| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Nastassya Saad | Time is 631 assistant city manager. |
| 00:00:04.94 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you, Chair, and good evening to you, Vice Chair Junius, Planning Commissioners, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comments through Zoom. With that, I will move to call roll. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:00:28.11 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 00:00:28.75 | Assistant City Manager | Commissioner Merlot. Commissioner Luxenberg. Present. Vice Chair Genius. And Cher San. |
| 00:00:37.00 | Nastassya Saad | here. |
| 00:00:37.58 | Assistant City Manager | We have quorum back to you chair. |
| 00:00:39.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Item number two is the approval of the agenda. |
| 00:00:44.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So moved. |
| 00:00:45.16 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:00:46.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second? |
| 00:00:47.50 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Assistant City Manager. |
| 00:00:49.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:00:50.55 | Assistant City Manager | Approved. Commissioner Merlot? Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Vice Chair Junius? |
| 00:00:56.53 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 00:00:56.66 | Assistant City Manager | Chair Saad? Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:00:57.78 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Item number three, our public comments on items not on this agenda. I know we have a few speaker cards, so can we just. check to see if we have any for item number three. |
| 00:01:10.42 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you chair and I'll just say a few words before we dig in. 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 planning commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the planning commission may refer matters not on the agenda to staff or direct that the subject be agendized at a future meeting. Video or audio comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker unless modified by the chair. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right. This evening we've got principal planner Matthew Mandich and admin aide Maria Hernandez. If you'd like to make a comment, if you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you'll be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine and each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed. Thank you, chair. |
| 00:01:35.66 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | you |
| 00:02:12.06 | Assistant City Manager | And I'm going to look to the chamber for interested speakers on items not on the agenda? Seeing none in the chamber looking to the zoom application chair. Seeing no raised hands back to you. |
| 00:02:25.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Item number four are the approval of the planning commission minutes. We have one set of minutes from September 24th. Any notes or points of discussion? |
| 00:02:36.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So moved. |
| 00:02:38.28 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. it. |
| 00:02:39.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. |
| 00:02:39.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Assistant City Manager. |
| 00:02:44.46 | Assistant City Manager | Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:02:45.09 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry do we need to take public comment? Thank you. |
| 00:02:48.68 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:02:48.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:02:48.81 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:02:49.10 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. We just want to open it up for public comment for the planning commission minutes from September 24th. |
| 00:02:59.75 | Nastassya Saad | Seeing none, Chair. Thank you very much. Can we take roll please? |
| 00:02:59.80 | Assistant City Manager | I'm not seeing that, I'm sure. |
| 00:03:03.85 | Assistant City Manager | Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice Chair Jennings. Yes. And Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:03:11.90 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you very much. Item number five this evening are communications. I'm going to look to city staff if there are any communications for the commission in public. |
| 00:03:22.14 | Assistant City Manager | Yes, thank you for the opportunity, Chair. One communication item from staff this evening. As the Commission and the public is aware, on August 5, 2025, the City Sausalito City Council voted to place Measure J, that's the Sausalito Commercial District Local Control Measure, and Measure K, that is the Sausalito MLK Local Control Measure, on the November 4, 2025 special election ballot. If approved by Sausalito MLK local control measure on the November 4, 2025 special election ballot. If approved by Sausalito voters, both measures would keep Sausalito in compliance with state housing element law, which requires updates to local zoning so the city can accommodate 724 new housing units, including affordable housing at various income levels by the state law deadline of January 30, 2026. |
| 00:03:33.50 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. |
| 00:04:12.99 | Assistant City Manager | So I will just remind folks that that special election is occurring and if I may, I wanted to take a moment to access the city's website and actually show members of the public some of the resources available to them as related to webpages that we've provided that provide some detail on what's occurring. So if folks access our city website as shown here on the drop down menu under city government, There's a page that we're calling housing measures J and K on your November, 2025 special election ballot. If you follow that link, you will be provided with a myriad of resources, uh, objective educational resources in connection with both measures. I invite members of the public to review those resources at their leisure. Uh, additionally for, uh, maybe deeper dive and more specific content in connection with each of these mailers, the city has created a ballot measure FAQ page, which my cursor is hovering over right now in connection with each of these measures. And that FAQ page summarizes the facts associated with both measures, J and K, and goes through questions like, what are measures J and K? Why are they on the ballot now? others. So just wanted to make sure that that was clear for the Commission and the community. Thank you for the opportunity and I'll give it back to you chair |
| 00:05:47.00 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. That was actually a great update, very important. I know we're mostly here for other items this evening, but if I can just stress on the point, those resources are available. They are imperative for the city of Sausalito to vote on and the housing element and the planning commission and many members of the public and city council have put a lot of time into into these measures so we'll we'll look forward to see how those turn out but the resources and education to get ahead of time are all there and very going to be very well received thank you for doing that does any member of the Commission have a communication item for this evening Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:06:33.93 | Fred Moore | Just a couple two things and to pair it on you and the assistant city managers comment about the upcoming measures. I also because these are very significant planning efforts that are going to impact our housing compliance with the state mandates, whether you a pro or con about the measures, I encourage everybody to clearly look at the measures themselves so you're not misled by information that may be circulated on either side of the of the ballot pros or cons in those city websites you can actually see the exact changes to the zoning for example the height limitation associated with measure K you'll be able to see exactly what table will be amended if that is approved and the second item I want to continue to advocate sort of more involvement by this Commission in planning efforts in the city there's a lot of talented people on my right and my left and hopefully we can engage ways with the city staff and the City Council to become more involved as a simple as an example the phase two of the dumpy Park to me that's a good opportunity for input from the Planning Commission with respect to the plans either through a study group or the Commission itself as an agenda item so hopefully we can continue to look how to make that happen in the media future thanks |
| 00:07:56.28 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Commissioner Moore. Vice Chair Junius and, okay. I too don't have any communication items, so we will open up communications that you heard this evening for public comment. Assistant City Manager, if you could facilitate. |
| 00:08:11.90 | Assistant City Manager | Absolutely. Looking to the chamber for interested speakers. Looking to the Zoom application for any raised hands. Seeing none, Chair, back to you. |
| 00:08:24.43 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We're not gonna move on to item six. That is our public hearing for the evening. I will look to commissioner Luxembourg first as he's gonna recuse. |
| 00:08:34.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you chair given the proximity of 33 San Carlos to my property. I will recruit cues for this item this evening Thank you. |
| 00:08:43.83 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, have a good evening. So item 6A as our principal planner, Matthew Mandich approaches, this is 433 San Carlos Avenue. This is a design review permit with heightened review findings. And we will turn it over to you at your leisure. |
| 00:09:29.56 | Assistant City Manager | I'd like to request a five minute recess so we can address what seems to be a potential technical issue. |
| 00:09:35.16 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely, let's take a five minute recess and come back at 6.46 p.m. Sorry to members of the public and people in the chambers, but please hang tight so we can get the PowerPoints ready. |
| 00:09:44.80 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:09:45.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:11:35.47 | Leonard Rifkind | through the two of you. |
| 00:12:20.78 | Fred Moore | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:12:26.97 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:12:43.86 | Fred Moore | Amen. |
| 00:14:02.75 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, we're gonna come back from recess and turn it back over to principal planner, Matthew Mandich. |
| 00:14:08.44 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you, Chair. Just wait for this to go full screen. |
| 00:14:44.25 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:14:44.26 | Matthew Mandich | All right. |
| 00:14:44.50 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. We're going to be talking about the next project. We're going to be talking about the next project. Just to remind everyone where we are here, this is the parcel in question. It is connected to 33A San Carlos, both owned by the same owner on the confluence of San Carlos, Sunshine, and Central Avenues, very close to the Sausalito Women's Club, for those of you that know that area. It's in the R16 single-family zone, and the lot size that we're dealing with is 11,280 square feet. Next slide, please. So just a brief background to remind everyone about this project. House was purchased in 2017 after laying vacant for 20 years. From May to June 2021, applications were submitted for an ADU and a remodel. As part of this process, neighbors were consulted, site visits were performed, and story polls were erected at that time, 2021. In November of 2021, a notice of decision was issued by the city. The project was approved under two different project IDs, one for an ADU and one for a zoning permit. Both of these types of permits do not require any discretionary review or public hearings. Notices, however, were sent to the neighbors, and there was a notice posted on site as well to kick off a 10-day appeal period. In that period, no appeals were filed and no objections were received about the project from the city. After some requested delays from the applicant, building permits were eventually issued in February 2024 for that approved project. Next slide, please. in March 2025 of this year, so about roughly a year after the building permits were issued and building commenced, we received a code complaint from the neighbor at 25 San Carlos. alleged unpermitted tree removal and demolition beyond the scope of approval. On April 18, 2025, a site visit was performed by city staff, which included the building inspector, code enforcement officer, and myself. And we met with the owner and the architect and contractor at that time. At this meeting and site visit, we were able to determine that demolition beyond the scope of what approved work had occurred. So a stop work order was then issued on May 1st, 2025. And staff determined that the way forward to get this project properly permanent and back on track was to go through the design review process, which brings us here today. So next slide, This project was first heard by the Planning Commission back in July 2023, right before the August recess. It was continued at the first hearing and there were several recommendations given out by the Planning Commission. I have recommendations underlined here because I just want to remind that a continuance cannot be conditioned by the Planning Commission in any way and these are not directives by the Planning Commission as has been argued in some of the public comment. These are just recommendations on how to get this project approved at the next hearing. Those recommendations were as follows. Reduce square footage of third floor by 300 square feet. Submit an arborist report detailing the health of the protracted oak trees on site and submit a tree protection plan for the protected trees on site. The hearing was at that time continued to a date certain of September 10th. However, applicant did not have materials ready by that time at the 10th. It was continued to the 24th, same situation on the 24th, and it was continued to a date certain of October 8th, which is today. During that time, the project was resubmitted with the removal of 63 square feet on the third floor and the addition of a JADU, which we'll get into a little bit more in a second. The other documents that were requested by the Planning Commission, including the Arborist Report and the Tree Preservation Plan, were also included in that package, as well as a new StoryPill Plan that was certified by a licensed surveyor. Next slide, please. So, Code enforcement's been a big issue with this project. I want to touch on that before we get into the project details and just let everyone know where we are with that. So next slide. First of all, we have the tree alteration, which was quite discussed at the last hearing. There's a lot of public comment on that. And I've included an image from one of the public commenters here to just show what situation we had there with the tree overlying the house next to between 25 and 33 San Carlos. So this code complaint was received for illegal unpared alteration of a protected oak tree. Just want to let the commission know too, this didn't really come out the last hearing, but there were actually two trimming events that occurred there on the property. One was in April 2023. This was for the sale of the property at 25 San Carlos, which occurred in 2023. This was a request from the previous owner of 25 San Carlos to have the owners of 33 trim the trees down, reduce their height so that the view was more open for the sale of that house. They complied with this request. We have receipts from Bartlett that undertook the tree trimming for that time. In May 2024 was when a little bit more significant alteration occurred for the construction of the home. That was done by Timberline, and we also have receipts from the owner from that process as well. I just want to highlight what you see there in this image. So this was the situation of the tree at the time. It was touching the home here, right down on this area right here, and covering a significant portion of the second story of the house. So there's issues there for sure of property damage fire hazards safety issues so if if a tree like this were to come in for a tree removal permit typically something like that would be approved and given the situation that we have in front of us there however the tree was not removed it was altered Another kind of wrinkle to this project is that there was a valid ADU permit at the time, and ADU law does not allow for any discretionary process to be applied to the approval of an ADU unit, such as a tree removal process. However, no documentation was submitted, and that's really the issue here. If you're going to remove or significantly alter a protected tree, even through the ADU law process, we need to have that documented up front. There was a condition in the notice of decision that said there would be no tree removal. So this was not something that was discussed up front. It was not something that was brought to the attention of the department. So we do have an issue there, obviously. So next slide, please. So the issue there lands in our code enforcement department and with our CEO, which is our code enforcement officer. He has determined that a violation indeed did occur here. Required documentation for protected tree alteration was not submitted, was not discussed as part of the building permit phase either. So despite the fact that no discretionary permit would have been required, we needed to get documentation up front that this kind of alteration was gonna occur and we did not. So that's the issue really here at hand. This is not processed via the planning commission, really via DR or design review permit. It's really through a different path. This is something that our code enforcement arm handles. We have a whole section in our municipal code that deals with how to deal with illegal alteration or removal of protected trees. through the administrative citation process. This typically requires a hearing in front of the planning commission, where they either approve or or deny the administrative citation and they can decide what penalty that is. It's up to a maximum of $1,000, typically for alterations in the past. Many of you have been a part of those alterations, hearing several of them. We've done 500 per alteration in the past. However, we do have a code enforcement that just had its second reading last night, I believe in front of city council, pending that would change this process and take that out of the Planning Commission's purview for that administrative citation and allow staff to issue fines directly to owners for these violations without having to essentially get an approval for a citation which is an onerous process takes a lot of staff time takes a lot of your time and I think it's a welcomed amendment that we just got approved last night and will go into effect in 30 days When it comes to the code enforcement issue here of the tree, this is really something that falls again on the code enforcement branch. The city has the choice to choose how and when to enforce its code and what methods. So we will be issuing fines for this tree alteration. So you can know that. How among those will come will be up to staff to decide. And just wanna reiterate that again, this is past tree alteration. This is something that occurred when there was a valid permits and a building A VALID PERMITS AND A BUILDING PERMIT EVEN IN HAND AT THE TIME. AND IT'S NOT PERTINENT TO THE NEW DR PERMIT IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. I BELIEVE AS WE DISCUSS AND GO THROUGH THIS, WE CAN STILL MAKE ALL THE FINDINGS FOR THE TREE PROTECTIONS THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THIS PERMIT IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION TODAY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. |
| 00:22:48.31 | Matthew Mandich | So as mentioned, arborist report was submitted. It states that all trees are in good health and that none of the trees that were altered require removal. There was also an arborist report submitted by the neighbor as well that pretty much confirmed the same thing, and there's actually some new growth sprouting from areas where the tree was altered, so they are in good health. Preservation methods recommended in the tree preservation plan have already been implemented. These went in this week. I was only able to gain access to this one Oak tree on a noble lane there. Um, but you can see that the dirt was removed from around the roots. There's protective netting that's been put in place. and fresh pine mulch has been dumped on top of that area. So it's all sanctioned off now. So these are part of the preservation methods that were included in the plan that was submitted by an arborist, and these actions were also carried out by a licensed arborist. So it's staffs understanding that all the tree findings and required for the design review permit can be made with this new tree preservation plan in place. Next slide, please. Of course, there was the issue that has been discussed and is in the public comment as well, that there was a violation of the stop work order that was put down in May. This occurred on September 3rd. We got calls from multiple neighbors that work was going on. unpermitted work at the House. Our code enforcement officer went out, observed that indeed, unpermanent work was occurring. in violation of the stop work order and a compliance order was issued, as you can see here. Work did continue on the site despite that compliance order and despite the stop work order, the city went out to the site multiple times to assess the situation and, you know, reiterate the lack of compliance that was occurring. However, the code that we had at the time and pending these amendments is rather limited in our fine schedule and kind of the teeth that we have to address these violations. So part of what we're doing right now and what was just approved last night at council is kind of giving the code enforcement department and writing into our code a little more teeth that can allow us to directly issue these fines and escalating fines in quicker succession. So this is something that we're working on as a city to improve overall our code enforcement branch. So yeah, that's that can kind of conclude the issue there. The work has not been going on the last several weeks. Next slide, So here's the current conditions that you see at the site right now. This photo was taken this week. It's a stalled, half-built project. It's been an open construction site for over five months. Loss of time, materials due to weathering, heavy financial burden that the owner is carrying. Yes, mistakes were certainly made. I think that's clear in the record. We know that. There's been violations. However, the applicant, or rather the owner and applicant, are working to address these. Story polls were installed and certified, as you can see here. That is the yellow stringing right there. And those were confirmed by a licensed surveyor. And really what we're looking at here is the owners seeking to gain compliance, seeking to get back into compliance with the municipal code and get an approval for a project to bring three new units to Sausalito. Next slide, please. So jumping into the batter at hand, and this is really kind of the meat and potatoes of tonight and what's before the commission this evening is the proposed project. So we have a design review permit with heightened review to add 1,620 square feet of new net floor area at a one car garage, at an interior ADU and a JADU. However, the ADUs are not under the purview of the PC this evening, but they are, you know, for you to be seen and are part of the project and are new additions. So I just want to make you aware of those. Next slide, please. That also triggers something else called the Housing Accountability Act. So this is pursuant to government code, a housing development project, which is afforded the protections of the HHA or the Housing Accountability Act. Local jurisdictions, just a little bit of language out of that section of code, shall not disapprove the housing development or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing project infeasible, including through the use of design review standards. Must make specific findings justifying denial if they were to deny the project. And local governments may only require that a proposed project complies with objective quantifiable written development standards rather than any kind of subjective criteria. So that's gonna be something important for this evening as well. And just a reminder that there is a five hearing limit on this before it is automatically approved. This will be hearing number two based on the continuance of last hearing. Next slide please. Just to remind everyone, just to site plan a little bit, just got the preexisting home here, as you can see, and the new home here, largely mimics the footprint of the old home almost identically. All the exterior walls are pretty much in the same location. However, the third floor, upper floor, is the area of greatest expansion. And that is also the level that is the floor that's on the same level as the street on grade with San Carlos. It's a terraced house one, two, three down from the uppermost floor being the level on the street level. Next slide, please. So some of the key changes that you're going to see tonight from the last plan set that was reviewed is the reduction of the third floor by 63 square feet. This was achieved by converting some floor area into a deck, which kind of steps back the massing from the neighbor at 25 San Carlos and also allows some room for that oak tree to regrow and create a little bit more privacy between the two homes. There was a JADU added, so now we have three units total as part of this build, primary, Interior ADU and AJADU. And there was an agreement made with the neighbors on 39 San Carlos to add a trellis to the southern wall to add additional vegetative screening. In addition, there was also some building coverage calculation refinement that was done here to make sure we're fully compliant with all the objective standards. The architect will talk a little bit about that in his presentation, but yeah, just want Those are the down of the four key changes that occurred in the plan set since the last time the commission reviewed next slide, please. |
| 00:28:33.60 | Matthew Mandich | So as you can see from the last slide, you know, the recommendation from the commission was to reduce the upper floor by 300 square feet. That was only reduced by 63 square feet. The reason for this, for the owners, is due to the required ADA access on this upper floor Unfortunately, one of the owners suffers from Parkinson's and will be in a wheelchair as well as several of her family members, and this is, as I had mentioned before, this is the level of the home that is on the same level as the street, the most accessible level of the home coming in. So we have a one car garage here that's covered, which allows, you know, for, wheelchair access on loading zone, larger doors, larger closets and spaces to allow for, you know, wheelchairs to turn around, move in and out, and such there's a therapy to work out equipment several other things that people with this condition require in their home so this is why this level is a little bit larger and why the the owner was not willing to shrink the level as much as the planning commission recommended and they will talk more about this subject when it's the applicant's presentation next slide please So just to highlight a little bit, elevations again, some of the changes that occurred. This is that stepping back right here, removal of floor air for the creation of the deck. There was a staircase, a large staircase that connected down here, they removed that get rid of some additional building coverage, and then the addition of the trellis on the southern wall here. And as you can see, the height of the structure Very much the overall height in line with what was previously there. However, as you can see, too, the third floor has expanded. Next slide, please. So here's the zoning data table, remains largely the same as last time. The only adjustments occurred in the building coverage and floor area and both of those were actually reduced. So the project is fully compliant with all of our objective zoning standards. Next slide, please. Just a little bit on neighborhood context. I know this was brought up last time that, you know, the home's too large overall, and that's why we need to reduce size, and it's not on scale with other homes in the neighborhood. And just wanted to remind the commission that there are many homes that are well over 5,000 square feet or on par with 5,000 square feet in this neighborhood, which you can see here all marked in red, some up to 10,000, 10,000 here, six, four, five, six. So it is comparable with some of the larger homes in the area, especially on a larger lot of 11,000 square feet. Next slide, please. So I just want to address the potential of view impacts because these are findings in the design review. However, they are rather subjective and certainly not findings that should be used to deny or further additionally condition the project heavily. This viewpoint right here, you can see some of the old story poles that were there. This is just where these lines are taken from. So this is the lower railing right here. It's the upper railing right here. The green is kind of where someone's standing. about five, six feet would be over their head and this is the story poles right here. So, you know, the actual building comes up to about what would be waist height, if you're standing on this deck. And the oak tree that was pruned here or altered right there will continue to grow back and create additional screening between the property. I really do think that it complies with finding for here that has been located and designed to minimize the obstruction of private views. Next slide, please. |
| 00:31:38.37 | Nastassya Saad | Next slide please. Sorry to interrupt you. Matthew, can we just confirm that we're looking here specifically at 25 San Carlos? Is that 25 San Carlos? |
| 00:31:45.79 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, that's from the interior of 25 San Carlos. This is, yeah, from an MLS listing. Or no, no, excuse me. This is from the photos provided by the neighbor last time showing the view impact, alleged view impact there. Thank you for clarifying. So, yeah, that's from the interior of the home. |
| 00:31:47.35 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. |
| 00:31:56.68 | Attorney Rudin | Thank you for clarifying. |
| 00:31:59.92 | Matthew Mandich | Next slide, please. So again, you know, our code, of course, protects views and view for purposes of our code includes Angel Island, Belvedere, The bay, San Francisco, bay views, as you can see, 25 San Carlos enjoys sweeping panoramic bay views of the entire south and eastern bay. However, the term view does not mean an unobstructed panorama of all or any of the above. So by, you know, placing a home here at a lower level, as you can see back here and here, we're really not obstructing significant views for this property at all. The city's skyline is still clearly visible, the bridges, Angel Island, Belvedere, you know, It's a tight neighborhood over there. There's a lot of homes near each other. There's a lot of trees between these homes, and a lot of these homes enjoy fantastic views. So there was a home there before, and now there's going to be a home there again. So I don't believe that there is a view impact here as far as design review finding number four goes. Next slide, please. So that brings us to the recommendation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving a design review permit with heightened review for the proposed project at 33 San Carlos. The proposed project conforms to the objective design standards in the South Saloon Municipal Code. It's also in conformance with all the required findings in SMC 1054 50 D3, which is our design review findings and height review findings. Approval will bring this project back into compliance with the SOS Limita Subcode, and it also allows for a halted open construction site to move forward in the permitting process. Of course, there'll still be building permits required, additional conditions to be met. So there's still a ways to go before they're back building again but this approval tonight will will put them on their way of course the project is subject to any conditions approval already attached to the resolution and any additional conditions that the Planning Commission may add this evening That concludes the presentation. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. |
| 00:33:57.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Matthew, for the very thorough detailed presentation. We're gonna open it up for questions of staff at the moment. Commissioner Marlott, would you like to start us off? Do you have any questions for Matthew? |
| 00:34:10.55 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Matthew, for that presentation. I just had a couple of questions just to clarify, and because I know that some of these subjects will come up for discussion later. You'd mentioned during the presentation a required ADA compliance, but it's not required. Could you clarify that just so we understand? |
| 00:34:27.89 | Matthew Mandich | I don't think I said required ADA compliance. I said ADA access. They need access to the home for, yeah, it's a residential building. So it doesn't require ADA for anyone, but they would like this access. |
| 00:34:34.42 | David Marlatt | or it's a residential. Right. Okay, maybe I misunderstood. Secondly, lot coverage, because I know that's been a little bit of a point of contention. And can you confirm for us on G0.2, I guess, the large terrace area with a pretty substantial retaining wall? That does not count as lot coverage? |
| 00:35:01.95 | Matthew Mandich | No, it does. I'd have to see exactly what piece of the plans you're talking about. |
| 00:35:07.36 | David Marlatt | Oh, okay. It's just depicted in green, and I'm trying to understand the limits of the lot covered. Again, it's just really to clarify the code. |
| 00:35:16.19 | Matthew Mandich | The retaining wall, if it's over two feet will count. |
| 00:35:18.87 | David Marlatt | Okay, so that's included in the lot coverage calculation. Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't think I have any other questions. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:35:25.89 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:35:30.89 | Fred Moore | With respect to the issues we've had before concerning the unpermitted tree work and the violation of the stop work order, I know you mentioned that the city council is adopting a different process right now that goes into effect in 30 days. So are neither one of those before us today or do we have any information regarding the outcome of how the unpermitted tree work is going to be dealt with as well as the continuation of work after a stop work order was issued. |
| 00:36:01.72 | Matthew Mandich | So we're limited by the code that we have in front of us today and we are using that to the best of our ability to move forward with the code enforcement of this project, those violations. Again, that's under the purview of our code enforcement officer, not in front of the commission today to adjudicate. However, I can say, and as I mentioned in the staff report and tonight, we have a violation here for sure, unpermitted alteration of a protected oak and our code enforcement officer's gonna deal with that and we will be issuing fines for that. |
| 00:36:35.67 | Fred Moore | The last item you mentioned, this is gonna bring three units. Since there already was a prior unit, is this gonna be counting as three units toward the housing elements or just two units for the ADUs and the, |
| 00:36:44.95 | Matthew Mandich | It will be two net new units, yeah. And the third unit will be remade. But in a sense, it brings three new units and the fact no one's lived there for 20 years. But as far as the count goes for the housing element, it will be two. |
| 00:36:58.55 | Fred Moore | Just a last point of clarification. There was obviously a great discussion last time about the unpermitted tree work, and there was an issue regarding how that reducing the crown by over 40% was gonna impact the tree health. Obviously, we have two arborist reports that indicate the trees are in good health, but I didn't see either one of them address the impact of the pruning. So are we to assume that the tree good health is in good health even notwithstanding the fact that it was over pruned by a significant percentage is that sort of the yeah yeah I mean those |
| 00:37:31.34 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I mean, those assessments were made very recently, so this is all after the alteration, well after, I mean, even over a year. So it looks like there's some growth sprouting in some of those areas, too. So, yeah, as far as I understand, those two recent arborist reports would say that the trees are in good health. |
| 00:37:50.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Vice Chair. No questions. And you can tell me if it's more appropriate for the applicant. I just wanted to look at the landscape plan. I see it here on sheet A1.2, but overall, is it really just, we've got the tree protection plan separately. I see that there's going to be turf. Is that the extent of the landscape plan, the best of your knowledge? |
| 00:38:14.44 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, pretty much. I mean, the site is actually quite steep. That's why there's that very large retaining wall with the semicircle there. After that, it drops off significantly. There's not a lot of plans for that. There's a few kind of, you know, I've been to the site recently to take some photos. There's a few kind of, you know, not great looking trees down there. But there's no real plans to do much of that area. It's pretty inaccessible from above. There's really no way to go down and kind of enjoy that piece of property down there so most of the landscaping that you see is going to be a lot of the kind of hardscape in front of the home when you come down the stairs and then the large oak trees on either side that exist today. |
| 00:38:57.25 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. And then I know at the commission, we've got our findings here to make, but can you comment? Because I think your report had mentioned that a geotech engineer had been retained, just in terms of the size and the scope of the project and it being steep. Can you comment anything really on potential drainage and that, or is that coming at a later time? |
| 00:39:19.34 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so there was a geotechnical report submitted by, I believe it was Miller Pacific back in 2021 when the project was originally approved. And that report pretty much holds true today, but I know that our public horse department reviewed the project and they are requesting that an updated grading and drainage plan be submitted upon building permit submittal. So as I said before, I mean, this is part of a process. We're gonna have a number of things that need to come in before the building permits reactivated and submitted again. So that will come up. |
| 00:39:49.14 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, that's good. That's just also good for the public who had some potential concerns on drainage that that's in the works. I don't have any other questions for you at the moment. Thank you very much, Matthew. So we will go ahead and open this up for the applicant team. Thank you very much. Whomever would like to start, I believe perhaps more than one person will be speaking. You're gonna have a total of 15 minutes for your presentation this evening. You may use your time any which way. You can share the time. You can also reserve time, which will be used after public comment. We will put the clock up if I can get your name for the record and then we will turn it over. you. |
| 00:40:35.20 | Jason Nelson | Good evening, Chair Saad, Vice Chair Junius, |
| 00:40:37.62 | Nastassya Saad | and I think I'm just gonna have to ask you to speak a little closer into the microphone. Thank you. |
| 00:40:42.01 | Jason Nelson | Thank you. I generally speak too loudly, not too quietly. I'm attorney Jason Nelson, and I'm here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Casares. who have recently retained me, and so I, At the outset, I want to say that I sent in some late mail, which on my way over here, and so I apologize for the tardiness of it, but the first point of order and the first point of business in there is I would be asking for a conditional continuance request as I'm probably the least informed person in the chambers tonight. Um, They had difficulty trying to secure counsel. There's not a lot of local land use lawyers who know Marin and the intricacies of the various jurisdictions. So I have done my best to get up to speed, reviewing the record and review all things available to me. Um, but that is the first request and it's gonna be a conditional continuous request in that if the commission is planning to move forward and adopt the draft resolution as drafted, then it's my understanding that Mr. and Mrs. Casares the architect are fine with that. So I'm not sure. if we're there. but if there's something beyond that, then I would request that the, The Commission respectfully requests and ultimately grant the continuance as I have a lot to come up to speed on. regarding all these various issues that tend to be, or at least from my view, are, a very tightly wound ball of yarn, and the multiple colors of yarn need to be unwound. Secondarily, there's a housekeeping matter that I'm not quite sure how to address other than to just address it, there's a potential conflict of interest that has been raised by Mrs. Kassaris to me regarding new counsel for the neighbor of Bellis at 25 St. Carlos. Again, I think this goes through overall lack of land use attorneys who understand Moran County. But Mrs. Casares, in seeking out counsel, consulted with Leonard Rivkind about the matter. It's my understanding that while Attorney Rifkind did acknowledge to her that the neighbor of Bellis had reached out to him that he still went ahead and had a conversation with her. And it's Mrs. Casares' belief in understanding and feeling that. Thank you. There was confidential information that was exchanged between the two of them. and that therefore there's a potential conflict of interest issued there, so I'm not sure how the Commission wants to handle that, how the city attorney wants to handle that, but I do wanna make those two points at the outset. |
| 00:43:35.84 | Nastassya Saad | Understood. I think in the interest of the time that you have this evening, we've taken those points, but this would be the time to further present for the entire applicant team. So however you'd like to use the remainder of that time. |
| 00:43:51.57 | Jason Nelson | I think I'll hand it off to the architect and have him take it from the design side. Okay. |
| 00:43:56.48 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you very much. |
| 00:43:56.97 | Jason Nelson | Thank you very much. |
| 00:44:06.13 | Riyad Ghanem | Good evening, commissioners. I'm Riyad Ghanem, the architect for 33 San Carlos. And if you can go to the next slide, please. These were the points Matthew touched upon that we acted upon for this hearing, comments that we got from the last hearing. So we did get the arborist report, and there was a finding that the trees were in good health. The tree protection plan was created and implemented. The north side of Story 3 was reduced by about 5 foot 3 and 63 square feet. And landscaped trellis is proposed at the south side of the building. And my next slides can kind of show some of this work. I just want to bring up a few other points just from the discussion here. I think some of the ongoing work was intended to be for protection of the structure that's there especially given that the weather's turning a little bit the reduction in the tree canopy that's discussed the 40% we're not eggs the on the project sponsor side we're not exactly sure how that number was assessed. We just want to bring that to light. To answer Commissioner Marlott's point, the patio was, all the hardscape was removed from that lower patio, and therefore it's not lot coverage anymore per the zoning ordinance. And the retaining walls are, and they're counted in our lot coverage. And then the grading and drainage plan, we did create a grading and drainage plan. I imagine it will be largely the same as we, since the house hasn't really changed much from the original permit. Next slide, please. This slide is just to discuss there is no ADA per se, there's no American Disabilities Act that we need to comply with, but it's a requirement from the owners that given the conditions and the anticipated future conditions that they need this space for Ms. Casares and her sister who are both dealing with some health issues. Next slide, please. This is just a brief diagram to get everybody up to speed on some of the changes that were made. We did reduce some portions of the building to further refine the lot coverage. It was brought into question from Matthew if we could verify a few items and to make sure that we're compliance we brought back a few items there and then on the next slide, please. the right side of the slide, you'll see that that's where we made the shift back over five feet to, basically, this brings the house back almost to the very similar envelope that we had with the ADU permit originally. Next slide, please. And then just briefly, this is just, I'm just going to walk around the house just so you can kind of get a sense of the style, the quality of the house, what we're trying to do from an architectural standpoint. So this is looking kind of from the looking towards the east. And next slide, please. This is looking from San Carlos Avenue as you enter the driveway, and we've tried to treat the garage. That's a new addition since this recent application, and we're trying to treat that as something that sort of architecturally softened. Next slide, please. This is looking towards the west, and this is where you see the three stories of the house. Next slide, please. Here again, looking towards the west. And again, you can see the large retaining walls. These are walls that were part of the project. They pre-existed this project, and they do contribute to the lot coverage, and they are significant. Next slide, please. |
| 00:48:22.03 | Mr. Casares | This is East, not West, because the property is not Thank you. |
| 00:48:28.74 | Riyad Ghanem | East, okay. It's the east side looking towards the west, yes. And then just circling around the house, so now we're kind of looking towards the south side. We're looking south. We're looking at the north side of the house. And so here you can see some of the terracing and stepping that Matthew was talking about. Again, just want to reiterate that the house sits on the same envelope largely that the existing house was. It's reskinned and reshaped, and the third floor is added to. Next slide, please. And then this is the side facing 25 San Carlos, and this is the court again sitting on that same building footprint with a different architectural expression. And I think that concludes my presentation. |
| 00:49:21.16 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. We're gonna stop the clock at six minutes and 30. Do you mind just waiting up here for us? And actually, if anybody else wants to join, we're gonna have questions, I am sure, of the applicant. Commissioner Myla, do you wanna get started with questions for the applicant team? |
| 00:49:36.78 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. Thank you for the presentation. My first question is the JADU came late into this project. Can you speak to that? What was the reason for the JADU? |
| 00:49:49.55 | Riyad Ghanem | Yeah, I think that's a question really, it has less of an architectural impact, it was a request of the ownership. |
| 00:49:56.24 | Nastassya Saad | Do we have a microphone that we can provide to the applicant team? |
| 00:50:05.37 | Assistant City Manager | Yes we do, Chair, please give us a moment. |
| 00:50:07.02 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. |
| 00:50:30.04 | Olympia Kirikides | Check, check, check, check, check, check, check. |
| 00:50:33.68 | Mr. Casares | THE CHECK. |
| 00:50:39.91 | Olympia Kirikides | Hello, hi. To answer your question, Chair Saad, the ADU was added, both ADUs are meant for caregivers, potential caregivers. It's intended to be a multi-generational multi-family home where both my sister and I can live with members of our family, but we also intend to have caregivers. So creating that capability to have some autonomy for the potential caregiver creates a flexibility in the house for us. This is really about aging in place with dignity. |
| 00:51:13.47 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:51:16.36 | Nastassya Saad | Any other questions? Commissioner Moore, questions for the applicant team. |
| 00:51:23.08 | Fred Moore | I know you've removed part of the building, you've moved it back a little bit from that third story, and then you've added a deck out there instead. Is the deck an absolute must for the situation for the property owner, or can it be just step back and not have a deck? |
| 00:51:39.51 | Riyad Ghanem | I think it would be hard for me to say that the deck is an absolute must, but there was a consideration that there was ability to to care, to clean off that area if they can get out there, because the oak trees do tend to have a lot of foliage and things that need to be cleaned. |
| 00:51:54.40 | Olympia Kirikides | . |
| 00:51:59.21 | Olympia Kirikides | Yes, there was significant damage to the home. from the tree and in order to have the tree grow back over part of the home, we need the ability to safely clear off the foliage both for fire purposes and also for water damage, et cetera. Thank you. |
| 00:52:21.06 | Mr. Casares | Thank you. |
| 00:52:21.09 | Olympia Kirikides | So you |
| 00:52:21.51 | Mr. Casares | Thank you. |
| 00:52:21.53 | Olympia Kirikides | you |
| 00:52:21.70 | Mr. Casares | Thank you. And just to be clear, this is not a balcony or anything like that. I mean, we... It's just imagine it's a... is a roof, right? And essentially, what we want is some kind of a small ledge so somebody can go safely and kind of remove the debris. Because as you know, I think the Oktris, as much as we love them, there is a lot of debris. And we had a lot of problems prior, as Kathy said. And this is the only reason for that. Can we get without it? The answer is yes, we can, but it's going to be problematic to be able to go and clean, and that's the only reason for it. Just very simple. We will never go out and spend time there in that specific part of the house. The only reason we're doing it is because we love that tree. We want that tree to be around it. And that was the reason that we actually initially kept that. But we closed it because our neighbor, Mrs. Isabelis, had brought her, when we were in her house back in January, she mentioned that there was an issue. She mentioned privacy. Therefore, we closed it, right? |
| 00:52:40.03 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | kind of a |
| 00:53:39.41 | Mr. Casares | There's no... Yeah, I'll stop there. So to answer your question, we don't really need That's over. |
| 00:53:46.34 | Olympia Kirikides | But the reduction, just to be clear, the reduction of the bathroom does create, because it is a shared bathroom for both of us. So the 63 square feet creates less privacy for us in the bathroom, but it was meant to be a concession to Mrs. Abella so that the tree could grow. And also it's very steep there. So to get up there to clean off And even the roofs before were sloped. but it didn't matter. The damage from the tree was extensive to the property. The whole roof caved in. I think we sensed pictures of the caved in ceiling from the water damage. And so, yes, so it's very dangerous just to be able to go up there and clean if you don't have access. |
| 00:54:26.90 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Do you have any further questions? Thank you. Vice Chair? No questions. Thank you. |
| 00:54:34.62 | David Marlatt | THE CASE. |
| 00:54:34.93 | Nastassya Saad | A quick follow-up. |
| 00:54:35.76 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to follow up because then for the main roof that's above the third floor, maybe is there a similar strategy for safely removing debris? I mean, that roof is significantly larger than the deck area that's being described. |
| 00:54:54.96 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry, we need to always speak into the microphone just because we have people on Zoom and for everyone |
| 00:55:01.12 | David Marlatt | I'm just asking if there's a strategy, it's very important to have a strategy to safely remove any debris or leaves or whatever from the tree. What about the main roof? |
| 00:55:07.78 | Olympia Kirikides | What about you? The trees intended to grow back over, not over the third floor roof. It will grow up. So the tree will not grow over the third floor roof? Grow up adjacent to the third floor, which will give Mrs. Isabelus the screening she needs. The tree will grow up towards the light |
| 00:55:14.38 | David Marlatt | So the tree will not grow over the third floor roof. |
| 00:55:23.78 | Olympia Kirikides | but we don't want to have the tree grow extensively over the house again as we did. I mean, that is not, it's a fire hazard, especially with our condition. We want to be able to evacuate. We don't want to create new fire hazards, unnecessary fire hazards. The tree will grow in. There's plenty of growth area between the two homes, and the tree will grow up. Most homes don't have the trees growing directly over half of their roof. It should go up. |
| 00:55:55.68 | David Marlatt | Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:55:57.46 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, no questions? Could you just comment just on the staff report? This is just the basic math. So the proposal is actually lower than the existing. So it's come down to 30 feet, eight inches. Is that correct that the house now at this time is not only below the 32 foot max, but lower than the existing? Thank you. |
| 00:56:21.28 | Riyad Ghanem | It's slightly lower, yes. Okay. |
| 00:56:21.29 | Nastassya Saad | It's slightly. Okay, thank you very much. And then could you also comment, and I know you're the architect, so I'm sorry to put the landscaping trees on you, but in one of the public comments, and just for the record, we did receive two public comments that are attached to our agenda. there is a conversation about a hawthorn tree this is with the neighbors at 39 San Carlos did you have a chance to to review that or read that correspondence I did not okay are you just aware of because I didn't know if I saw it on the plans I did I do see the oaks and I know there's a tree protection plan for them which is which is what we asked for but there is a potential Hawthorne tree that I believe is on that I Believe that's the south side. So in between that south wall with the trellis and Noble Lane That was an agreement. I believe with the Casares is about can you comment on is there a Hawthorne tree there? |
| 00:56:53.68 | Riyad Ghanem | I did not. |
| 00:57:25.96 | Mr. Casares | You're correct, Teresa. There is one. |
| 00:57:27.58 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry, is that microphone not on? Thank you. |
| 00:57:31.26 | Mr. Casares | Can you hear me? |
| 00:57:32.05 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, it's better, please, thank you. |
| 00:57:32.08 | Mr. Casares | you. Thank you. you Sorry about that. You're absolutely correct. So there is a quatern tree, and I absolutely committed to Mr. Schofferman and Ms. Schofferman that we will be taking care of this tree because it provides certain privacy, and they seem to love it. So who am I to stand between them and something that they love as much We did we did put Protection around it, but yes, we will be protecting that tree |
| 00:58:04.77 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you very much. And just in terms of color as well, because I think there was also a discussion about the potential paint on that south side. Do you have a color in mind or is that indicated I'm sorry, I just need everyone to speak into the microphone |
| 00:58:21.43 | Mr. Casares | Sorry about that. Do you mind if I take this? Yeah, we really, as I told Mr. Schoenfermann, I really, I don't see as much this wall as much as he will. So I don't really have a, and plus we'll be putting these big trailers outside of it. So the color will be really, it won't matter honestly. So I would, we should be able to find something that it will be mutually agreeable. I don't think that, I don't find that as an issue personally. |
| 00:58:54.08 | Nastassya Saad | And that is intended to be a living wall on that trellis? |
| 00:58:57.52 | Mr. Casares | Absolutely. That's my commitment to him, yes. Okay, thank you very much. To them, actually, sorry. To both of them, sorry, yes. |
| 00:58:59.87 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you very much. I don't think I have any other questions at this time either. So we will keep you at six minutes and 36 seconds for rebuttal after public comment if you wish to use that time. Thank you very much. You can go ahead and sit down. We are now gonna open up this part of the hearing for public comment. I think we do have at least 10 speaker cards and potentially some people on Zoom. We're still gonna keep speakers to three minutes. This is our only agenda item for the evening, so please bear with us, because we'll have a minimum 30 minutes of public comment. I will turn it over to Assistant City Manager to facilitate. For everyone that will be speaking, if you can please speak into the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Thank you. |
| 00:59:52.13 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you very much, Chair. I will call out the speaker cards in the order that I have received them. And the first speaker is Dr. Les Shufferman. |
| 01:00:05.09 | Assistant City Manager | Welcome, Les. You'll have three minutes. Please state your address for the record. |
| 01:00:11.62 | Leslie Schoferman | Yes, I am Leslie Schoferman and I live at 39 San Carlos. Well, on the previous session on the 24th, I mentioned that I had submitted an agreement between Mr. Costas and myself that was sort of multifactorial and I wasn't prepared to discuss it then because of the continuation of the hearing. But I would say that I just wanted to make a couple of comments. Mr. Costas and I met on Monday, which would be, I guess, the sixth, and he was gracious enough to take me on a tour of the structure and the property so that I could understand more fully where things were. And we reiterated our agreement, and I believe that the council members have copies of that agreement, which has several codicils in it. Some of them were covered already tonight, and I want to make some comments on that. The landscape plan, which was part of the agreement, does include the hawthorn tree, and I understand that the overall landscape plan is mostly grass, and Mr. Mandich indicated that the downsloping nature of the property would not really, as I understood what he said, not be amenable to plantings because the owners wouldn't be able to enjoy it. But this is the part of the property right across from our home that includes the Hawthorne Street on tree and I think mr. Costas mr. Casares and myself agree that a landscape plan around the trellis that has already been discussed would be included including a particular type of fencing and we would decide on what was planted on the living wall, and there would be some other plantings around it. And the overall landscape would probably necessitate a little bit more than just saying that there was just grass that was going to be added. I would like to say that Mr. Caceres has been very cooperative, and as you know, those trees that we were concerned about, particularly the coastal oak, has been cared for by the Marin County arborists in a proper way, and that was good. and he also has hired a team, at least two gardeners, to assist me in keeping the Noble Lane |
| 01:02:43.00 | Fred Moore | And... I would like to say, |
| 01:03:13.19 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you, Mr. Shufferman, for your |
| 01:03:14.80 | Leslie Schoferman | Sounds like three minutes are up. |
| 01:03:17.53 | Assistant City Manager | Yeah, apologies for three minutes of wrap. I will call the next speaker. Next speaker is Zach Abeles. Zach, welcome. and you will have three minutes to speak. Please state your address for the record. |
| 01:03:35.97 | Zach Abeles | Hello, my name is Zach Ables. I am a resident at 25 San Carlos. First, yeah, thank you for having me here. You know, one thing I wanted to say, and I feel like it's important, is that your home, it's your most valuable asset. you know I'm there with my mom right now and yeah I've seen that this project is you know very impactful and your home is the thing that really does carry you into the future so I feel like this is actually really yeah, I've seen that this project is very impactful and your home is the thing that really does carry you into the future. So I feel like this is actually a really significant issue to touch on. uh, One thing I wanted to say is that there was the demo beyond the scope of approved work. And to me, that seems like something that should be very obvious and taken seriously by the city. And then there was also the continuation of unpermitted work that happened. To me, just when there's multiple steps like this that happened and then there's the overprune tree that occurred, you know, I believe that if there's certain things that are going beyond the scope of what's allowed, that it doesn't just happen. to one thing and not to another. So for me, it's a little bit fishy, this whole situation, things are seeming to go beyond the rules. And the rules, they do need to be applied to everyone. You know, I live here, we all live here, and I believe that the rules are important to follow because that's ultimately what keeps the city going, and it's what allows us to stay sane as neighbors. The image of the tree, that was the wrong image, so I'm not sure why that was included in the presentation. To me, that wasn't the tree that actually is the one that is impacting and being impacted by the view. uh, just in terms of the actual deck. and the whole issue with the main roof There seemed to be a lot of confusion around that that was brought up. To me, just from what I've seen, I notice that there's still columns that actually exceed the story poles. So I'm not an architect or designer, but I can literally see from my mom's deck. I mean, to me, like, I'm the only other person who's there with her, so I can actually see this. In terms of the actual view, there is a significant impact of the view. You literally can't see the portion of the city if you just look at those story polls. It is impacting the view, and like I said, your home's your most valuable asset. So to me, that's a really big impact. The city, as it was mentioned by one of the city planners that That is one of those primary views. And if that is blocked, then your value of your home is going to be significantly decreased. Um... You know, I know it was mentioned that there was a conflict of interest potentially brought up by our neighbors, but to me, I feel like there seems to be a lot of conflict going on that needs to be addressed in this whole situation. There's a lot that's happened that seems to be giving a lot of leeway, and I think it needs to be done something for it. |
| 01:06:37.95 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you for your comments, and your three minutes is up. Next speaker is Olympia, and pardon me, it's difficult to read this. Thank you so much. |
| 01:06:49.60 | Nastassya Saad | If you'd like to stay seated, we'll bring you the microphone. |
| 01:06:54.32 | Assistant City Manager | And we'll deliver you the microphone. Thank you very much. And you'll have three minutes to speak. Please state your address for the record. Thank you. |
| 01:07:02.39 | Olympia Kirikides | Olympia Kirikides, current address is 13104 Current Court, Lakeside, California. Future address to be 33 San Carlos when it's ready for a living. Thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. And if you think you're seeing double, you're not. I am the identical twin sister of Mrs. Kathy Casares. And my name again is Olympia Kirikides and I hope to become a future resident of 33 San Carlos. I am a lifelong K-12 educator preparing to retire this December due to Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's is an incurable degenerative illness that affects both physical mobility and cognitive function. The submitted plans were thoughtfully designed by my sister and brother-in-law to meet the current needs of myself and my sister, as well as our future needs. These plans prioritize reasonable ADA guidance and necessary space accommodations for specialized equipment. developed in consultation, with the city's accessibility coordinator. They incorporate essential elements of universal design, such as wider hallways, wheelchair turn radii that allow us to live safely, maintain autonomy, and avoid dangerous falls. The design also accommodates space for future caregivers and family support. Importantly, the space and natural light in the proposed design are not just aesthetic They are therapeutic. They contribute meaningfully to a mental and cognitive well-being, which is deeply impacted by Parkinson's. This plan ensures a safe and functional living environment and an accessible, egress floor, allowing us to remain, I'm sorry, my hand is shaking, in our home rather than Peace. institutional care. Additionally, it allows for the quick evacuation and emergency situation, helping to preserve not only our safety, but that of our family members, caregivers, and first responders. The choice before the commission is not between two aesthetic Visions. It is a choice between an aesthetic preference, specifically greenery framing of view, and a legal and moral obligation to support the basic rights of accessibility and human dignity. Frankly, the stress of having to fight for these basic rights, especially in the face of factual misinterpretations, misrepresentations, has taken a toll on already fragile health. The financial burden adds further strain. I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to support this plan. It is the right legal decision, and more importantly, it is the right human and compassionate decision. Thank you. |
| 01:09:58.61 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you Olympia for your comments. I will move on to the next speaker card. Next speaker is Eric Cobb. Eric welcome you will have three minutes to speak please state your address for the record. |
| 01:10:14.16 | Eric Cobb | PDF file. That could be loaded up, please. |
| 01:10:28.37 | Unknown | and I do my address before the clock counts. 3218 East Columbia Street in Seattle, Washington. My name is Eric Cobb, architect working with Ficky Abeliz at 25 San Carlos. I prepared a set of images addressing the space between 33 San Carlos and 25 San Carlos. The image on the right is a recent drone photo where I have shaded the areas between the new story pole corners to reflect the proposed roof planes. The image on the left is prior to construction. Next slide, please. |
| 01:11:06.01 | Unknown | The space between the structures requires a three-dimensional study. The left image shows the 25 San Carlos main living spaces grazing over the top of tree canopies on three sides. In the right image, the 33 San Carlos roof as proposed is near the railing height of 25 San Carlos and creates tension, compression between these two architectural elements. Next slide, please. Another three-dimensional factor is discovered through the study of drip lines, which are a requirement but missing from the 33 San Carlos submissions. The drip lining canopy are shown in green, shown in red are the 33 San Carlos original third floor and the 25 San Carlos deck, approximately the same elevation, separated by the original canopy. However, Beneath the canopy drip lines is a portion of the original house footprint below. Had this overlapping condition been articulated clearly in the drawings, the conflict with the proposed third floor would have been readily apparent, triggering a decision. Next slide, please. Should the third floor really be pushed into the protected tree buffer, requiring heavy cutting of multiple primary branches? Obviously, this is not maximizing the preservation of the protected trees. Next slide. A modest revision to the third floor enables space for the damaged canopy to regrow over time. This would effectively enable a tree to gradually regain its loss balance while also recreating the visual buffer between the homes. Next slide. As you can see in this pair of images, the right side constructed from the new story pool data, the impact of the loss buffer is dramatic to the main living space of 25 San Carlos. Next slide. The following seven test plans explore alternatives for the 33 San Carlos third floor layout, all factoring space for the canopy regrowth. The dashed red line is the closet and bathroom as proposed by the applicant, and the red shaded area is a suggested relocation for these spaces. Some program variations are also sourced from earlier applicant proposals for the third floor. Next. Next. Next. |
| 01:13:33.25 | Assistant City Manager | next. it. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Cobb. I will call the next speaker. Next speaker is Eric Lindquist. Mr. Lindquist, welcome. You will have three minutes and please state your address for the record. |
| 01:13:49.62 | Eric Lindquist | My presentation follows the presentation that you just had on the screen. If we could just pull that up. And Eric Lundquist, 480 Gate 5 Road here in Sausalito while the presentation's being pulled up. May I restart the time when the presentation is available? |
| 01:14:08.92 | Assistant City Manager | Let's reset it to three minutes. Ready to go. |
| 01:14:14.56 | Eric Lindquist | The planning commission must find that the project is consistent with the general plan and conforms to the zoning code. The project conflicts with the community design element specifically related to tree removal and design review. A required tree alteration permit has not been obtained, and an existing tree violation remains unresolved, making the project inconsistent with program CD 2.1.1. The design also features excessive retaining poor site access and circulation and inadequate slope drainage for public review, inconsistent with program CD 2.1.2 due to the lack of consideration of the natural environment. Next slide. The project conflicts with policy CD 2.1 which requires special attention to design and steeply sloping lots. Instead of being terraced in sight, retaining walls minimized. The design is looming and obtrusive. Next slide. The project does not minimize interference with primary views from adjacent structures, specifically 25 San Carlos, Contrary to the general plan guidance on private view CD 3.1, Alternative designs could have preserved these views making the project consistent. Project exceeds maximum lock coverage allowed. The code defines building coverage to include decks, patios, elevated areas more than two feet above the natural grade. as the grade existing in 1968. Next slide. The applicant's drawings misrepresent the natural rate and omit several elevated areas, including the front and rear patios, That must be counted. See areas identified on the north elevation. Next slide. The applicant's drawings misrepresent the natural grade and omit several Elevated areas including the front and rear patios that must also be counted Sea areas identified on the south elevation. The project site data table indicates 3,943 square feet of lot coverage, but when the missing areas are included, total coverage is 6,617 square foot, or 58.6% far exceeding the 35% maximum. Next slide. The project violates impervious surface limits. All structures and hardscape elements, including patios and stepping stones, must be counted as impervious surfaces. Next slide. The applicant's drawings omit several elevated areas, including front and rear patios that must be counted in impervious surface by code definition, Notice lack of stepping stones in the front patio, and side patio in the calculations. Noticing stepping stones in the front area, notice stepping stones in the side patio, which have not been included in the impervious calculation and supporting sheet. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. |
| 01:16:41.96 | Eric Lindquist | When property calculated total and surface area reaches when calculated properly, The total impervious surface area reaches 75.8%, exceeding 67.5, which is allowed. In summary, the project is inconsistent with the general plan non-compliant with the zoning code due to excessive lock coverage and impervious surface calculations. For these reasons, the project cannot be approved as currently designed. Thank you. |
| 01:17:08.83 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you for your comments, Mr. Lundquist. Next speaker is Lynn Rifkind. Mr. Rifkind, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak and please state your address for the record. |
| 01:17:24.10 | Leonard Rifkind | Good evening, Madam Chair, Lead Rifkind Senrafel. First slide is that one, thank you. I wanted to talk about what's a finding. That's why you folks are here, right? You know, there's a California Supreme Court case from 1974 called Dopanga. And basically, a finding is, You got to come up with a rationale for why you're saying something should be approved or not approved. You don't just say it's approved and you repeat the language of the ordinance. You give your rationale for it. That's a finding. Next slide. Your commission has to make all 20 mandatory findings, 13 under, 13 regular findings for design review and seven heightened design review findings. I sent you a very detailed letter that you saw. Next slide, please. And under the mandatory findings, I set forth in detail in my correspondence the numbered findings on the slide there. I don't think that you can make, and I gave my rationale for it that I hope you would agree with. Next slide, please. The next slide is heightened design review findings. Again, my letter set, I set forth numbers one through four and seven, I don't think that you can make and my letter sets forth obviously in three minutes, I can't go through all those. Next slide please, this is really important. Design review submittal requirements, this is mandatory. This is what you have to submit as part of your design review package. You have to have a tree removal or alteration permit submitted with your design review. That did not happen here. In fact, staff said you didn't need that. That's false. Objective. writing your code says you have to have a tree removal permit. And we all heard ad nauseam tonight about the tree. I'm gonna actually talk to you. This is out of order in my, in my, um, uh, uh, presentation, but this is from the arborist report that we submitted from, um, urban forestry. about the tree that it's actually two trees that are on the north side, the ones that we all care about here, or at least Ms. Abliss cares about. At its current extent, the proposed plans will not allow the canopy to recover its previous size and stature. and therefore restore the benefits of the trees previously enjoyed by Ms. Abliss to support recovery while meeting defensible space wildfire requirements as properties in the WUI. The design should provide about 15 feet of horizontal clearance, allowing the trees of insufficient space to regrow and reestablish its canopy. So basically what's happened here is the applicant whacked the tree, built, wants to build into the space, is not gonna give any chance with building to allow the canopy to recover, which is what Ms. Abelis saw when she bought her house. And this is, and so now we're gonna go on to the next slide so we can talk about why that's important. Finding number one, the general plan consistency. I see I'm gonna end right now, so. I think you get my point. I don't think you can make findings for design review. That's a rough time for your comments. Thank you. |
| 01:20:25.79 | Assistant City Manager | That's a good time for your coming. And I will call for the next speaker. Next speaker is Vicki Abolos. Vicki, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak and please state your address for the record. |
| 01:20:49.48 | Vicki Abley | Good evening, commissioners. My name is Vicki Abley, 25 San Carlos. I'm here to speak tonight about two things. The personal impact the proposed project would have on my home and the applicant's repeated efforts to evade the design review process that protects Sausalito residents. I bought my home in 2023, drawn to the green canopy that surrounded it. The protected oaks provided privacy, quiet, and natural separation between homes. From my main living space, I looked first to the trees, then to the water, a peaceful private view that defined my home's character. I made this investment trusting that those trees were protected and that any future construction would follow Sausalito's planning and design review process. Safeguards meant to protect all of the community. To date, the process has not been honored. This isn't just about the butchering of the tree and the canopy. It's about a deliberate effort by applicants to bypass the planning and review system that protects neighbors, the environment, and the integrity of Sausalito's planning process. From the start, applicants sought to circumvent design review. The applicants withdrew their original design review application filed in 2020, then filed a 2021 permit describing the work as an ADU and interior remodel. Three years later, my home changed hands and I am the new owner who is not involved with the 2021 ADU process. The applicants began constructing what is now a new home without valid planning approvals or a building permit, given the prior approval was only for an EDU. There was no demolition permit, no design review, and a protected tree was altered. A stop work order was issued. Construction continued for much of the summer and fall after the stop work order. The prior home's third floor sat 34 feet from my property and wasn't visible from my primary living space. The proposed third story now looms just 18 feet away, replacing greenery with wall and roof mass. I've tried to address these concerns directly since last February at our first meeting, applicants stated their permit was for remodel, not for the new home under construction. And applicants even suggested ways to work around the city for my own remodel. Since the last public hearing before the commission in July, we've met twice over Zoom. Each time applicant has said it's too late, too expensive to make changes or consider alternative designs. I paid an architect to provide. I'm not opposed to a remodel. I am opposed to a new build that doesn't receive a design review permit. Applicants also stated 300 feet would not be removed, as we heard earlier. An adjustment that if done on the north side would allow the trees to get the light and the space they need to go and restore the privacy and buffer to my home. Applicants' response to shifting the bathroom away from the tree was that they want a view from their bathtub. What has happened here shows how the process can be undermined when applicants ignore it Applicants should not benefit from conduct that disregarded the city's planning process allowing this sets a dangerous precedent for Sausalito countries without a permit then design into space where the trees were I urge you not to approve the project in its current Form at a minimum, please require the third floor be reduced by 300 feet Thank you. |
| 01:23:50.54 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you very much for your comments, Ms. Abels. Next speaker is Sandy Estremera-Zink. |
| 01:24:02.06 | Assistant City Manager | Sandy, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. Please state your address for the record. |
| 01:24:09.72 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | at 516 Richardson Street. I looked at the pictures that were up there and from standing at 25, at Vicki's home, It's, So the picture is taken from the front, from the top, so you can't see the obstruction of the view the right form of your inside the living room. And. I'm gonna make it really short. I don't think I'm gonna take even two minutes, but the city's review process exists for A reason is to ensure fairness. Rules must apply to everyone the same way. Um, If the city doesn't enforce its own code, it sends the message that some can play by different rules. design reviews protect neighborhoods and the character of the area. And following the code prevents conflicts, trust issues, and costly legal fees. So in summary, all we're asking is that the city follows its own rules, because enforcing the rules is responsible governance. Thank you. |
| 01:25:15.64 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you for your comments. I will call the next speaker who is Tamara Stone. Ms. Stone, welcome. You will have three minutes. Please stay your address for the record. |
| 01:25:27.55 | Tamara Stone | Thank you, I'm Tamara Stone, I'm at 510 South Street. Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you so much for hearing our thoughts tonight. I was here at the last planning commission on this item, and I was here in support of my friend at 25 San Carlos, whose privacy and investment has been put at risk by this project. At that hearing, we talked a lot about the tree. that was dramatically taught. It was said earlier tonight that the owner is paying a fine for taking 40% of that trade without permission And it was declared that past tree alteration is not pertinent to the new DR permit. I disagree completely. At the last hearing, I reflected on that tree discussion for a long time after that meeting ended. I felt like while nobody wants to see a tree hurt and cut so dramatically and put at risk, That really wasn't the point. Had the applicant cut the tree under a proper permit, they wouldn't be able to build a three story structure. because there would have been a tree there That's the point. The applicant could have built a beautiful home that wasn't visible because the tree canopy would have done its job of creating a natural barrier between the two properties. They didn't get a permit because they probably wouldn't have been allowed to take out 40% of that tree. They went around the process and broke the rules so they could build a bigger, taller house. a house with a third floor that violates the privacy of the residents of 25 San Carlos. And they continue to break the rules. to do what they want to do and build what they want to build. At the last hearing, you asked them to work in concert with their neighbor to find a possible alternative that would work for both parties. and they refuse to do that. You also asked them to pause work until tonight's hearing, and they have not done that either. Because the approach here seems to be to do what you want to do regardless of the fines, regardless of the pleas from neighbors for a compromise, and regardless of what they've been asked to do by this committee and by our city. So yeah, it started with a tree. But that's the first of many times the owners seem to have ignored the neighbors, the city, and this council. So I'm here tonight not only to help protect my friends' privacy, But more importantly, I feel like this is now a matter of principle. This planning commission is setting a dangerous precedent if you let people build in a town with a better to seek forgiveness then permission approach. I feel like that's really unethical. and shouldn't be allowed in our city. Thank you for your attention and consideration. |
| 01:27:47.07 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you for your comments. Call the next speaker card. Next speaker is Jeffrey Stafford. Mr. Stafford, thank you for joining us. You'll have three minutes. Please state your address for the record. |
| 01:28:03.74 | Jeffrey Stafford | Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jeffrey Stafford, and I'm a resident of Sausalito, speaking in opposition to this project as currently submitted. Back in July, the commission recommended removing 300 square feet from the third level yet revised plans only removed 63 as we saw. rather than reducing bulk and height as requested, The applicant has merely trimmed a hair and continues to take advantage of their tree violation. putting building mass into the very space where the large mature tree was severely cut back. And let's be clear, it wasn't a trim, it was drastic. While the applicant hired an arborist who said the tree would likely survive, that tree lost most of its southern canopy. And I think it'll need light and air to recover over the next few years and decades. So in a way they're kind of bent, they're trying to benefit from their own violation. And if that weren't enough, they ignored the city's stop work order to put up open steel for the main structure, which hasn't even been approved. I'm not sure. That's not necessary. You don't put up the topping steel on something that's not approved. to protect something. You're putting more stuff up that needs to be protected. So you see a pattern here. They're just assuming they're already going to get away with it. This conduct directly conflicts with several design review findings. Finding six, the landscaping should provide visual relief and compliment the site. It doesn't do that. I'm Nothing here does that. They've offered no demonstration or explanation as to why That third level needs to be as big as it is. You're just having to take their word for it, but given their track record, Why should we believe them? A lot of the things we keep hearing are kind of post-rationalized as to why they keep violating things. Finding seven requires adequate light and air for the site and neighbors by pushing mass higher into the trees, former space, they deprive what remains of air and light for that tree to recover. Finding 11 calls for preservation of protected trees. We've talked about this a lot to preserve this damaged tree. It needs space and light, not not the opposite, not more shadow. Finding 13 prevents overcrowding of neighboring homes. It's hard to ignore that cutting this tree was deliberate to make room for a taller, bulkier structure than the previous approved plans. The tree was an integral part of that design context when it was approved before. So this project violates the letter and spirit of these findings. Approving it would reward illegal actions, erode public trust, and set a dangerous precedent, sending a message that if someone breaks the rules and later claims compliance is too hard, The city will just let it slide. So please don't buy into that, because at the end of the day, the applicant's treating of this process, the neighbors, this commission, is exactly the way they've treated this tree. Thank you. |
| 01:30:43.08 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you for your comments. That does it for submitted speaker cards, Chair. going to look to the Zoom application for additional raised hands. And I'm gonna give members of the public a moment. Chair is saying no additional hands raised, so I will give it back to you. |
| 01:31:01.81 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much, Assistant Manager. Thank you to everybody who spoke. We are actually gonna turn it back to the applicant. I had noted you had six minutes and 36 seconds that anybody from the applicant team is welcome to use. If we can provide the microphone. Yes. Thank you. So you can either continue with your presentation, make comments, um, or respond to public comment, however you wish to use the remainder of your time. |
| 01:31:30.72 | Jason Nelson | I'll just briefly clarify the continuance request and then pass it off to Mr. Casares. So the conditional request is that if the commission is going to go forward and make findings and issue a final decision that is essentially or that is in compliance that adopts the draft language and the draft resolution, then the applicants and the owners will not have any objection to that. If however the commission is inclined to make findings. an issue of final decision that has Conditions in addition to or modifications of what's currently in the draft resolution. I would request on their behalf that the, that findings portion, final decision portion of tonight's meeting be continued to a future date certain. And now I'll hand off to Mr. Casares. up. |
| 01:32:19.23 | Mr. Casares | Thank you. |
| 01:32:19.50 | Jason Nelson | Thank you. |
| 01:32:19.59 | Mr. Casares | Thank you. |
| 01:32:19.74 | Jason Nelson | you |
| 01:32:19.93 | Mr. Casares | Thank you. Teresad, may I start? Absolutely. Go ahead. A couple of things that were mentioned in the public comments I wanted to address. One is the health of the tree. I want to make sure we all understand that the health of the tree, there's nothing wrong with the tree. The tree is healthy, and as Principal Madich mentioned, both reports say that. We keep saying butcher the tree, and we took 40 or how many feet off of it, 40% of the canopy. We haven't seen any measurements, any data, any substance to this and I hope you ask for that because to me it's nonsense and I can bring the people that actually did the cutting to say that. Usually you have a permit and most reputable companies and the only people that cut my tree are reputable companies, they usually understand what it takes, right? I don't think that Bartlett or Timberline or anybody will actually put their licenses. And they're both, by the way, they're both on call if you guys need to hear from them as well. But I just wanna let you know that's nonsense. There's no such thing of the canopy, right? It doesn't exist. I mean, we won't be able to go there. |
| 01:32:23.40 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely, go ahead. |
| 01:32:29.05 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. |
| 01:33:13.96 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | there. |
| 01:33:21.50 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. |
| 01:33:27.04 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | that is. |
| 01:33:29.60 | Mr. Casares | Thank you. We talked about and not having bypassing planning and review. Again, as Principal Maric said, that's not the case. We follow all the rules and regulations that were there at a time. We didn't build this in the middle of the night. We got permits. We had four inspections by the city. Kenneth and the building department were there, and we got comments that were one of the best sites I've ever seen. And you can ask Kenneth yourself, I know you guys know me. So somebody said, you know, you asked for 300 square feet. You know, we took 67. We're willing to take the garage if that, and that will make your 300 square feet. If that's, you know, if that's a sticking point. |
| 01:33:57.95 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. |
| 01:34:14.62 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. That's... Thank you. |
| 01:34:19.18 | Mr. Casares | But that's what we can take is so our needs are such that we cannot really pick and choose what we can take. We tried to work with it. I think Isabelle said we didn't work with her. We actually did. We tried. But what she's asking us to do, we're three quarters done, right? What she's asking us is to make change that will cost millions of dollars and it will actually create a complete redesign of everything. And that's not something that we can't do. And we have a structural engineering letter that verifies that. I can bring to you. I can mail it to you in this meeting. I have that. because we evaluated what she was proposing, but unfortunately it was not, it was not something reasonable. Then, you know, somebody said that we could not have built a third floor without the tree. Again, nonsense. There was a third floor there. There was a third floor. There were, you know, I have 800-700, I think, principal might just keep me honest, I can't remember how much it was, but there was a structure there. |
| 01:35:15.53 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. |
| 01:35:30.53 | Mr. Casares | Then the work was processed after stop order. Again, in the last meeting, I can't remember if it was which one of you folks were, but I think it was Marla that said, could we please, or I can't remember who it was, but you guys said, like, we need to protect this, to protect the site. And we tried to actually protect the site. I met with the city in detail, and they said, yeah, our interpretation is pretty wide. I tried to send emails. I talked to them. You know, they're in a very hard place as well. I'm not saying I tried to work with the city, but unfortunately it's one of those situations where they cannot tell me go do this. They gave me an interpretation of something. And the terrain of this place, you know, like three weeks ago we had 50 mile per hour winds up there. Thank you. They cannot tell me go do this. They gave me an interpretation of something. And the terrain of this place, that you know, like three weeks ago, we had 50 mile per hour winds up there. You can't put a tarp, right? You have to cover a large area. So you need to set up a structure over this And the thing is, you need the structural to create a temporary structure. It's not something you can put two two-by-fours in a tent. You can't. I mean, and I invite you to come and see it yourselves, right? So the problem, the steel has been oxidizing, and again, I have another letter I'll provide to you that actually states all that stuff, that actually, you know, and again, |
| 01:36:48.49 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. you don't. |
| 01:36:50.26 | Mr. Casares | you know, it's not something that, Everybody's trying to do the right thing, but I'm not sure how to do it. And as part of this decision today, whatever we decide to go, I would love for you folks to help us allow to put some, you know, between the steel beams, to put some of the posts, to be able to allow us to put some level of wooden, you know, temporary fencing so the water can go down. Otherwise, we're going to be in, we're in too trouble, right? We're seeing this sink. |
| 01:37:24.27 | Olympia Kirikides | I want to say something too. Mrs. Abellis purchased her home two years after our design was approved, the notice of decision, and the building permit was posted in front of the house. That is the same footprint that is in front of you today on that north side. Her lack of due diligence is, a bad precedent where you can not do your, she didn't reach out to us with the same real estate agent. She could have reached out to us to ask us about the tree, about the house, about the project, but she purchased her home without that. We had an approved, we followed all the laws at the time and got full approval from the city And we had to negotiate space with the other neighbors because it was impacting views on that third floor. |
| 01:38:17.62 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you very much for the rebuttal time. And I'll give it back to you, Chair. |
| 01:38:23.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you to the applicant, thank you to all the public comment and the speakers. The public hearing portion is closed and we're going to bring it back up here to the dais to start deliberation and discussion and general conversation I know we have a lot in front of us tonight Who would like to start us off? |
| 01:38:46.99 | David Marlatt | Thank you Chair. Thank you. First I just had a couple maybe quick questions for planner Mandich if I could. Absolutely, I think I'm going to have some as well. Because there was a contention that the impervious surface calculation and the lot coverage calculation may be incorrect. And my question is, I simply don't know the answer. if you have a lot where for whatever reason there's a natural terrain area, a mound or something that's elevated above the... because I simply don't know the answer. If you have a lot where for whatever reason there's a natural terrain area, a mound or something that's elevated above the pre-existing natural grade, does that count as lot coverage? |
| 01:38:47.44 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Yeah. |
| 01:38:47.53 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Mylott. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. |
| 01:38:55.88 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely, I think I'm going to have some as well. |
| 01:39:23.49 | David Marlatt | I don't know. |
| 01:39:23.76 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:39:23.77 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:39:23.79 | Matthew Mandich | No. |
| 01:39:23.88 | David Marlatt | I'm not sure I understand. |
| 01:39:23.94 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not sure I understand the question. A mound? |
| 01:39:26.26 | David Marlatt | The idea being that that large terrace area with the significant wall, that even though the paving and the terrace materials were removed, it's still lot coverage because it is significantly above what would have been the natural grid. |
| 01:39:31.45 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 01:39:43.15 | Matthew Mandich | That large retaining wall has been counted. |
| 01:39:43.31 | Eric Cobb | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:39:43.37 | David Marlatt | Marjorie. Thank you. But all the dirt behind it. |
| 01:39:47.08 | Matthew Mandich | What, inside of it? Inside of it, yeah. Count it as impervious surface or lot coverage? Lot coverage. It's just, it's dirt. It's dirt. So no, it's not counted as lock cover. |
| 01:39:54.15 | David Marlatt | Okay, so an elevated dirt Sorry if it's not clear, but I think I'm trying to get it. I mean, it's basically a large retaining wall holding |
| 01:39:59.18 | Matthew Mandich | I mean, it's basically a large retaining wall holding back a lot of earth. |
| 01:40:01.76 | David Marlatt | of Earth. The retaining wall itself. |
| 01:40:03.73 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. The retaining wall is counted all of it. |
| 01:40:03.75 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, but there's no notion of pre-existing grade and elevating dirt above that grade and contributing to lot coverage. |
| 01:40:14.26 | Matthew Mandich | So, I mean, the dirt that's inside of that retaining wall has just been counted as not as locked coverage. No, it's not counted as locked coverage, the dirt, no. |
| 01:40:19.18 | David Marlatt | It's not counted as low. Similarly, what level of, I guess, detail do you go into in terms of impervious surface? If someone has flagstone pavers or something, are we counting all those pavers? All the steps. |
| 01:40:34.80 | Matthew Mandich | All the stepping stones, that entire front area, and I know it may be misleading for someone looking at the plans cursorily, but that whole front area that looks green is all covered in the impervious surface coverage. There's a red overlay that covers that entire area. I didn't even calculate all the individual stepping stones in the entire area is an impervious surface. So there's actually, if you wanted to get really granular and count individual stepping stones and remove the areas in between, we could actually reduce that impervious surface coverage in that area. but I kind of the entire space, because there's probably going to be, you know, could be. and count individual stepping stones and remove the areas in between, we could actually reduce that impervious surface coverage in that area. But I counted the entire space because there's probably going to be, you know, could be dirt, hardscape. I don't know. We agreed just to cover that entire area that looks green, but it actually has a red overlay on it. And it's all counted in the impervious surface. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So what may have happened is they may, the person that was calculating this may have taken the number that they had and then calculated all the stepping stones and then added that to the number. But in fact, they were already included. |
| 01:41:08.25 | David Marlatt | I'm sorry. |
| 01:41:14.22 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:41:24.78 | David Marlatt | It's there, okay. Yeah, all right. Well, thank you for that clarification. I guess next, and maybe on all our benefits, I believe that Attorney Rudin is here. |
| 01:41:34.20 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, he is. |
| 01:41:35.08 | David Marlatt | And maybe because this is an HAA, this is subject to HAA, maybe a quick tutorial or some guidance on how that should circumscribe our debate. As I understand it, we are only allowed to look at objective criteria, but maybe you can just give us a few rules of the road. |
| 01:42:00.12 | Attorney Rudin | So the Housing Accountability Act is government code 65589.5. This is not a market, or this is not an affordable housing project. So subdivision D, which circumscribes the planning commission's ability to imposed conditions of approval that render the housing development project infeasible does not apply. You don't need to make findings with respect to the conditions of approval that you decide to render. However, subdivision J Um, does potentially apply to this project. which limits the ability of the Planning Commission to deny the project unless it makes specific findings. So typically the Housing Accountability Act, as I have normally understood it, |
| 01:42:41.68 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | and neither. |
| 01:42:51.13 | Attorney Rudin | allows the jurisdiction still to impose conditions of approval on a project. with regards to you know mitigation measures under CEQA or other conditions to mitigate the impacts of the development Um, but ultimately the statute says that You can't deny the project unless you make specific findings that would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety. Um, You also can't require the project be approved at a lower density. So you can't impose conditions of approval to remove either the ADU or the JADU, nor can you functionally impose conditions that would I think mandate the same. Um, and you know, While the act does say that you can't deny a project, you know, that is in compliance with objective development standards of the city. Um, And typically it's deemed in compliance if staff have not identified Um, the objective standards that the project is not in compliance within 30 days. I have always understood that if the planning commission finds that some objective standard is not met. I see no reason the Planning Commission cannot impose conditions requiring compliance with those objective standards. So hopefully that is helpful. |
| 01:44:14.41 | David Marlatt | Oh, yes, totally clear. Thank you. I'm good now. That's right. Yeah. |
| 01:44:18.21 | Attorney Rudin | I'm good now. |
| 01:44:20.03 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. |
| 01:44:21.08 | David Marlatt | So, but on that last point, I may just cut to the chase with some examples. We can impose conditions based on compliance with objective standards, but for example, the architect showed us some renderings with a kind of a vertical wood siding on the garage and we may not like that and that's totally subjective or viewed as kind of a subjective |
| 01:44:44.42 | Attorney Rudin | MR. No, I do think that the Planning Commission can impose conditions of approval to require compliance with City ordinances. even if those ordinances have some subjectivity, right? The Housing Accountability Act does not eliminate the need of the Commission to make findings. under the city codes to approve the project. You just can't deny the project unless they're one of the grounds in the HA are met. So to the extent you need to impose design conditions of approval to make the required findings You should do so. So, again, with respect to If you think that you know, a particular design material choice, would limit your ability to make the findings, but substituting them with design, an exterior material or color would allow you to make a finding, I think you can make conditions of approval requiring a change in that material. |
| 01:45:39.55 | Nastassya Saad | Because we still have design review in front of us and the normal findings for design review and heightened design review as well to make. |
| 01:45:46.13 | David Marlatt | Well that's kind of what I'm getting at is my confusion. Speak into the microphone. |
| 01:45:49.13 | Nastassya Saad | Speak into the microphone. |
| 01:45:50.97 | David Marlatt | That's my, yeah, I'm sorry. That's a bit of my confusion, and thank you so much for helping with this, but I mean, it's just me, is that the design review and heightened design review require us to make a number of findings, 20 or so findings. If some of those findings are just inherently subjective, such as view, therefore those findings cannot be made because this is an HAA project, does that, Does that kind of put us into a box? Does that box us in that we just cannot consider those findings? in our deliberations, those findings for things which are just inherently subjective. |
| 01:46:31.47 | Attorney Rudin | So it's not that you can't consider those findings. And in fact, those findings could be the basis of design changes that the Planning Commission requires as a practical matter. Um, But The requirements of the local ordinance cannot be the reason why you deny a project that is subject to the Housing Accountability Act unless you can make the findings that are specifically required in the Housing Accountability Act for denial. So basically... Our local codes require you to make subjective findings. So you have to do what you need to do to make them. is sort of the conflict between state law and local law here. |
| 01:47:12.38 | David Marlatt | Got it. Do what you have to do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, I'll turn the microphone over. Thank you. |
| 01:47:17.27 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely, Vice Chair, please, our resident lawyer. |
| 01:47:18.23 | David Marlatt | . |
| 01:47:18.42 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. Yeah, no, this is extremely confusing, and I sympathize because I'm also confused continually at this level. The nuance here is pretty interesting. I mean, I don't, I think the problem here, the issue here is we certainly aren't going to be able to make a finding to deny the project on an objective standard, right? There's no health and safety issue here. We, you know, it kind of is what it is. But this is extremely difficult to kind of, you know, to go through, as every one of these findings is subjective, in my opinion. They're all subjective. None of them, there's not one objective piece of information in the design review because, it still sits there from the last 30 years, and the new laws are coming in and saying you can't change the project unless you're applying an objective standard, you can't reduce the size of it, you can't deny it, so it's very, very strange, and I think it's gonna take us a while to get comfortable with that. until maybe we can change the code, right? I mean, the local codes need to catch up to the state laws and I think that's kind of part of the problem here. Um, So I'll just offer that I don't Um, I do think, I'm gonna take the conversation in a different direction. I mean, I do think that notwithstanding the fact that there may be some questions you have about the technical compliance with impervious surfaces or whatever, What I'm starting to have trouble with is is dealing with the requirements to push this project forward in light of the history of the project and the violations that have occurred that have been documented. It just is very strange to me that we you know, can be put in a situation where we're being forced to prove a project because of state law when there very well could have been, you know, you know, purposeful violations of the law here to move a project along. And I can't really tell, you know, where we're supposed to go with that. I do think that there's, you know, back to the ADU issue, I do have a fundamental philosophical problem with the idea that again, we're forced to approve ADUs, but if an ADU, you know, and there can't really be any discretion that is used to, you know, prevent that from happening or, you know, push a property owner into a situation where they're not gonna get their ADU, But when they're ADU, And this may have happened here, and I still can't tell if it did or not, but if somebody purposely plans an ADU in a place that's gonna kill a protected tree, and they could have done it someplace else. that's kind of a problem. you know, that I have. And again, I can't really tell if that happened here. Um, So I'll leave it at that. I do have some comments about the tree situation, but hopefully we'll move this along on all the other stuff. |
| 01:50:38.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you, Attorney Rudin. I think for just the sake of continuing forward, I mean, we do have our subjective design review in front of us that we are allowed to, and we can go through them one at a time if it's helpful. I think we should get some general thoughts on the table. I realize there's a lot of confusion, but if we at least start the discussion with what is in front of us as the design review, it might set us on some kind of footing and then we definitely have these discussions about the tree and whatnot. Commissioner Marlott, do you want to make a comment? |
| 01:51:14.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:51:14.06 | Nastassya Saad | THE END OF |
| 01:51:14.45 | David Marlatt | just maybe more in the form of a question. Just hypothetically, if we deny design review based on whatever subjective criteria, we are effectively denying the project. |
| 01:51:26.04 | Nastassya Saad | So I think if I understood Attorney Rudin, If I understood Attorney Rudin, the concept around the design review, which is subjective, we do have a right to impose conditions around the design review to make the project feasible but we do not have a right to deny the project. I believe if I can summarize that so basically, but we do have a right to condition this project based on these design review findings. |
| 01:51:56.31 | David Marlatt | based on these. Yeah, no, for sure. |
| 01:52:00.60 | Andrew Junius | I think that's exactly right. I think that's the way to look at it. I think to the extent we apply subjectivity through the findings, we we can probably make some suggestions or requirements or conditions, but we can't do that in such a way that prevents the project from moving forward. It's that we're kind of in a gray area. So I think that's right. |
| 01:52:19.33 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think we can go into the framework of the design review findings, knowing if we need to, we can condition it. I'm sure there are parameters and this is why we have attorney Rudin tonight, right? So if we say our original concept of take 300 feet off, imposes a restriction where they cannot move forward with the project, that condition would no longer be a valid option, I'm assuming. |
| 01:52:47.31 | Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:52:47.33 | David Marlatt | Is that correct, Attorney Rudeen? |
| 01:52:50.96 | Attorney Rudin | So I think the chair and as also commented on by the vice chair, their understanding of the restriction here is correct. You know, you can't deny the project or And frankly, because you have to make the can make the findings in order to prove the project. you're going to have to find a way to make the findings. Now, if you have to impose conditions on the project, including design modifications to make those findings, then that is the recommendation. um, If you want to deny the design review permit, then in addition to making the findings for denial, you also have to make findings for denial under the Housing Accountability Act. which are very difficult to make. |
| 01:53:34.06 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, which I think I'm gonna put on the table that we're not going to be able to make them. I don't think we want to make them. So we can, thank you, Attorney Rudin. So I think the concept here is a little bit of a negotiation. I think that's where we are. And I think we already have some negotiation on the table from the conversation with the applicant about certain portions of that process. |
| 01:53:40.60 | Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 01:53:40.65 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | of the |
| 01:53:58.59 | Nastassya Saad | Third floor, I believe that's the third floor, which is really the main entrance on San Carlos, right? So I think there's going to be some opportunity here. So I think in that effort, Commissioner Moore, maybe we can get some of your initial feedback here, and then if we need better direction, I can kick something off, but let's maybe just get some of your thoughts on some of these concepts around the design review. |
| 01:54:24.97 | Fred Moore | No, I appreciate that. |
| 01:54:25.47 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 01:54:28.65 | Fred Moore | I think it's important for everybody to understand that the seriousness of the actions of cutting down the tree, doing work after the stop work order, which did not appear to be just protecting the site, I think everyone takes that very seriously. And I, like Commissioner Junius, some difficulty trying to wrap my head around whether that was all purposeful in order to circumvent some sort of design standards or whether it was accidental. Thank you. I like a couple other people up here who've been in construction for a long time. And when you add steel beams after a stop work order, I'm not sure that a reasonable justification for that is to create a structure in order to put tarps over the project to protect it from further demise. So I'm struggling with that concept. I think it's important also to realize that all these code sections, they're balancing interest. They're balancing property rights of the applicant as well as the neighbors. And this application doesn't violate the maximum height. It's not asking for any variances. It complies with all the setback requirements. trying to push back on that and say it's too high really is contrary to the interest of the applicants, property rights. And I hate to have neighbors forget that not only do they have rights, but also the property owner has rights to develop their property. So I think that's gonna be part of the discussion here. With respect to some of the findings as far as privacy and so forth, I am a little struggling with that deck that has been represented is necessary for cleaning droppings from the tree. I'm not sure how a flat deck helps you to sweep off things that's covered by glass versus a sloped roof over that area of the building above the second story and have the fallings from the tree roll off the roof into the roof into the yard so and also that does impact in my opinion some of the findings we're required to make regarding privacy of the Jason owner if there's a deck right there that looks right into the adjacent deck that's maybe a discussion for design that we can talk about but I'll defer to everybody else here and their thoughts |
| 01:56:13.39 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:56:53.90 | Nastassya Saad | I think that was great direction to set. Thank you, Commissioner Moore, Vice Chair. |
| 01:56:57.92 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I'll keep going there. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Excellent, I agree with everything you said. So I do think it's as a reset, I think, you know, looking at the zoning consistency table, the project complies with the code. There doesn't appear to be any question about that. I think there was a question about the permeable surfaces. I hope you're satisfied with the response. So we're in a position where You know, and if anybody that's listened to, you know, my general comments over the years here on the commission, I really don't have any problem with the home. I really don't. My problem is completely driven by the, bizarre history here and the, you know, lack of clarity as to how we got here and what we're supposed to do. You know, I think the real legitimate concerns from the community about, you know, is this a situation, I think one of the speakers said, you know, whatever that saying is, you break the rules now and ask for forgiveness later. I mean, we don't have a system here where the penalties are significant enough where you know, people. they'll just pay the fine. You know, it's just kind of silly and sad. So I'm struggling with that. I'm eventually, if we're their votes here to make the, to approve this project, I'll certainly likely be on board with that. But I do have a, can I just quiz the staff a little bit more about the tree situation? And no, you can say, I mean, |
| 01:58:11.83 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Yeah. |
| 01:58:19.85 | Andrew Junius | I'm still a little troubled by the fact that We have an arborist report, a two page arborist report that didn't include any photographs, that didn't even reference the trimming. And I can't really, I think the tree that's in question is tree number one. from the Marin arborist report or the Marin County report says the trees liking, everything's fine. You know, and I'm just a little, I can't, with the, consternation and the you know, the complaints about the, significant canopy removal here Does anybody have a picture of what the tree looks like now? I actually went to the site from the street. I couldn't see anything because it's way down the hill. But is there a, I'd love to see a picture of the tree. |
| 01:59:03.67 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry, we're at a point of deliberation. |
| 01:59:05.33 | Andrew Junius | Is there an, I thought I looked at every report. I didn't see any pictures of any trees. Okay. |
| 01:59:12.08 | Matthew Mandich | So this is not a time for the audience to chime in and |
| 01:59:14.29 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, yeah. So if the staff could bring up any arborist report that's got a picture of the tree, that as it stands right now in terms of the canopy from a place that makes sense to where you could see if there was any significant damage to the canopy of the tree. |
| 01:59:30.32 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:59:30.34 | Matthew Mandich | So we have some images in the presentation and then there's also an arborist, two arborist reports provided that were attached to the agenda. If you'd like us to bring those up. One has the tree preservation plan, which also has images of the tree. |
| 01:59:38.57 | Andrew Junius | the tree preservation plan, |
| 01:59:41.73 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:59:42.03 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. But yeah, but it didn't seem to have, I saw the images of some trunks, but I didn't see any canopy images. |
| 01:59:51.01 | Andrew Junius | So yeah, so. |
| 01:59:56.39 | Matthew Mandich | So right there you can see the canopy, if you zoom in a little bit, there's the pre-existing canopy on the top and the existing canopy on the bottom on the north side there. I know it's a little bit hard to see, but can you highlight it with your mouse? We also have the two arborist reports which you can pull up from the staff report. Thank you, I appreciate that. |
| 02:00:09.55 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 02:00:19.17 | Fred Moore | I think what you're looking for, Commissioner, is the Urban Forestry Associates Arborist Report data inspection August 19. I think that was part of the public comment submittal package that you sent to us. |
| 02:00:33.41 | Andrew Junius | that one have photo I didn't see any of them with photographs okay I'm all right I'll be pulling |
| 02:00:35.37 | Fred Moore | I'm not sure. |
| 02:00:35.76 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not sure. I'll be pulling up the Arbush report from the staff report. |
| 02:00:42.83 | Andrew Junius | sorry? Can we bring that one up? Yeah. The one that Commissioner. We are working on it. |
| 02:00:46.53 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:00:46.65 | Matthew Mandich | or working on it. |
| 02:01:12.77 | Matthew Mandich | So this was the one provided by the applicant, and you can see the trees right there in the canopy. |
| 02:01:18.07 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, okay, yeah, I remember seeing that one too, but again, so that, what is the tree, anybody tell me what the tree looks like from the backyard, because you can't see it from the street, and I apologize, I didn't visit the sites, I didn't ask for it to go inside 25 San Carlos, I guess we don't have a picture of the tree from like standing underneath the tree and see how there. Yeah. |
| 02:01:37.10 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, we have some photos that we can bring up from public comment on that. |
| 02:01:39.82 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:02:00.07 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, I've seen these. |
| 02:02:05.72 | Andrew Junius | All right. Thank you. All right, well, all right, thank you. That's the best we can do for you. All right, that's the best we can do. I mean, it does sound like the tree was over a portion of the home prior to its alteration. That's correct. Is that what you understand? Yes. All right. |
| 02:02:11.39 | Matthew Mandich | All right. That's the best we can do. |
| 02:02:13.72 | Fred Moore | THE BEST WEEKEND. |
| 02:02:26.49 | Andrew Junius | All right, well, I mean, again, I don't think there's any question that there was a permit process required that wasn't, you know, complied with here with respect to this tree. I don't know what to do with that, but I think |
| 02:02:40.03 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you, apologies. To chime in, Vice Chair, on that. So again, for ADU law, where it is today, you actually can, if there's a tree blocking the ADU, protect your tree regardless. If it's going to block the development of that ADU, you are entitled to take that down without a discretionary process. However, we typically require documentation of that. Right, right. Identify that up front, let us know this is what's happening. We've done it for SB9 projects, we've done it for ADUs, but you need to tell us this is a protected tree that's in the line of where my ADU's going to go. Unfortunately, that documentation was not provided. That was not something that prior staff looked at when these plans were originally proposed and that ADU permit was approved. It was not something that was considered by staff at that time. And that would have been a good advisement to give the applicant that, hey, you need to submit this. This documentation we need for this alteration of this protected tree that's clearly over the house where the area that you're going to expand an ADU into. So unfortunately, that didn't happen. And then when they got to the construction phase, they, without permits and without documentation, then trim the trees back, altered them to where they could expand the footprint of that third floor that they were approved for. |
| 02:02:40.23 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 02:02:40.43 | Matthew Mandich | to politics. |
| 02:02:58.61 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | identify that. |
| 02:03:33.23 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Yeah. |
| 02:03:33.30 | Andrew Junius | I'm sorry. |
| 02:03:33.45 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | So, |
| 02:03:45.30 | Nastassya Saad | Can the whispering in the chambers please stop? It's distracting. Can we please stop the conversation or if you can kindly step outside into the hallway? Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you. |
| 02:03:56.96 | Matthew Mandich | No, no, I was done there. So I'll just explain that process a little bit. Because I know it is difficult and I understand your feelings on that. No, no, I appreciate that. |
| 02:04:02.36 | Andrew Junius | I appreciate it. And I think the staff's in a really tough spot here. You know, this is just taking forever and there's nobody that originally approved this permit that's even at the city anymore. So it's one of those bizarre situations. So you guys have done a great job in explaining it and trying to work this situation into the laws we have to deal with. I mean, just from a, you know, I'll be really honest with you. |
| 02:04:03.76 | Matthew Mandich | Bye. |
| 02:04:25.46 | Andrew Junius | I think you're right about the way the ADU laws work right now. I don't think that's right. And I think maybe somebody's gonna start thinking about changing some of these things, even at the state level. that could really be abused, probably may have been abused here, you know, when you have a situation where you have a right to do something on your lot, you, you know, you take advantage of that in such a way that it damages some other city policy or city goal in a way that didn't need to be damaged, but we know what's going with that. I don't know what to do here, but I'm happy to listen to all you guys. Thanks. |
| 02:05:02.74 | Fred Moore | Commissioner Moore. Sorry, just kind of like to follow on that, Matthew. The way I look at the ADU and the JADU, I thought I heard you say that the tree might have been impeding access to either one of those. And maybe I'm misreading the plans, but I don't see how that tree would, the foliage of the tree would impact the construction of either the ADU or the JADU. |
| 02:05:30.43 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:05:30.45 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:05:30.48 | Matthew Mandich | the 80s. |
| 02:05:30.97 | Matthew Mandich | the |
| 02:05:31.02 | Matthew Mandich | that was proposed. |
| 02:05:32.03 | Matthew Mandich | Originally the third floor. So that was what was approved in 2021. The ADU was on the top floor, so that was the area that is now the primary bedroom. That was the ADU. So due to changes in ADU code, specifically locally, the height limit of the ADU that was previously proposed when they came back through design review, they couldn't have an ADU in that location anymore, so they moved the location of the ADU to the ground floor and then added to the second floor and made the third floor, which was previously approved for Thank you. have an ADU in that location anymore, so they moved the location of the ADU to the ground floor and then added the ADU to the second floor and made the third floor, which was previously approved for the ADU, as the primary unit. |
| 02:05:43.41 | Matthew Mandich | So... |
| 02:06:06.86 | David Marlatt | How does that affect? |
| 02:06:08.70 | Fred Moore | So, |
| 02:06:09.58 | David Marlatt | access because we're not talking about |
| 02:06:10.85 | Zach Abeles | I'm sorry. |
| 02:06:10.91 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:06:10.93 | Matthew Mandich | We're not talking about access. So when the ADU permit was approved, |
| 02:06:13.65 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:06:17.02 | Matthew Mandich | the ADU permit approved an expanded third floor, which would have pushed into that oak tree. At the time, staff probably should have caught that, realized that what they're approving is an ADU on the third floor that's expanding into an area where an oak tree exists. And they probably should have required the applicant at that time to provide documentation showing that they were going to remove portions of this oak tree to build into that space. |
| 02:06:44.36 | Nastassya Saad | So what has happened is the Original application was going to impede into the existing area where that tree was Yeah, when the switch was made and now the adu and the jadu are essentially below The top floor is still taking up the same footprint that was originally Going to be for the adu, right? |
| 02:06:53.96 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 02:07:08.51 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Right, they moved the ADU, but they cut the tree anyway. |
| 02:07:11.35 | Nastassya Saad | They cut the tree anyway. Yes, and correct. But if- |
| 02:07:12.69 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:07:18.20 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:07:18.21 | Matthew Mandich | It's a treat. |
| 02:07:18.50 | Matthew Mandich | Ready? |
| 02:07:18.69 | Nastassya Saad | Right. |
| 02:07:18.70 | Matthew Mandich | The tree, excuse me. |
| 02:07:18.72 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. The tree was cut when they were building under the permits that had given the ADU. So they had valid permits for an ADU and a building permit that coincided with the ADU permit for the construction of that ADU. It's a little bit of a chicken and a chicken. |
| 02:07:25.84 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 02:07:31.21 | Nastassya Saad | CONTINUES. It's a little bit of a chicken and the egg with this. So I can see where the confusion is also for the benefit of the public and anyone listening online here. And I'm sorry that I have my back to you, Vice Chair, but looking at Commissioner Marlott, with that, that original intended ADU on that third floor was going to impede into that space. And to Matthew's point was cut at the time when that was to happen. That's not happening anymore. This new application is still taking advantage of that existing space that is now quote unquote available because the tree was cut. Do I have that right? |
| 02:08:14.00 | Matthew Mandich | That is correct. Thank you. |
| 02:08:14.80 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I know, it's not easy and it's not pleasant. And it's very messy. I'm going to... |
| 02:08:17.55 | Matthew Mandich | It's not pleasant. |
| 02:08:18.31 | Matthew Mandich | And it's. |
| 02:08:18.76 | Matthew Mandich | it's... |
| 02:08:19.57 | Matthew Mandich | you THE END OF IT'S NOT A LITTLE BIT. |
| 02:08:20.04 | Fred Moore | Bye. |
| 02:08:22.83 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to kick off probably some negotiations here because I think that really is where we are. So we can go through design review. We can make suggestions. We're going to need to work with the applicant, so I'm going to hope that they'll have a microphone that we're going to have to ask some questions. I do want to be very clear. We cannot engage in a discussion with you or anyone else in the room. This is going to be us asking you if you are agreeable to a condition that we may or may not set because that is the parameters that we're working with. So I think in the interest of both vice chair and commissioner Moore, this does meet all the objective standards. And to be honest, it's actually, the maximum building height is lower than both the ordinance and what was existing. So with that, do we want to have a discussion about what I think is that, I'm gonna call it a balcony. We know it's not necessarily, but for the ease of our understandings on that top level that's really meant for cleaning I don't know what the impact would be maybe I can look to our architect here they could potentially help us but |
| 02:09:38.26 | David Marlatt | I would strongly support Commissioner Moore's idea or condition, if we so choose, to remove that completely and just make it a simple roof surface. I think it's kind of low-hanging fruit in terms of addressing privacy without degrading functionality or livability whatsoever. |
| 02:09:54.68 | Eric Cobb | No. |
| 02:09:56.99 | David Marlatt | uh, As an architect, a sloped roof will work. if that's a concern, and I think it's kind of a layup. you know, in terms of it, just a very small condition. I know it doesn't address nearly all the concerns. |
| 02:10:12.40 | Nastassya Saad | Is anyone else on the commission agreeable? I'm getting nods, I am as well. So I think I'm gonna now look to the applicant as a starting point to remove that outdoor space balcony. Is that gonna render anything infeasible? Can we agree that that's okay? We're getting nods from the applicant, so we're gonna go ahead and take that one. Thank you very much. Sorry, I'm just gonna take a note. So outside of that, we have |
| 02:10:45.20 | Nastassya Saad | findings to make that we're all quite familiar with at this point. So we can do this one of two ways. We can ask either if there's a finding that we want to discuss and silence is considered consent on the others, or we can quite literally take them one at a time and have a discussion on each one. happy to breeze through it either which way everyone's comfortable with. Is there anything maybe we just start with that sticks out? Maybe something here upon either I know landscaping come up, that's number six. |
| 02:11:27.62 | Nastassya Saad | reasonable level of privacy is number nine. Do we wanna pick the big ones and have that discussion point, Vice Chair? Thank you. |
| 02:11:32.98 | Andrew Junius | Well, I mean, I still, not to continue beating the dead horse, but how are we supposed to make number 11? You know, because... It just seems difficult to to deal with the fact that they didn't comply with a thing that, they should have complied with in order for us to, at this moment in time, if things had happened properly, we'd be looking at number 11 and saying, okay, well, they've got to, tree permit in hand and a tree construction plan to protect the trees and whatnot. None of that happened, and so we're still stuck with number 11. |
| 02:12:14.08 | Nastassya Saad | So if I could Give my opinion on that. I would, at this point, we have a existing code enforcement case that is going to be handled either accordingly to what is our current code enforcement or our new code enforcement law, which is going to have some more teeth. And to your point, yes, it's a fine. And if quite frankly, you know, in a community like ours, if you can afford to pay it, how much impact does that make? That's really neither here nor there at the moment because that's gonna continue with the normal process and this applicant will have to deal with that as that comes, they're very aware. So I personally would look at this as where we are today and the fact that we, And by the way, I sympathize completely, completely. But I would take our starting point on where we are right now. We have an existing tree protection plan. We have had some work that's already been done, especially on that oak. I believe that's closest to the 39 San Carlos. I know some of that dirt was removed, so we've got an immediate security on one of our trees. And an existing plan. I'm actually quite grateful to 25 San Carlos for doing another. SECURITY ON ONE OF OUR TREES AND AN EXISTING PLAN. I'M ACTUALLY QUITE GRATEFUL TO 25 SAN CARLOS FOR DOING ANOTHER ARBORIST REPORT BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU. I thought, to no discredit of the applicant, but we've seen really robust reports. That was weak, weak at best. So it is very helpful to have supplemental information. So now we've got two arborist reports that basically confirm the same thing. So I'm gonna have to ignore that pass for the moment, let the city take that. And I can make the finding that it's going to preserve the protected trees because moving forward, it is. That's my position, Commissioner Moore. |
| 02:14:06.49 | Fred Moore | I agree with you, Chair Saad. I think one way of looking at this is that the tree has been preserved. It hasn't been removed. If the tree was removed, I think we'd have a whole different discussion here. And if we didn't have two arborist reports, and I agree with you 100%, unfortunately, the applicant's arborist report was week was was kind to say goodbye. |
| 02:14:29.27 | Matthew Mandich | I will just say that it is a licensed arborist that gets the report. It's true. |
| 02:14:33.08 | Fred Moore | It's true. But we've had some. I totally understand the license. Lawyers can be licensed as well, and some are weak and some are strong. So I think that's kind of one way to get around that finding is it hasn't been removed. Both arborists report indicate that the tree's in good health, and hopefully they will continue to grow as reported by one. |
| 02:14:36.57 | Fred Moore | WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO |
| 02:14:36.86 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:14:36.88 | Fred Moore | All right. the license. |
| 02:14:58.75 | Nastassya Saad | Agreed. |
| 02:14:59.10 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, that's what we'll have to deal with. That's how we're going to get around this, I guess. Yeah. |
| 02:15:03.52 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. I totally hear you, Vice Chair. So that's number 11, that's the tree issue. We are, working on some compromises with that outdoor deck. So I think we've got that checked off with a little bit of reduction in space and a little bit better on the privacy for 25. I think we can look at Well, with that, let's take number nine. So that's the project provides a reasonable level of privacy to the site and adjacent properties, taking into consideration the density of the neighborhood. I'm going to, I think, rely on the reduction that we just made along with the setbacks. So I know that the trees, you know, there's still a general a bushel of trees and you have a bushel of oaks, but there's a bushel of trees there. That being said, the ordinance, the setbacks are all met. So I think from that perspective, although sympathizing, I mean, to 25's, what it used to look like versus what it is, I think with some of the reduction and given the ordinance and the setbacks, I'm going to be able to make that finding as well. Then I'll look to my fellow commissioners to see if there's any agreement or discussion or total opposition. |
| 02:16:26.09 | Fred Moore | No, I would agree with your analysis and also the patio configuration, we move that deck that helps meet that standard as well with the privacy. The majority of the windows are facing forward, not adjacent to either properties on either side. So I would say that the design right now, even though I'm not a huge fan of the design, it does seem to protect the privacy of both existing neighbors. |
| 02:16:49.06 | Nastassya Saad | May I and senior planner, no, principal planner, Mandich, the reduction of that outdoor space that, do you have the calculation on that in terms of a square footage? You don't have to answer off the top of your head, but. 63. It is. 63 square feet. 63 square feet. Okay, so that's an additional 63 square feet. |
| 02:17:02.16 | Matthew Mandich | 63, 63 square feet. |
| 02:17:09.28 | David Marlatt | No, that's the same 63. That's the same. That's the 63 feet that was removed. |
| 02:17:11.15 | Nastassya Saad | That's the same statement. |
| 02:17:15.40 | David Marlatt | they converted an interior space to a desk. |
| 02:17:18.42 | Nastassya Saad | I see, okay, thank you very much. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Okay, so I don't think we have any issues with proposed entrance, exits, parking spaces, and circulation. |
| 02:17:38.47 | Nastassya Saad | I'm not gonna go through them all unless there's anything else that stands out. We can move on to the heightened. I'm just in regular design review right now. Proposed project is consistent with the general scale of structures. I think the staff report showed that quite clearly. Thank you. Project will not result in a prominent building profile over a ridge line. The proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of public and primary views from private property. That's number four. That's in line with number nine of the project provides a reasonable level of privacy. Do we want to discuss number four in more detail? Which is that it's designed to minimize obstruction of public views and primary views. |
| 02:18:30.56 | Nastassya Saad | That's probably another potential sticking point. |
| 02:18:32.74 | David Marlatt | I actually personally don't have any issue with the view encroachment. I think that, I don't know what the others feel, but even the pictures provided by the opponents, by the neighbors, showed that the story poles are roughly at the same rail height of the previous house. And by removing that deck off of the bathroom, that mitigates any kind of privacy concern, at least from that deck. And so, you know, independently of all the contentious, you know, history of this project, I don't think I would have had a problem with that finding with relationship to the view protection. |
| 02:18:48.33 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | of the |
| 02:19:08.72 | Nastassya Saad | May I ask one more clarifying question? Because you were probably at the site most recently, Matthew. There was a public comment around the beams being larger than the story poles. Can you comment? Larger is not the correct word. Right, thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:19:11.52 | David Marlatt | you were. |
| 02:19:24.21 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:19:24.26 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:19:24.31 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:19:24.36 | Matthew Mandich | Right, thank you. |
| 02:19:24.80 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:19:24.83 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:19:24.93 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:19:24.97 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:19:26.94 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:19:26.96 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not sure. |
| 02:19:27.45 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I can't really speak to that. I was at the site. I didn't seem to see anything sticking over the story poles. The story poles were, I believe, put there after all of the beams were laid. I don't know. Angles can be funny sometimes from different locations. I couldn't tell you that I saw anything rising above the story pole level when I was there, but I also wasn't specifically looking for anything like that. I know that looking down on the deck or looking up and different angle here or there, something looks like it's higher or lower. I mean, that happens all the time in bocce ball, so. Yes. |
| 02:19:59.04 | Nastassya Saad | Regardless though, the site, the project plan, excuse me, the project will be constructed according to the site plans that we have in front of us, so those steel beams may or may not even be relevant, correct? |
| 02:20:14.18 | Matthew Mandich | Correct, and there's also a condition of approval that was built into the resolution that the height will be verified by a licensed surveyor prior to any final sign off, and as well as the wall locations and all that. So we've built that in, so yeah. |
| 02:20:19.61 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 02:20:19.91 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | . |
| 02:20:27.98 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so I'm going to worry less about the steel beams because there are plans in front of us. |
| 02:20:31.10 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:20:31.19 | Matthew Mandich | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:20:31.24 | David Marlatt | you |
| 02:20:31.39 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Jumping in just to that because, because Matthew raised it, I was going to, um, offer a condition to in condition seven of the approval where it says that the, heights must be verified by a licensed surveyor or architect. And I was going to propose that we strike or architect. I have nothing against architects, but I think that this is contentious to such a point that, you know, properly trained, licensed professional will |
| 02:20:50.54 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. |
| 02:20:50.66 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:20:50.84 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. |
| 02:20:57.09 | David Marlatt | deal with the proper husband. |
| 02:20:58.22 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 02:20:58.56 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:20:58.59 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:20:58.71 | Matthew Mandich | That's not. |
| 02:20:59.03 | Assistant City Manager | Bye. |
| 02:20:59.06 | Matthew Mandich | it's not. |
| 02:20:59.13 | Assistant City Manager | to be a good one. |
| 02:20:59.60 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I would be amenable to that. |
| 02:21:00.36 | Assistant City Manager | And if I can just note, I want to double down on that from the staff perspective. Um, the genesis of this entire follow on discretionary process was a height discrepancy. So I will commit that all eyes are on height in connection with this project. And we intend to be more than rigorous and triple check ourselves as related to ensuring that the height is consistent with the plans. |
| 02:21:07.89 | Fred Moore | you |
| 02:21:08.02 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. |
| 02:21:29.29 | Nastassya Saad | Excellent. And actually, while we, I'm gonna jump back to the tree because there is an existing condition as well in the conditions of approval that number five, so prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall fully implement the protection measures in the tree preservation plan and allow inspection from the city's code enforcement officer. So I think that's a good touch in terms of just having some more eyes on the trees that we all seem to love and care about very much. Okay, those were the design review findings. I'm gonna move on to the heightened design review unless anybody wants to. Try and stop me. No. Okay. So for the heightened review findings, we've got the proposed development on the site maximizes the preservation of protected trees. Again, I'm going to have the same thought process that we're looking at it from as is as, as, um, We are today with the tree protection plan, the landscape plan, and I'm gonna be able to make that finding. Anyone disagree? |
| 02:22:40.42 | David Marlatt | Yeah, I concur with that logic. It's the house, it's the tree we're presented with today. I understand. The pre-butcher tree or the post-butcher tree. |
| 02:22:44.45 | Nastassya Saad | the tree. Thank you. Yeah. It is. I understand. Um... Yes, I heightened, excuse me, number two, the site is configured with adequate width and depth to provide yard spaces and setbacks. I think that's objective since it's within the existing footprint, but mostly because it meets the objective standards of the setbacks, so I'm gonna be able to make that finding, okay. The site will be developed in a manner that minimizes the obstruction of views from surrounding properties and public vantage points. |
| 02:23:04.63 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | be able to. |
| 02:23:17.37 | Nastassya Saad | I think we've had our discussion similar to the previous conversation. I wanna see if anyone wants to add any additional conversation. Okay, thank you. No hazard to the public safety. I think we can all agree there. The slope and topography of the site allow for limited excavation and minimal alteration. I think that one's quite straightforward. I'm looking to my colleagues. Okay. I quit guest parking either on the side or within the immediate frontage. I do not want to entertain the suggestion from the applicant to remove the one car garage. I think that would be a poor choice, both for the applicant's lifestyle and just for parking. Thank you. |
| 02:24:01.35 | David Marlatt | . |
| 02:24:01.53 | Nastassya Saad | you |
| 02:24:01.87 | David Marlatt | Thank you. I agree, I think it might even trigger a variance because you'd be removing, you'd be fewer than that. |
| 02:24:02.34 | Nastassya Saad | Right. |
| 02:24:06.80 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think you're right. |
| 02:24:09.02 | David Marlatt | The cases need to be covered, is that correct? |
| 02:24:09.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:24:12.59 | David Marlatt | Anyway. |
| 02:24:13.08 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:24:13.19 | Matthew Mandich | No, so they could do a carport, they could park, as long as they're not tandem, which they wouldn't be, then it wouldn't require any additional permits, as long as there are two spots on the site. But I believe, I mean, I would agree with the commission that a garage is definitely preferable here in South Dakota. |
| 02:24:27.44 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think given the condition, they need a garage. Okay, thank you. And then, The proposed plan provides adequate landscaping to maximize privacy and minimize the appearance of the bulk. I think this is actually, The conditions of approval already say that the, again, that the project has to be built according to the plans and within those plans is the trellis and the living wall. So I do wanna note some of the conversation and agreements that 39 San Carlos had with the owner, but I do think that covers it. So I think we'll be good on that agreement already. So I don't have any issues. I don't have any issues there either. That is actually all of our conditions at this moment. So I just want to check my own notes if you'll Give me just one second. Just in the, this was in our public comment. So this was from 39 San Carlos. So we do have the trellis that was agreed upon. We do have the Hawthorne tree, but that is in the plans. And so we do have a condition of approval already on following the tree protection and the landscape. So that one is covered. I believe the soil has already been removed around the coastal life Oak. And there's the discussion of the slated cedar fence, which I believe are also in the plans already. Correct, thank you. So I don't think we're going to need to add any additional conditions of approval given the agreement. None of the conversation is in relation to affecting the private property. So I think I'm comfortable there. And now with all of that, I'm gonna look for a motion or further discussion. |
| 02:26:04.33 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. |
| 02:26:04.43 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 02:26:04.48 | Sandy Estremera-Zink | Thank you. |
| 02:26:16.13 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, before we get to a motion, I just want to again say I think it's kind of interesting that the city council has just made some tweaks to the enforcement procedures. I think this case invites even further discussions and looking at our codes because whatever happened here, you know, shouldn't have happened the way it happened and and the concern by the community is legitimate, and I share that concern. we seem to be kind of stuck But we definitely need a better system to monitor this and to make it clear that violations of our code are not tolerated and there will be severe consequences in it and I just think that's important going forward. |
| 02:27:05.37 | Nastassya Saad | I completely agree. And I also think in the interest just so the public understands, Application in front of us is is why this is the conversation that we're having right? I think we would have a slightly different recommendations or a conversation, but With the protection of those two net new units We have to work within the parameters of where we are so with that new application of two net new units I am going to be comfortable making these findings moving forward vice chair |
| 02:27:38.07 | Andrew Junius | Well, you know, I don't want to go off on some weird tangent here, but I do think that that again, the HAA can't be railroaded into being used when violations of the law are occurring. So I'm actually not making that call. I don't, I think at this point, this project just needs to move forward, warts and all. I'm very upset about parts of it, but I don't know what to do other than what I think we're going to do, because if we deny it, then what happens? I mean, we've been put in a horrific position by the property owner here and the contractor and the endless process here, so there's really not a great outcome, but I don't necessarily agree that in the future that situations where there have been obvious and egregious violations of the code need to be overlooked because of state law that that can't be the rule so but in this case it's confused enough you know that I think we beat the tree issue to to a pulp it you know I'm ready to move it forward and I will I will support the project at this point but is a warning that we've got to be much more careful about this stuff in the future. But we also can't have a situation where people feel like, oh, as long as I do a two or three unit project, I can do whatever I want because I'll have to approve it in the end even if I break all the rules. That can't be the rule and that's not going to be the rule. |
| 02:29:06.46 | Nastassya Saad | THE FAMILY. No, sir. You articulated it better than I, but that was my intent. Do I have a motion? from anybody on the commission. |
| 02:29:22.36 | David Marlatt | Uh-oh. I'll try to butcher a motion. So I would make a motion to make the findings and the draft resolution with the condition that the balcony, the deck off of the bedroom is eliminated and that condition seven, condition of approval seven strikes or architect from that text. And I think those are the only two conditions, right? |
| 02:29:51.45 | Nastassya Saad | Those are the only two conditions, correct. |
| 02:29:53.82 | Attorney Rudin | And planning commissioners, I would suggest that with respect to the design change to remove the deck that the commission modify condition of approval number two that requires that the project be designed and constructed as shown in the set of plans, receive September 25th, 2025, attachment three. and require that staff verify the removal of that deck prior to building permit issuance. and that those changes be reflected in the construction drugs. |
| 02:30:25.91 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, thank you, Attorney Rudin. Did staff understand that direction? Thank you. Commissioner Moore. |
| 02:30:29.96 | Fred Moore | Commissioner Moore. Thank you. Was it possible to expand on that and rather than just say receive September 25, 2005, those plans dated August 24, 2025, subject to the removal of the change reflected on those plans for the. Thank you. deck Thank you. because the plans that have been submitted that we've been discussing tonight do have the revision date of August 24, 2005. So I think in our missing commissioners protocol, always liking to have the date of the plan so we can go back and identify what they are. So. |
| 02:31:14.29 | Attorney Rudin | So I think that that was a very astute catch, Commissioner Moore. It sounds like the condition of approval number two actually just needs to be substantially revised. It says received September 25th, 2025 and revised as of that revision date you just mentioned. |
| 02:31:32.48 | Nastassya Saad | Is city staff clear on that direction? |
| 02:31:34.98 | Matthew Mandich | Well, I think the date he's mentioning is before the date that they were submitted. Well, the date. Other way around, so. |
| 02:31:41.55 | Fred Moore | Other way around. Well, the date on August 24th is the date of the drawings. |
| 02:31:45.90 | Matthew Mandich | So... |
| 02:31:45.97 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:31:47.22 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, but those, I don't, I can ask the architect, but he may have just forgot to update the date on that. But the drawings that we're considering are the ones we received |
| 02:31:56.02 | Matthew Mandich | the department stamp received on September 25th. Okay, so that- So I'm not 100% sure if what was received coincides exactly with the previous plans that was submitted in August. So I'd like to go with the plans that we received on the 25th. |
| 02:31:59.08 | Fred Moore | Okay. |
| 02:32:08.83 | Attorney Rudin | Matthew, just for avoidance of doubt, we're referring to the plans that are set forth in attachment 20. Correct. That is the most recent plan set. |
| 02:32:16.92 | Matthew Mandich | Correct. I'm going to go. Yes, that is the plan setting. Yeah, and those are make sure we're on the same page. That's that's the most recent plan set. And that's the one that's been put before you today. |
| 02:32:20.54 | Attorney Rudin | And- |
| 02:32:20.93 | Fred Moore | Those are amazing. |
| 02:32:21.52 | Attorney Rudin | Thank you. |
| 02:32:21.57 | Fred Moore | Sure. |
| 02:32:25.69 | Fred Moore | and those are dated August 24th, 2025. So if those are the same, again, there could be |
| 02:32:29.69 | David Marlatt | So if those are the same plans. There could be other plans out there that also have that date. Yeah, that's what I'm concerned with. Which is a concern. So we actually had this discussion after the last hearing as architects because actually a plan set may have different dates on different sheets according to what was revised. So you can't just say. |
| 02:32:33.79 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 02:32:34.16 | Matthew Mandich | THE END OF |
| 02:32:35.26 | Fred Moore | which are concerned with. |
| 02:32:47.19 | Assistant City Manager | So- And if I may, I was, and apologies for interrupting, Commissioner, I was about to call that out on page G0.2, for example. The date of publication is September 24th. |
| 02:32:54.31 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 02:32:58.19 | David Marlatt | So what planner Mandich and I discussed after the last hearing was it's very simple in Bluebeam or whatever software they're using to stamp the plans. So they could put a stand. So the received plans have a red stamp done on the PDF with such and such a date. So we're always referring to the same thing because mistakes happen. Sometimes sheets dating is not updated and there can be multiple copies out there in nature so I would I would be more comfortable with keeping the language as the plans that received on September 25th |
| 02:33:16.74 | Nastassya Saad | Right. |
| 02:33:16.97 | Leslie Schoferman | Because, |
| 02:33:32.43 | David Marlatt | and hope that in the future these are stamped. before they go into the attack. |
| 02:33:35.75 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so as Assistant City Manager Phipps pointed out there, the plan, the sheets that were updated for this do have the date of September 25th on them. Some sheets were not updated and they retain the older date of the 24th. So we'll keep it as it is in the resolution is what I'm hearing. |
| 02:33:47.05 | Matthew Mandich | of the... |
| 02:33:52.88 | Fred Moore | Well, going forward, I guess I'm really concerned about that because the date of August 24th was showing a revision to that area, reducing the 63 feet and putting the deck. So I agree with Commissioner Marlock that if the protocol going forward is stamping each page so we know when it was received and then we're referring back to that resolution, we should avoid these problems in the future. |
| 02:34:20.52 | David Marlatt | Yeah, absolutely. |
| 02:34:22.72 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so for item two, then we're gonna keep it as the received September 25th, but we are going to Attorney Rudin, edit it to have a modification of the reduction of the outside space, correct? |
| 02:34:42.28 | Attorney Rudin | Yeah, so I... I believe that condition two should be revised to read. The project shall be designed and constructed as shown the set of plans titled Papas Casares Residents Received by the planning department September 25th, 2025. Um, except for the outside deck space and Matthew, can you Let me know which sheet that is on. Um, or best depicted on. |
| 02:35:15.25 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, it's going to appear on several sheets, but I think we can give you the sheet of the floor plan. |
| 02:35:21.59 | Attorney Rudin | Yeah. And which I assume is the third floor. Yes. Yeah. |
| 02:35:24.13 | Matthew Mandich | I assume it's a good one. |
| 02:35:24.51 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:35:24.60 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:35:30.52 | David Marlatt | So it would just be removal of the roof deck as shown on A2.7. |
| 02:35:35.52 | Attorney Rudin | Okay, yeah, except for the removal of the roof deck as shown on A2.7. Um, which shall be reflected in the construction drawings and verified by city staff prior to assurance of a building permit. Um, Yeah, and then the rest of that section would remain as is. |
| 02:35:57.37 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Thank you. City staff is clear. Thank you very much. So we have a motion on the floor with some edits and conditions. Do we have a second? |
| 02:36:12.93 | Nastassya Saad | Second thank you assistant city manager actually any more discussion points vice-chair. Can we take roll please? |
| 02:36:20.35 | Assistant City Manager | Happy to, thank you, Chair. Commissioner. |
| 02:36:21.81 | Nastassya Saad | or something. |
| 02:36:21.97 | Assistant City Manager | more. Yes. Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg is not present. Please let the record show. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 02:36:34.09 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you. Item number seven this evening is adjournment. So moved. Thank you. All in favor. I'm a one woman show. Have a good night. Goodbye. |
| 02:36:36.20 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you. |
| 02:36:47.98 | Assistant City Manager | Thank you commissioners, thank you staff, thank you members of the public. Have a great evening and we'll see you next time. |
Zach Abeles — Against: Resident of 25 San Carlos raised concerns about unpermitted demolition, continuing work after a stop work order, and the over‑pruning of a protected tree. He argued the rules are not being applied evenly and that the project negatively impacts views and property value. ▶ 📄
Olympia Kirikides — In Favor: Future resident and identical twin of the owner; she described living with Parkinson’s disease and the need for ADA‑accessible spaces, wider hallways, and natural light. She urged approval to support her ability to age in place with dignity. ▶ 📄
Eric Cobb — Against: Architect for 25 San Carlos used drone images to show how the proposed roof massing encroaches on the neighbor’s deck and prevents the protected tree canopy from regrowing. He offered alternative floor plans that set back the third floor to allow recovery of the tree and visual buffer. ▶ 📄
Eric Lindquist — Against: Argued the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning code due to excessive lot coverage and impervious surface area. He recalculated total lot coverage at 58.6%, well above the 35% maximum, and said missing elevated areas were omitted from the applicant’s calculations. ▶ 📄
Leonard Rifkind — Against: Attorney for 25 San Carlos asserted the commission cannot make the mandatory findings for design review because no tree‑removal permit was submitted with the application. He cited an arborist report stating the canopy cannot recover without 15 feet of horizontal clearance. ▶ 📄
Vicki Abley — Against: Owner of 25 San Carlos stated she bought her home in 2023 for its tree canopy, which has since been drastically cut. She detailed how the applicant bypassed design review, continued work after a stop‑work order, and how the third floor now sits only 18 feet away, destroying her privacy. She requested a 300 sq ft reduction. ▶ 📄
Sandy Estremera-Zink — Against: Stated that photographs did not capture the full obstruction visible from inside the living room of 25 San Carlos. She emphasized that the city’s rules must apply equally and that enforcing the code is responsible governance. ▶ 📄
Tamara Stone — Against: Friend of 25 San Carlos noted the tree was cut illegally to make room for a larger house, and the owners have repeatedly violated the stop‑work order. She warned that approving the project would set a dangerous precedent of “seek forgiveness rather than permission.” ▶ 📄
Jeffrey Stafford — Against: Highlighted that only 63 sq ft was removed instead of the recommended 300 sq ft, and that the applicant is benefiting from their own tree violation. He argued the project conflicts with design‑review findings 6, 7, 11, and 13, and that approval would reward illegal actions. ▶ 📄