeah. Yeah. |
| 02:52:45.06 | David Marlatt | you I'm not sure. |
| 02:52:45.40 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 02:52:45.65 | David Marlatt | OK. Thank you. |
| 02:52:46.16 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:52:46.26 | David Marlatt | So, yeah, so I would make a motion to approve the design review and the heightened design review with the condition that the architect worked with staff to reduce the third floor gross square footage area to no more than 1,220 square feet and also include a tree protection plan for the city's requirements. |
| 02:53:22.59 | Nastassya Saad | Is there a second or discussion? |
| 02:53:24.89 | Fred Moore | I have to ask for clarification. So is that direction with the reduction, the reduction of the third floor adjacent to 25 or anywhere on the third floor? |
| 02:53:36.60 | David Marlatt | Well, I guess it would be anywhere on the third floor because the previous 2021 plan also had square footage into that area towards 2025. One could say that they have to redesign it to stay within the limits, within the boundaries of the 2021 plan. But that's pretty constraining functionally. And they do have a one car garage to accommodate now. So I was trying to be a little bit more a little bit more flexibility. |
| 02:54:07.17 | Nastassya Saad | Attorney Rudin, do you have anything to comment on? |
| 02:54:10.65 | Attorney Rudin | No, other than I think that If there are additional design parameters, such as were just raised in terms of where on the third floor, those would be appropriate to include as a condition of approval. Otherwise, I think that that is verifiable in terms of how it has been phrased presently. |
| 02:54:30.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Respectfully, I'm not going to support your motion, but I appreciate what you're trying to achieve. I don't think with that large of a square footage reduction, conceptually I agree with, but to put that as a condition of approval, it just takes away the right for the public and everyone else, even the applicant themselves, to know what's getting approved. And with that, I'm not comfortable. So if we want to do a continuance as a counter motion with all your articulate words on a reduction of 300 feet and... in a tree protection plan, I think is a definite add. Don't know if you would like an arborist report. I'm definitely interested to potentially add that as another condition, but I'd be more comfortable with everything as a continuance and also as an attempt to allow them to continue the conversation that they're having with their neighbors. |
| 02:55:36.19 | David Marlatt | Sure, I understand. |
| 02:55:39.50 | Nastassya Saad | Do you understand well enough for a second? |
| 02:55:42.70 | David Marlatt | Not quite there yet. |
| 02:55:43.72 | Nastassya Saad | I guess I made the motion. I stole his words as a continuance, yes. |
| 02:55:45.42 | David Marlatt | I stole his words as I said. |
| 02:55:48.31 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so you're going to withdraw your- I withdraw my motion. Sure, okay. And there was no second. So my motion is to continue this item to assume a date certain, and I'm going to look to the applicant, particularly maybe the architect. If we move this to a date certain, that would be that we would choose a date here this evening, potentially for our next hearing. We are on recess in August, so our next hearing is |
| 02:55:48.76 | David Marlatt | So you're going to withdraw your? I withdraw my motion. |
| 02:56:17.38 | Nastassya Saad | September 10th. Thank you very much. It's on September 10th and can I look to staff to see if, I don't know if you know even what's on the agenda. Would we be able to accommodate this item on a September 10th agenda? |
| 02:56:29.13 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you for the question, Chair. If the Commission would like staff to accommodate this item, we will accommodate it. |
| 02:56:35.27 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 02:56:35.59 | Assistant City Manager | you |
| 02:56:35.61 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 02:56:35.62 | Assistant City Manager | you |
| 02:56:35.64 | Nastassya Saad | That is. A great answer. So that's what that means. Alternatively, there's a date uncertain, and that would be we don't pick a date here this evening, and at your discretion you can come back and find a date with planning. Otherwise, yes, Commissioner Marlott. |
| 02:56:56.11 | David Marlatt | I was going to have a question for the city attorney regarding a motion. |
| 02:57:00.65 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Thank you. |
| 02:57:03.62 | David Marlatt | Go ahead. Yeah. Please. So I'm concerned that the owners, the applicants between now and September are just sort of dead stopped. And there's materials on site for various reasons. Can we either pass a separate motion or somehow permit the building department to work with the applicants such that at least work of a certain nature can continue, such as securing the site? We don't like to see open framing and beams and joists and stuff hanging in the air. And so is there some level of work that we could authorize to proceed in the interest of securing the site, protecting it, and so forth while this is pending? |
| 02:57:46.79 | Attorney Rudin | So that is not typically an action that would require the planning commission. Rather, that's a decision of the building official. And typically as issuance of a stopper record, the building official will still allow limited construction to protect the work, avoid attractive nuisances on the project site, etc. So, you know, they don't want to leave unsafe conditions. Like for example, if you issue a stop work order, in the middle of grading or something along the lines where you're leaving an unstable hillside, usually that stop or quarter can be modified by the building official to ensure that there is slope stabilization, for example. So. |
| 02:58:24.86 | David Marlatt | OK, so we don't need to deal with that. Thank you. |
| 02:58:28.28 | Nastassya Saad | No, but that's a great question, and I think that probably gives a little bit of hope, hopefully, for the applicant. So we'll leave that with city staff and the building official to continue that conversation. So I am just going to look one more time to the applicant. September 10th is our next hearing. That gives you a little bit of time to work with the neighbors, potentially redesign. We're leaning, potentially, there'll be a motion in a second, to a reduction of the third floor, a tree protection plan, and an arborist report. And I think with that, I'll make a motion to continue this item to a date certain of September 10th. I've lost my project ID. Project ID 202500105 with the following conditions. I'll look for a second, and then I'll definitely confirm with staff that they understood the charge. |
| 02:59:24.81 | Andrew Junius | I'll second that and just clarify the condition about the arborist report specifically about the tree that's been damaged. You know, I'd like to know why it was damaged and the arborist to talk about the potential survival of the tree. |
| 02:59:36.41 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. Thank you for clarifying. |
| 02:59:37.99 | Andrew Junius | But that's a second. |
| 02:59:38.99 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. So I have a second. I don't know if we have any other discussion on the motion. and before we take role staff are you confident in the conditions that we have set yes yes i am |
| 02:59:50.97 | Assistant City Manager | Yes, I am. Matthew, do you have any clarification questions? |
| 02:59:54.41 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, the only condition that I heard was an arborist report for the damaged tree. in the reduction in the size of the third floor. Yeah, but yeah, that was the first one. But what else I thought I heard some other discussion. |
| 03:00:03.22 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:00:03.24 | Unknown | I heard some other |
| 03:00:06.16 | Nastassya Saad | So a tree protection plan? um, An arborist report about the affected tree and a reduction of the third floor by 300 square feet. Got it. |
| 03:00:21.75 | Attorney Rudin | And to be clear, this is a motion for continuance. So at most you can give direction to staff since A motion to continue is not an approval, so you can't attach conditions to it. |
| 03:00:33.71 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for clarifying. With that, I am going to just look one more time for a nod. Is September 10th an acceptable date for you? Thank you. Okay, great. So we have a motion. We have a second. Second. Thank you. |
| 03:00:47.52 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 03:00:47.53 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:00:47.55 | Fred Moore | Can I make him a quick point of clarification? |
| 03:00:48.51 | Nastassya Saad | Of course. |
| 03:00:49.91 | Fred Moore | With respect to the stop notice on the tree, is that stopping construction? Could we talk about whether construction can continue on to solidify the site? What actually has been stopped on the site? Work. So anywhere. Work. So now if we're saying that |
| 03:01:03.55 | David Marlatt | WORTH. |
| 03:01:03.92 | Leslie Schoferman | Thank you. |
| 03:01:05.17 | David Marlatt | Anywhere. |
| 03:01:06.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:01:06.13 | Leslie Schoferman | WORK. |
| 03:01:09.45 | Fred Moore | The city staff can work with the applicant to do some things to secure the site or make some modifications. Do we have to do anything to have that go into play or is it just going to be stopping work till September. |
| 03:01:23.12 | Assistant City Manager | The work will continue to not occur until the Planning Commission renders a decision on the project. Now, as specified or clarified by Attorney Rudin, there are certain actions that can be approved administratively that do not equal work, but equal more protection actions, such as ensuring, as architect and Commissioner Merlot mentioned, ensuring that some of the exposed areas are covered and don't contribute to loss of value or rot |
| 03:01:45.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:01:56.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:01:56.11 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. |
| 03:01:56.27 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:01:56.74 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. So I guess let me just, yeah, I'll just bring it home. I am happy to collaborate with the building official in connection with this, and I will have this exact discussion with them as well as with my colleagues, Senior Planner Mandich. |
| 03:02:08.55 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, we'd appreciate that on behalf of the applicant. Any other questions? Okay, so we've got a motion, we have a second. Assistant City Manager Phipps, can you take roll please? |
| 03:02:19.23 | Assistant City Manager | Absolutely, Chair. Commissioner Luxenberg is now present. Let the record show. Commissioner Merlot. Yes, Commissioner Moore. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 03:02:30.47 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you. |
| 03:02:32.16 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:02:32.82 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay, final item for the evening is adjournment. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioners. |
| 03:02:43.97 | Assistant City Manager | Staff, thank you members of the public. Have a great evening and we will see you next time. |
David Levinson — Against: Lives at 27 Spencer, the first house on the lane. Neither the owner nor architect reached out to him. Pointed out that all other garages on the lane are under houses; this would be the only one at house level, out of character with the neighborhood. ▶ 📄
Brenda Hayes — Against: Full-time resident of Sweetbriar Lane. Learned of the project only via a July 5 letter; no neighbor engagement. Project is overbuilt, not in keeping with neighborhood character, blocks iconic views, impacts safety and property values. Called it a special privilege and noted no construction management plan was initially discussed. Suggested building a garage on San Carlos Avenue instead. ▶ 📄