| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:07.44 | David Marlatt | Thank you. This is the meeting of the Sausalito Planning Commission, April 8th at 6.33. And ACM Phipps, please take the roll. |
| 00:00:16.97 | ACM Phipps | Absolutely. Thank you, Vice Chair. And good evening to you. Chair Saad is joining us remotely, just let the record show. So good evening to you, Chair, Vice Chair, Planning Commissioner, 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. This meeting will also be held remotely at 26 Tulane Drive in Larkspur, California, 94939, and is also open to the public at that location. Members of the public may also... also be held remotely at 26 Tulane Drive in Larkspur, California, 94939, and is also open to the public at that location. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. With that, I'll move to call roll. Commissioner Junius. Present. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:00:53.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Present. Present. |
| 00:00:55.48 | ACM Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:00:56.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | President. |
| 00:00:57.17 | ACM Phipps | Vice Chair Merlin. President. And Chair Saad. |
| 00:01:00.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Hold it. |
| 00:01:01.41 | ACM Phipps | We have full quorum and back to you. |
| 00:01:04.04 | David Marlatt | Vice Chair. |
| 00:01:05.51 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:01:05.52 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. Next item is approval of the agenda. Thank you. |
| 00:01:10.86 | ACM Phipps | So moved. |
| 00:01:11.33 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:01:11.34 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:01:12.19 | David Marlatt | So I got to go. |
| 00:01:13.67 | ACM Phipps | Commissioner Junius. Yes, Commissioner Moore. Thank you. |
| 00:01:16.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:01:16.49 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Luxenberg. |
| 00:01:18.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:01:19.04 | ACM Phipps | Vice-Chair Merlin. Yes. Chair Saab. |
| 00:01:21.25 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:01:21.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:01:22.21 | Nora Fry | Thank you. |
| 00:01:22.53 | ACM Phipps | Motion. |
| 00:01:23.04 | David Marlatt | Back to you, Vice Chair. Thank you. Next item is public comments not on the agenda. Anyone wishing to comment on something that's not on the agenda? Thank you. |
| 00:01:33.38 | ACM Phipps | And I'll just add to that video or audio public comment participation will be limited to three minutes per speaker unless modified by the chair and or vice chair. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right. If you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand and you'll be called upon when it's your time to speak. And of course, if you're on the Zoom application joining us from a phone and you want to raise your hand, press star nine and each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed. So I'm going to look to the chamber as I have not received any speaker cards. |
| 00:02:02.98 | Patricia Swenson | We get cards. I want to... |
| 00:02:05.09 | ACM Phipps | for interested speakers. Oh yeah, yeah. Happy to just call the raised hand if there is an interested speaker who gets submitted to speaker card. |
| 00:02:05.58 | Patricia Swenson | Thank you. |
| 00:02:10.90 | Patricia Swenson | Oh, I have it on my screen. because Send it to you. We know. Yeah. |
| 00:02:16.82 | ACM Phipps | Is this for public comments on items not? |
| 00:02:18.95 | Patricia Swenson | Well, you can put it on your computer. |
| 00:02:21.83 | ACM Phipps | Okay, so... |
| 00:02:22.35 | Patricia Swenson | Can we just send you the meeting number and the call? |
| 00:02:24.95 | ACM Phipps | Can we mute that participant, please? Getting some cross chatter here. Okay. Looking back to the chamber for interested speakers on items not on the agenda. Seeing none, I'm going to move to |
| 00:02:39.03 | Nastassya Saad | the Zoom application. |
| 00:02:50.38 | Nastassya Saad | and I'm seeing none, |
| 00:02:51.97 | David Marlatt | Chair, back to you. Thank you very much. Next item four is approval of the commission minutes from the March 25th meeting. Does anyone have any comments or emotion about the minutes from last meeting? |
| 00:03:06.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:03:06.99 | ACM Phipps | So move. |
| 00:03:07.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:03:08.49 | ACM Phipps | Second, Commissioner Junius. Yes, Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:03:13.38 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:03:13.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:03:13.54 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:03:13.66 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:03:15.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:03:15.90 | ACM Phipps | Vice-Chair Merlin. Yes. Tresod. |
| 00:03:17.89 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:03:18.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 00:03:19.19 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:03:19.24 | David Marlatt | Motion passes. Okay, thank you very much. Communications, ACM Fibs, do we have communications for this evening? |
| 00:03:26.88 | ACM Phipps | Yes, yes, I have one communication item this evening. This is related to what commissioners and community members may have read about in a local publication. The city of Sausalito recently received a pre-application associated with development of housing on a housing element opportunity site. That's housing element opportunity site 303, located at 1 and 3 Harbor Drive. The pre-application proposes a six-story project consisting of 294 units utilizing density bonus. And the city is in the process of reviewing this application in accordance with requirements of state and local law. Thank you. |
| 00:04:03.12 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:04:03.13 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:04:05.31 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. Any other communications from the dais? Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. So we'll move on to the public hearing. Item 6A came to us at the last meeting and needed to be... |
| 00:04:19.16 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair? I'm sorry to interrupt. I think we just need to take public comment on the communication. |
| 00:04:24.19 | David Marlatt | Oh, yeah, sorry, I'm right. You're absolutely right. Is there, you're absolutely right, thank you very much. Is there a public comment on the communications? |
| 00:04:33.69 | ACM Phipps | to the chamber vice chair for any raised hands seeing none i'll look to the zoom application for same And seeing that. |
| 00:04:42.94 | David Marlatt | Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you for the reminder. |
| 00:04:50.96 | David Marlatt | I think Brandon gave the address. |
| 00:04:54.21 | Andrew Junius | and we're okay to run all of that in Thursday, we never love it. |
| 00:05:00.34 | ACM Phipps | I'm sorry. |
| 00:05:03.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have the same question that Commissioner Junius has. Attorney Otto, does the chair need to explain why she's attending remotely? |
| 00:05:17.15 | Mary Wagner | As Mr. Phipps said, this is actually noticed as a remote location. So no, she does not. But if she'd like to, if she could, of course can. |
| 00:05:28.93 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, just for clarification, I've just I've been under the weather for over a week and I didn't want to subject anyone to the state that I am in. So I appreciate vice chair taking the meeting and yes, this is posted. My location is currently posted on the agenda. Thank you. |
| 00:05:45.14 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you very much, and I'm sure we all wish you a very speedy recovery. Thank you very much. |
| 00:05:49.50 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:05:50.05 | David Marlatt | We'll see you at our meeting, PC Agenda meeting on Monday afternoon. Um, public hearing, uh, 15 Gordon Street. This is a case that, uh, applicant who came before, it was ready to come before us at the last meeting, and it was, uh, carried over to this meeting. Um, we have, uh, principal planner, Matthew Mandish, who is opening some file. |
| 00:06:23.60 | Unknown | you |
| 00:06:39.21 | David Marlatt | Those of you on Zoom were just getting the files open. |
| 00:06:48.02 | ACM Phipps | And we have Principal Planner Mandich joining us today to present the item. Mr. Mandich, the floor is yours. |
| 00:06:57.77 | Matthew Mandich | Good evening, commissioners. All right. Yes. So this is an item you saw two weeks ago, gave a pretty thorough presentation on it at that time. So tonight's presentation might be a bit on the briefer side since you've already heard the project, read the materials, and I think are pretty familiar with the case. So I'll just jump right into it. Next slide, please. So location of the property is on Gordon Street, small dead end street in Spring Valley. The site is developed with two condominiums, 15 and 17 Gordon. It is in the R225 two family zoning district and the lot is 5,839 square feet. Next slide, please. So just a quick background, originally constructed as a single-family dwelling in 1951, converted to a duplex in 1978, and then converted into condominiums in 1981 via CUP, known as the Shoemaker Condominium. And here's just a little snippet of the condominium plan there. It was purchased by the current owners, David and Jennifer Cooper, in 2018. The condo at 15 Gordon is a single-story, 815-square-foot condo with a carport, while the condo at 17 Gordon is a two story, 1,915 square foot dwelling space with two car garage. Next slide, please. So the proposed project is requesting a design review permit with heightened review to add 913 square foot second story addition, a 421 square foot exterior elevated deck and a 265 square foot one car garage. These additions will exceed 80% of the printed far and building coverage and therefore require heightened review findings as well. The applicant is also requesting an encroachment agreement, or rather a recommendation on an encroachment agreement for the City Council, for existing improvements in the right-of-way, which include a portion of the structure at 17 Gordon, specifically the bay windows, two parking spaces, planters, an entry stair set, and a portion of a deck at 15 Gordon. Overall, the project seeks to improve the use and value of the existing condominium at 15 Gordon by adding two new bedrooms, one bathroom, a family room office and a living area. The goal is to create two condos of similar size. Next slide, please. So. Just an overview of the site plan here. Here's the existing site conditions on the left and the proposed site plan here on the right. You can see the second story edition outlined here with the deck over the existing first story. Next slide, please. So some elevations again, current situation here, existing proposed, you can see the second story addition here, new garage right here where the carport is right now and a new front door, next slide please. Again, this is looking at the property from the rear. So 17 Gordon on the left 15 Gordon new addition. Second story here. Carport this right here being filled in for the one car garage. Next slide, please. |
| 00:09:46.59 | Mary Wagner | This is Kylie. Sorry, we can't see the, on the PowerPoint on the, uh, video just so that you know. |
| 00:09:54.13 | Matthew Mandich | Oh. |
| 00:09:54.37 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Not sharing the screen or something? |
| 00:09:56.95 | Matthew Mandich | Hmm. Well, let's pause that and sort that out. Thank you very much, Kyle. |
| 00:10:01.37 | Mary Wagner | There we are. Sorry to interrupt you. I apologize. |
| 00:10:11.18 | ACM Phipps | Okay. Attorney, can you confirm that the issue has been resolved on your end? |
| 00:10:17.99 | Mary Wagner | Yes, I can see it now. If the chair could confirm, she can see it as well. That would be lovely. |
| 00:10:22.85 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:10:23.00 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:10:23.04 | Nastassya Saad | I was following along on my own. I can see it on the Zoom meeting as well. Thank you. |
| 00:10:27.92 | ACM Phipps | Do we want to just go back to the last slide or so just to... So it can be I don't know. Yes. Principal planner manager. Let's go here. |
| 00:10:36.56 | Matthew Mandich | I think the background is fine. We don't need to cover that again. So again, here's the site plan, existing site plan here on the left, showing current conditions. New site plan here on the right with the second floor addition and the deck and a garage now covering carport and first floor. Next slide, please. Again, existing from the front of the house, 17 Gordon here, 17 Gordon here on the right, and the addition of the second story and the garage on the left. Next slide, please. Again, this is looking at from the rear. I think we're almost caught up now. 17 Gordon here, 17 Gordon here on the right, and the addition of the second story and the garage on the left. Next slide, please. Again, this is looking at from the rear. I think we're almost caught up now. This is 17 Gordon on the left, 15 Gordon on the right, and the new second story addition with the carport being filled in for the garage. Next slide, please. So looking at it from the side here, this is looking from 9 Gordon over. You can see here's the existing situation on the top with 17 Gordon and the carport right there. 15, this would be the new elevation on that side, enclosed space right here for the garage and the second story edition. And here's a section drawing of what the new edition will look like. Next slide, please. |
| 00:11:42.37 | Matthew Mandich | So floor plans on the bottom floor, the floor plan will remain the same as the new addition will be constructed above and over the roof of the existing structure. The only difference on the first floor is that the carport will be filled in and made into a one car garage. The second floor is the main addition and the main part of this project here. So you can see two bedrooms, a bathroom, stair set, and kind of multi-flex living family area here with the exterior deck in between 15 and 17 cord. Next slide. Here are some images of the property looking at from the street of the story polls. can see right here existing structure of 17 Gordon existing 15 Gordon with the second story edition flag by The story polls here that you see here and here. Next slide, please. So, Walking through our compliance here, the project does comply with all the development standards in the Sossley Municipal Code. Just touching on some of the key things here, the setbacks comply. We actually have one non-conforming setback that will now go to a conforming average setback. The one non-conforming setback, which is only non-conforming due to the length of the building, is on the other side of the property at 17 Gordon, and that condominium is not part of the scope of this project the maximum building height will also not change as the addition is not going above the existing height of the structure which is at 22 feet four inches building coverage as well going from 41 to 47 that's under 50 complies floor ratio going from 51 to 63 that's under 0.65 which also complies but again these are in the 80 above the permitted range so those go to heightened review previous surfaces also complies and the parking complies as well there's two spaces per unit now there will be two spaces per unit and there's also two additional spaces in the right of way that are demarcated as well as another off street parking space in front of 15 gourd Next slide, please. So. Proposed project complains with all objectives zoning development standards for the R2T. zoning district proposed far building coverage and perfect surfaces all complies we just saw just wanted to highlight the setback and you know we talked about this last time sledo has some rather complicated setback language in the municipal code so we have this thing that staff calls the the 40 foot rule where any structure that exceeds 40 feet requires an increased setback due to a city council decision on this several years ago attached structures such as decks also count as part of the structure. So they'll be added to that 40 feet. So while the building wall itself is only 40 feet, seven inches here because of the deck, it's a longer structure. So it requires a more increased setback. It's for every five feet past 40 feet, the setback increases by one foot. So the required setback for this addition is 8.4 or 8 feet 4 inches, excuse me. However, as long as the average setback meets that requirement and less than 50% of the building wall is within the setback, the setback is considered conforming. So we have a setback of 10 feet 3 inches here, 6 feet 8 inches here. Average those out, you get 8.88 and eight feet, five inches, excuse me. And then less than 50% of the building wall encroaches into that required setback. So the setback is indeed compliant on the new addition side. Next slide, please. I just want to reiterate that the height has also been measured accurately from average natural grade, as this is a unified structure of the two condos. The proposed height is actually nine feet below the height limit. If we were calculating solely on 15 Gordon, the height limit would actually go up because the height limit from average natural grade would be slightly higher since there's a higher point of contact. 17, a lower point at 17. So if we were just measuring from the 15 unit, um, the height limit would go up several feet. So Next slide, please. So findings and neighbors concerns, all the required findings for design review and encroachment permit can be made as evidenced in the staff report and the resolution. The immediate neighbors at 804 Spring Street, which is behind the property and 9 Gordon, which is a side property have expressed concerns regarding view impact as privacy, as well as the process of the application. So we'll just touch on those now. Next slide, please. So story polls and noticing, we had an issue last time with noticing that I was not aware of until the hearing. So that was sorted out. We had the notice posted at the site and in three separate places in the city. So we have ticked that box for requirement. The story polls were erected and certified by a licensed surveyor on March 7th. And you can see the letter of the surveyor here and the story poll here. Story polls are marked in one foot increments all the way up to the top here. The neighbor behind has pointed out that one of the stripes on the, uh, increments here is missing, which is, you know, something that the story poll company needs to remedy. However, should not have any material effect on how the commission, uh, decides on this project tonight. The story polls are at an accurate height. They have been certified by a licensed surveyor and they really just serve as an alternate form of noticing, uh, for both commission and applicant, and they are properly placed. So next slide, please. So potential view impact. So these are the photos that I took from the deck of 804 Spring Street. It's unfortunate that we got a letter from the neighbor saying that I took these photos from a different location. However, she was standing right near me when I did take these photos. So these were taken from the deck at 804 Spring, looking out over the vegetation and from a standing position. I will say that indeed. And looking out over the story pole flags here, you can see the Bay view that from the deck, from a standing position, there's a very negligible, if any impact at all in the water view. Next slide, please. So from a seated position on the deck as well, another photo I took from the deck here, and you can see there is more of a minimal view impact of this piece of water right here from a seated position on the deck. Just point out that this structure that we're talking about in this deck right here is only 2.3 feet from the property line. So it's a non-compliant rear setback there to begin with. So very close to the adjacent property. Here is the X location from where I took the photos, out over and here's the x right there again and the view sight line taken from roughly you know five four or five feet above ground level you can see that the top of the roof here is an elevation of 120.9 and the finished floor level right here is at an elevation of 119.9 So the roof is actually only one foot above the finished floor level right here is a, at an elevation of one 19.9. So the roof is actually only one foot above the finished floor level of the neighbor behind the property. And you can see right here again, there's that property line. Next slide, please. Privacy concerns also expressed by 9 Gordon Street. You can see this is the photo sent in by 9 Gordon of their backyard, looking up at the story poles taken from around right here. 9 Gordon, this is 15 Gordon right there. Like to point out that, you know, there is some encroachment of 15 Gordon on to or sorry, on 9 Gordon on to 15 Gordon. This is the fence right here on the side. This fence actually that encroaches a bit onto the property. I'd also like to point out that the addition's been designed to move back and away from the property line. Rather than getting closer, it pulls away as the structure goes back. And this is the bank of windows right here that overlook pretty much in this back area of the house that Gordon has set forward. So next slide, please. I just want to point out, again, here's 9 Gordon, here's 15. 9 Gordon's an interesting situation because they've chosen to terrace out the land to build a two story building, which pretty much arrives at the roof of the carport, which is like an eight foot structure. You can see how 15 Gordon goes up the slope here, whereas 9 Gordon has terraced down and gone down. So it's only natural that they're on a lower topography. They're lower than all of their surrounding neighbor. It's only natural that other sites would look down on them. That's just the way geography and topography work, unfortunately. So next slide, please. So with that staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution approving a design review permit with heightened review and recommending approval of an encroachment agreement for the proposed project that 15 Gordon. The proposed... The project conforms to all the required development standards in the Sassanaly Municipal Code, is in conformance with all the required findings for design review with heightened review and encroachment agreement, excuse me, and the project is of course subject to the conditions of approval attached to the resolution and any additional conditions added by the Planning Commission this evening. So that concludes my presentation and happy to take any questions the commission may have. Thank you. |
| 00:20:10.93 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much, Matthew. Very good presentation, as usual. We'll start with questions from the Commission, Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:20:23.16 | Fred Moore | Again, a great presentation, Matthew. I appreciate the comments by Commissioner Luxembourg about the notice issue, and I appreciate the city going through the extra mile with the noticing to address that hiccup. I think it's important to note that since that time period, we haven't gotten any really new information from new people who were impacted. The same people who were addressing tonight were the same ones we addressed a week ago. So I would say there was clearly no harm, no foul with that situation, but I appreciate all the effort. And as usual, I have multiple questions, but because of your thorough presentation, you answered all of them. So no further questions. |
| 00:21:03.06 | David Marlatt | Thank you, Commissioner. Wow. Someone will take note of that date. Commissioner Junius, no questions. And Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 00:21:11.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for the presentation. I have some questions, but I think they're best asked to the applicant, so I'll hold up. |
| 00:21:18.73 | David Marlatt | All right. Thank you. Yeah, and I as well have no questions. So thank you very much. |
| 00:21:23.32 | Matthew Mandich | All right, well, I guess at that point, we can go ahead and turn it over to the applicant for their presentation. |
| 00:21:27.17 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair, you forgot. Oh, we're so sorry. |
| 00:21:28.79 | Matthew Mandich | Excuse me. I'm sorry. We're so sorry. |
| 00:21:31.64 | Nastassya Saad | That's all right. I'm in the room. Can I just ask one question? Can you pull that? Part of the presentation, one of your last slides there, Matthew, where you were showing 15 Gordon looking over to 9 Gordon or Could you just explain from the plans |
| 00:21:54.58 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:21:54.59 | Nastassya Saad | on that facade of the house of 15 Gordon, like where the window placement or what part of the 15 Gordon plans |
| 00:21:54.80 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:22:02.07 | Matthew Mandich | I think it's the next slide. |
| 00:22:04.31 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry because I don't see the slides again. |
| 00:22:06.36 | Matthew Mandich | Oh, can you not? I think you need to go back to presentation. |
| 00:22:08.23 | Nastassya Saad | I think it's always a sharing issue. Yeah, that's I can see him now, not in presentation form, but we can see him. |
| 00:22:09.06 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. Okay. |
| 00:22:14.76 | ACM Phipps | Is this the crime? |
| 00:22:15.33 | Nastassya Saad | I think it was. |
| 00:22:15.77 | ACM Phipps | client. |
| 00:22:16.23 | Nastassya Saad | I think, yes, this was a slide. You've got those red boxes on the, on the right. |
| 00:22:19.97 | ACM Phipps | You've got to. |
| 00:22:22.57 | Nastassya Saad | Could you just explain from the plans against those story polls, what portion of the house is looking down? I mean, like window placement really is what I'm after. |
| 00:22:36.04 | Matthew Mandich | I think I understand the question here. So Brandon, can we go to the left a little bit just to get the story polls? Yeah. So story polls right here. What we're looking at is the front of the house right here, this corner. So there's the front and the turn right there. So this is the area we're looking at right here. It's in the again, nine Gordon is set very far in front of 15 Gordon. So the extent of the additions are really going to be like right here overhanging this gap. And then moving back and there's a window here, window here and a window here. So there's three windows. Again, the orientation is tilted slightly back and going away from the property line, which this arrow indicates. And so the windows would be set up right here, looking kind of at a diagonal angle across the back. towards this direction. You can't see the pointer, unfortunately. |
| 00:23:26.39 | Nastassya Saad | I think I can understand that from, yeah. |
| 00:23:27.61 | Fred Moore | to understand. Thank you. on the elevation. |
| 00:23:30.98 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, we could do that as well. Yeah, if we want to look back on a couple slides, you can see the photo or the elevations. |
| 00:23:38.29 | Nastassya Saad | Right. |
| 00:23:39.03 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, there you go. Yep, that'll do it. Those are the three windows right there. and view- |
| 00:23:43.22 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:23:43.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's perfect. |
| 00:23:44.92 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, that's much further back and oriented. That would be behind foliage. |
| 00:23:51.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. Thank you, Vice Chair. |
| 00:23:53.95 | David Marlatt | No worries. Okay, yeah, thank you very much. So now we will hear from the applicants. would like to make a presentation. Thank you. Um, If the applicants would like to make a presentation, you have 15 minutes. You can use all or part of the 15 minutes. If you use less than 15 minutes, then you're, Yeah, I can... use the remaining balance of your time as a rebuttal time or any of the any opposition. Thank you. And please state your name and address of the record. |
| 00:24:26.81 | Nora Fry | My name is Nora Fry. I'm the project architect. I'm going to discuss the challenges we faced and the design goals and decisions we made. person. |
| 00:24:37.20 | ACM Phipps | And yeah, please give us a moment to get your presentation up. And we will not start your timer, of course, until the presentation is ready to go. |
| 00:24:39.66 | Nora Fry | Okay. |
| 00:24:45.23 | Nora Fry | Go on, Beth. |
| 00:24:51.16 | Nora Fry | Okay. Here you can see 15 Gordon. The addition is on top of the existing 15 Gordon, and there are 17 Gordon there. The new structure needs to completely bridge over the lower level No new structural lows can be added to the lower level. It needs to remain intact and isolated. Therefore, we need to build above the roof framing of 15 Gordon. And that sets our new second floor level. when part When part of 17 Gordon was added above 15 Gordon, It's also built above the existing roof framing. Here you can see that the new floor levels are almost the same. Next slide, please. |
| 00:25:38.44 | Nora Fry | Next slide, please. Okay. |
| 00:25:44.62 | Nora Fry | This is a board, this is a bit old drawing of 17 Gordon above 15 Gordon. Here you can see the existing roof framing of 15 Gordon and the new framing above that's keeping this entire structure isolated. Next slide, please. This aerial view shows that there's not a lot of space to add on to 15 Gordon which is right here, except up. We are constrained by the hillside lot required setbacks, coverage limits, and parking requirements. Another challenge we faced was minimizing impacts to neighbors. Here you can see 9 Gordon on the left. 804 Spring Street up the hill to the back. and 19, Gordon on the right. Next slide, please. There's a lot of mature landscaping. This is the front of 17 Gordon. Here you can see the roof of 15 Gordon and the top floor of 804 Spring beyond. Next slide, please. This is the west side of 17 Gordon. Here you can see 15 Gordon to the left and the trees here between 15 Gordon and 9 Gordon. Next slide. Here you can see the roof of 15 Gordon looking southeast. The roof of 9 Gordon here is barely visible above the trees. The top floor of 804 Spring Street and the lower floor of 804 behind the bushes. Next slide, please. This landscape plan shows all the existing trees in gray and bushes in green that will remain. The building was cited to preserve the mature trees and shrubs that provide privacy between neighbors. Next slide, please. We also wanted to create as much space between neighbors as possible, while at the same time allowing a buffer space between 15 and 17 Gordon right here. This shows distance between buildings. There's between 27 feet, 7 inches and 29 feet, 7 inches between the two buildings between 804 Spring Street and Gordon. Here to the east we have 16 feet, 2 feet between 9 Gordon and 15 Gordon. And here we have 20 feet, two inches between 17 Gordon and 19 Gordon. There's plenty of light, air, and privacy. Next slide, please. I just wanted to touch on the design process. One thing we considered was adding a small third floor office or studio with decks on each side. This was 22 inches below the height Even though it was small, we thought that it would be too much of an impact. Next slide, please. So we considered a gable roof with vaulted ceilings that was eight foot seven below the height limit, but again, worried it would have too much of an impact. Next slide, please. So we went with a flat roof and thought we may be able to add a deck with see-through glass railings, but again, thought that the framing would have too much of an impact. Next slide, please. So we settled on a flat roof in order to minimize the impact to the greatest extent possible. This is 10 foot 9 inches below the height limit. This is a view of the south side of 15 Gordon facing 804 Spring Street. Nine foot steelings are standard. It's a small space and height adds light, brightness, and makes the space more livable. 17 Gordon has nine foot ceilings and it was built 45 years ago in 1981. It's common now for buildings to have 10-foot ceilings. In fact, the commission approved a project of mine with 10-foot ceilings a few years ago. Next slide, please. Our goal was to minimize impact on the uphill neighbor, and here you can see 15 Gordon is almost entirely below 804 Spring Street. This is a view line overlooking the roof. The standing view is fully preserved with 3.6 feet of sight line remaining clear. Next slide, please. This photo was taken at the rear property line and you can see the flags are below the bushes. This is a large panoramic view of the bay, visible above 17 Gordon to the left and the flags of 15 Gordon to the right. Next slide, please. This photo looking southeast at the property line shows the story bowls below the bushes. Next slide, please. This photo was taken by staff from 804 Spring, and you can see the view of Richardson Bay. The harbor, Tiburon, and the sky is not impacted. Next slide, please. Regarding 9 Gordon and the impact of the addition on their rear patio, Here you can see their patio. Here you can see 804, 802, and five Gordon, all looking directly into their patio. The proposed addition at 15 Gordon will not impose a new condition. Secondly, the views from 15 Gordon's main living space are out towards the water and to the west towards 17 Gordon. There's no couches or desks or any furniture arranged to be sitting and having somebody sitting and looking into the back patio. Next slide, please. This is a photo of the view at the kitchen sink submitted by the resident and I am Gordon. This shows that at least 90% of the view out the window is trees with the fence below. As these trees continue to grow, soon the rest of the addition will not be visible. Next slide, please. 15 Gordon is surrounded on all sides by two to three story buildings. All two-story buildings here. That's almost three, two and two. The Coopers just wanna be able to enjoy a second floor that provides more space and light like all their other neighbors. They're not going to enjoy a third floor. nor a vaulted ceiling or a roof deck. All the mature landscaping will be maintained and will preserve privacy between neighbors. Next side, please. To conclude, this is a challenging project that entails adding a second story on to an existing 75-year-old house that is partially located under 17 Gordon. Thank you. It needs to coordinate structurally and architecturally with 17 Gordon. It is on a hillside with neighbors on three sides whose impacts need to be minimized. What we are proposing is a home that is a full story below the height limit. It complies with the zoning ordinance and meets all the design review findings. The Coopers made multiple sacrifices to fully minimize the impact on neighbors. We request that you approve this project as submitted and as recommended by staff. |
| 00:32:38.61 | ACM Phipps | Okay, I'm going to stop the clock at 7 minutes and 16 seconds. Oh, and excuse me, is this a continuation of that? Understood, Mr. Rivkin. Okay. Yeah. you |
| 00:32:47.62 | Len Rifkind | I will restart. Thank you. Good evening, members of the commission. My name is Len Rifkind. I'm a land use attorney. My office is in San Rafael. And I'm just going to make a few brief comments because I'm sure you've heard from enough attorneys. And I think you got the key information from the architects. So on the next slide there, what you see is all the findings that your commission is supposed to make, all 13 regular findings and the heightened design review findings. and as staff has indicated in its report, staff has indicated commission is supposed to make with all 13 regular findings and the heightened design review findings. And as staff has indicated in its report, staff is recommending that you can make all the findings. And it seems that what we're going to focus on is finding number four, about whether or not there's been a minimization to the alleged view impact to 804 spring. Next slide, please. So what's happening here is we just want to emphasize that This isn't, this isn't the game where you typically get people come in and make a big project and whittle it down over multiple meetings. This is an honest, transparent attempt to get to the design that will work. You saw Miss Fry say, no, we ended up with a flat roof, no vaulted ceilings, no roof deck. We're really trying to minimize it. She emphasized the structure because it's a really old first floor that they have to, If you want to bring the destroy or demolish the first floor, I suppose, get it lower, but that isn't this project. They're trying to keep the original structure that's 75 years old and build a second floor on top of it. And the project as presented is almost 11 feet below the height limit. So I think a lot of effort has been made right now in the project presented to you to minimize the view impacts. Next slide, please. And so of course with this blurry, uh, slide is, is of your, um, the definition of view under the municipal code 10.88.040 and the main point is that view doesn't mean an unobstracted panorama of everything it means that there's going to be some compromise between parties affected by this and and that's exactly what has happened here compromise has occurred next slide please Part of our submittal that we submitted to the commission was my boring letter, but you also got a very detailed exhibit A that was attached. And I can't claim authorship because I didn't do that well in math in school. That's why I'm a lawyer. But you got a lot of geometry and trigonometry in that mathematical proof. And the point to take away from all of that is what it says on this slide basically is that we truly have a one foot difference between the floor plate at 804 at 119.9 and the top roof bridge line, flat roof, is one foot higher, 120.9, and that enables you, if you're standing, to have a 3.6, uh, feet when you're standing on the deck at eight Oh four that you can see over the roof and there's 3.6 feet of clearance. And if you're sitting, it's 1.7 feet there. And so the point being is that whether you're standing or sitting in the living room at 804, you can always see water of Richardson Bay. Next slide, please. And so now just some photos that I think are self-evident. Story polls, as you can see, This is at the property line. And the story poles are below the property line there and below 804 Spring. Next slide, please. This is now, we can see 804 Spring first floor, and you've got some cut bushes. I will make some comments in my rebuttal time. Someone please stop me with two minutes to go. I see I'm running long because I want some rebuttal. So I will stop absolutely with two minutes to go. The point is we we got some trim bushes that are actually on 15 Gordon that enhance the view of 804. Next slide, please. And this is the staff's photo that you've seen multiple times. We think it speaks volumes. And that's it for me. So let's stop. And we would like to reserve the last three minutes for a rebuttal if we need it. Thank you. |
| 00:37:05.14 | ACM Phipps | Great. |
| 00:37:05.32 | Len Rifkind | Great. |
| 00:37:05.66 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:37:05.78 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 00:37:05.89 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:37:05.91 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 00:37:05.96 | ACM Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Irvine. We will stop the clock like the record show with three minutes and six seconds remaining. If the commission is ready to, we can turn to. |
| 00:37:06.08 | Len Rifkind | Thank you, Mr. Ripkind. |
| 00:37:14.13 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 00:37:16.22 | ACM Phipps | questions for |
| 00:37:17.25 | David Marlatt | applicant. |
| 00:37:17.82 | Len Rifkind | Yes. |
| 00:37:18.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:37:18.77 | Len Rifkind | to answer any questions now if you have any. |
| 00:37:20.83 | David Marlatt | Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much. We'll start with Commissioner Luxembourg. And if you ask a hard one, |
| 00:37:28.03 | Len Rifkind | and I have to bring the architect up. |
| 00:37:29.18 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:37:29.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. Thank you. |
| 00:37:30.11 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 00:37:30.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | up. |
| 00:37:30.28 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 00:37:30.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The question for the architect or the owner, I don't think it's a legal question, but if you want to try to answer it, it's up to you. Come on up, Nora. |
| 00:37:42.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So my... I'll wait till you get up. My first question is, pursuant to the landscape plan that you've provided, it appears that all the landscaping to the rear of 15 and 17 Gordon is on the property of 15 and 17 Gordon, not on the abutters. The abutting neighbor in her documentation at 804 Spring Street has indicated that she has had her landscaper trim these shrubs. Do you know if the owner has some sort of agreement with the abutter or what's going on with the landscaping of why she... Is sheet trimming bushes on the property that you're proposing this project? |
| 00:38:26.00 | Nora Fry | Yes, the owner had no knowledge of that, or he never said it was okay. |
| 00:38:31.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the owner had no knowledge that she was trimming those bushes? |
| 00:38:34.49 | Len Rifkind | We don't have any knowledge of who is trimming the bushes. We're not accusing anyone. We just know they were trimmed, but we're not suggesting who did it. We just know that they were. |
| 00:38:42.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm asking if the owner had an agreement with the abutter and I'm hearing if No. |
| 00:38:48.39 | Len Rifkind | you |
| 00:38:48.48 | Nora Fry | Thank you. it. |
| 00:38:48.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:38:49.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, thank you. Second question is, given the privacy concerns that are involved with 9 Gordon Street, would you be amenable for the rec room to use clear story windows in that room rather than the windows on the east side? This wouldn't affect the large windows there on the street side. |
| 00:39:15.46 | Nora Fry | I think we'd have to talk about that. I'm not sure about that. I mean, I'd be in a memo to maybe lower the top plate or something like that. But it's also, it's not only for view, it's for light and the feeling of spaciousness too. So. |
| 00:39:19.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:30.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand that you've got windows all across the front. So if a clear story windows would not reduce the light significantly. |
| 00:39:37.67 | Len Rifkind | Can we put the elevation up so maybe we could be more specific what you're suggesting? |
| 00:39:40.76 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Sure. |
| 00:39:47.59 | ACM Phipps | Yes, happy to. We're just working on that. Give us a moment. |
| 00:39:55.27 | Nora Fry | say 3.2 |
| 00:39:56.59 | Len Rifkind | I think we need some AI over here, not humans, to do this thing. Yeah. |
| 00:40:01.22 | David Marlatt | Hey. |
| 00:40:01.82 | Len Rifkind | kids. |
| 00:40:02.14 | David Marlatt | Yeah. Thank you. Mm-hmm. That was it. You went back. You went past. |
| 00:40:10.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Right there. There we go. There we go. So I'm talking about the those two questions. The second one will deal with the ones in the farther back. But on the right side of the top floor, there are those three windows. I'm suggesting that you move them up to clear story, which means the windows would be in the same location. They just would not be if you were standing, you couldn't see out, but they would be above. And then on the front, you have glass all the way along the whole wall. If you go back to the street elevation. |
| 00:40:46.62 | Nora Fry | goes towards responsible for it. Can you put the floor plan up, A2.2? |
| 00:40:52.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And it's a rec room, by the way, noting. |
| 00:41:02.89 | Nora Fry | Maybe this could be a clear story, to them I think we need to discuss it |
| 00:41:09.20 | Len Rifkind | So can we do this? that we're going to be Commissioner Luxenberg, you're asking a design detail, and it's a very good question, but we would |
| 00:41:12.99 | Michael Kalish | Yeah. |
| 00:41:18.31 | Len Rifkind | need the opportunity to at least have the architect consult with clients, you know, because she can't design on the fly without their approval and, |
| 00:41:26.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand that, but the clients can come up, the owners can come up, or you can do this, or at some point we can take a recess if you want. But anyways, it's a question. It's going to come up. It relates to the findings. Let me go on with the next question then. Next one, would you be amenable, going back to that same facade, those three parts of one window on the back, which is in a bedroom, which also has lots of windows on the backside, to use opaque glass, which just means, you know, a film that means you get the light in, but you can't look out. |
| 00:42:00.53 | Len Rifkind | We understand that. |
| 00:42:02.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, okay. So I'm sure you're going to answer the same question and go back to the owner, but that will come up later. Those are the questions I have. Very true. |
| 00:42:13.96 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you very much. And then I'll go to Chair Saad if you have questions. |
| 00:42:19.77 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, I don't have questions for the album. |
| 00:42:21.37 | David Marlatt | All right. |
| 00:42:21.44 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:42:21.69 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 00:42:21.93 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. |
| 00:42:22.06 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:42:22.10 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:42:23.72 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. And Commissioner Junius, no questions. Commissioner Moore? |
| 00:42:28.63 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:42:28.64 | David Marlatt | Um, |
| 00:42:28.75 | Nastassya Saad | Wow. |
| 00:42:28.97 | Joe Slamovich | of the |
| 00:42:31.60 | David Marlatt | know, I... Yeah, she said no. I asked her. Yeah. Thank you very much. Yeah, I made the mistake last time. So, thank you. Yeah, I don't think I have any questions. I actually do have questions, but they relate more to structure and building code, which is not appropriate here. So I think my questions would have been also regarding minor changes potentially to the facade facing nine Gordon. But I think that Commissioner Luxembourg sort of covered those. So I have no other questions. |
| 00:43:00.15 | Len Rifkind | So we will... take those questions to heart, but I just want to make sure that the commission recalls in in Ms. Fry's presentation how nine, Gordon is surrounded by two story homes on virtually every side and they're Uh, the grade level for the house was lowered for whatever reason that was done probably decades ago. And so, we have the only single story that's not going to be condo in the area. And so I understand the nature of the goal is how do we improve the potential privacy impact by clear story and opaque windows. So we will. take that very seriously and chat and get back to you before this evening's over. |
| 00:43:47.79 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you very much. So now we go to the opposite. I have a comment on the, oh, sorry. until I'm a newbie. Public comment on the applicant's presentation before we ask any of the, any Thank you. opponents to come up and make a presentation. Is there a public comment? Thank you. |
| 00:44:10.97 | ACM Phipps | Thank you very much, Vice Chair, for the opportunity. I have not received any speaker cards for this item that are from folks who are not the applicant. So for those of you who would like to make a comment and who have not had the chance to already speak, yeah, feel free to just raise your hand. No speaker card necessary. Sir, please step forward. |
| 00:44:38.99 | ACM Phipps | You can provide whatever public comment you like, sir. |
| 00:44:39.17 | David Marlatt | You can provide- |
| 00:44:44.29 | ACM Phipps | Yeah. and you'll have three minutes. Please state your name and address for the record. |
| 00:44:50.56 | Michael Kalish | Thank you. Yeah. Michael Kalish. I live in 804 Spring Street. I'm upstairs. I am the 804 Spring Street. So the bottom, the person who lives below, Barbara Gordon, is my mother. And I rent from her. Um, I really don't have much to say. I did meet the attorney and we don't have an attorney or an architect with us. We're just kind of everyday working folks here in Sausalito. But I did have a short chat with the attorney who did say, you know, whatever the outcome is, I mean, they can just build a six-foot wall and block our view and that's the end of it. So I don't know. I don't know if that just means this is for naught or it's a threat, but Not sure how to interpret it. And I don't, so, I mean, all I can say is that I feel a little gaslit about the view. I mean, we enjoy that view every day. And the photo they keep showing off the deck, you know, Sausalito is really cold. So my mother actually, you know, she's 80. She, we never really enjoy the view from outside. I mean, these rare days are wonderful. But we're always just seated on a sofa inside. having coffee. And that's where we enjoy the view. So, you know, all these pictures, you'll see again and again and again, the same photo outside, off the deck. from a person I think it's a good thing. Six foot tall. I just hope you consider one that were kind of undergunned here. Thank you. with that threat. And number two is that the view is a wonderful view. It's one of the things that keep us in Sausalito and really appreciate being here. Thank you. |
| 00:46:20.78 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Looking for additional interested speakers in the chamber through the raising of hands. Seeing none, I'm going to go to the Zoom application, and we'll be calling out speakers in the order in which those hands were raised. I'm going to start with Joe Slamovich. Mr. Slamovich, you'll have three minutes. Please state your address for the record. |
| 00:46:47.26 | Joe Slamovich | Thank you. Yes, we own 9 Gordon Street in Sausalito. Yeah, I have concerns regarding the proposed project and its direct impact on the privacy and livability of our home. The addition of the second story to this existing structure significantly alters the scale and relationship to my property. And all you have to do is look at the story polls in the rear of the house to appreciate the impact. that, you A primary concern is the placement of those second story windows and the resulting direct line of sight into the backyard and living areas. The proposed design introduces an elevated vantage point that would allow clear, unconstructed views into what is currently a very private space. I did want to address the comment that was made earlier. Yeah, there are surrounding properties. But if you're actually coming to our backyard, which I don't think too many of you have been there, In fact, I think it's 804 Spring Street is not even visible because of landscaping on both sides of the property line. So in fact, it is quite a private space. And that kind of brings me to my next point of, in addition, there's no existing meaningful screening material on the east side of elevation, on the east elevation, and nor are there plans to include any landscaping that would mitigate the second story impacts. In fact, the staff report completely ignores, or at best discounts the importance of softening visual impacts to my property. And again, address one more comment that someone made. a shrub. pointed out in the photo saying it'll grow up. That's actually a rose bush and those don't grow. up to cover a second story. And, of course, a deciduous anyway, so you can be seeing right through. um, So just to kind of summarize it really, I'm very concerned about the privacy at impacts from the second story. And I think without any design modifications, I believe the staffs design review findings, numbers seven, nine, and 13 cannot be made as currently proposed. And that's all I have right now. Thanks. |
| 00:49:17.09 | ACM Phipps | Thank you for your comments. Going to the next public commenter with their hand raised. That is Patricia Swenson. Patricia, please state your address for the record. You'll have three minutes. |
| 00:49:36.78 | ACM Phipps | I am asking you to unmute, Trisha. |
| 00:49:42.42 | ACM Phipps | if you're able. |
| 00:49:42.67 | Unknown | I'm sorry. Oh my God. |
| 00:49:43.43 | Patricia Swenson | Thank you. |
| 00:49:43.51 | ACM Phipps | Yeah. |
| 00:49:43.57 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:49:43.58 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:49:43.61 | Patricia Swenson | you Okay, I'm at 812 Spring Street, And I've been a resident for 30 years there. One of the things I wanted to say that I've always enjoyed about Sausalito is the um, rule, if you will, of protecting people's views. And so where I have lived every year, we did all this tree trimming so that everybody could enjoy a view. And, um, When I... I heard about the story polls. I went up to 804 and looked at it and I thought, Well, it's definitely impacting the view there. And so it's not to be taken lightly that people do care about that, given the history of the area and how everybody... cooperates with each other about honoring a view. Is there any way that that Um, ceiling could be lowered by a foot as a compromise or anything like that because The woman that resides in the lower unit there is going to be impacted. It won't be the same again. So, I would just like to see if there's a way to um, have some sort of compromise where it's not quite as drastic, if you will. |
| 00:51:04.61 | ACM Phipps | Thank you for your comments, Patricia. I'm going to go to the next raised hand, Andres Edwards. Please unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes. Welcome. |
| 00:51:15.72 | Andres Edwards | Hi, thank you. I live at 802 Spring, which is next door to 804. And I was actually going to piggyback on what Patty said about about the nine foot ceiling My ceiling is eight feet. And it's an old building, 1960s. building, it's plenty high for me. And that could be definitely a way to to find a compromise. The other thing I wanna say is that we're really talking about perspectives on views. I went over to Um, 8.04 and I was in the living room and I sat in the couch And then I sat in the dining area, but from the couch, you know, it was mentioned earlier that You can see the water. Yes, you can see part of Richardson Bay, but part of it is blocked. And that's the impact because what really matters is the view of the water. The rest is land and ceilings. But the way when I sat there and looked out, I noticed that part of the water is blocked by this. So, um, I think that's really important to keep in mind. And it's not about standing, it's about sitting, because that's where you enjoy the view from inside, as was mentioned earlier. And if there is a way to compromise on the height to make it eight feet, or somewhere lower that that could be a way to work with it. But I just really want to point out that In my experience, having been there, And I'm six feet, so I, you know, higher when I sit up. I did notice that it impacts the view. And, you know, you can show photos till the cows come home. But what really matters is that when you personally go there and sit down and see what impact it has. And that was my experience. Um, That's all I have to say. |
| 00:53:11.31 | ACM Phipps | Thank you for your comment. I am seeing no additional raised hands in the Zoom application to support a final opportunity. I'm going to give members of the public the last chance. I think a couple hands there. Oh, excuse me. My comment was in connection with the Zoom application. If we have new speakers in the chamber who'd like to make public comment, I'm happy to go back to the chamber. Yes, ma'am. Please step forward. You'll have three minutes. Please state your address for the record. |
| 00:53:38.57 | Vanessa Jung | My name is Vanessa Jung and I live on in 804 Spring Street. above. Ms. Barbara Gordon. I am her daughter in law and obviously I'm here to speak on her behalf. Much has already been said about the agenda, so I'm just going to cut straight to the chase in terms of the facts that I wanted to speak to at hand. Thank you. You know, the story polls itself, we've kind of, you know, talked about at length, but in staff's own representation on the slide around the story poll specifically, we do see one glaring omission. that contributes to this idea of accuracy. We trust that the story polls are accurate. but in terms as a means of initial contact and communication, we expected better demarcation better contrast between the markers because they were not evident nor were they clear. beyond the accuracy, what I want to speak specifically to is around this idea of community and neighborliness, The polls for the first notice that essentially we, Ms. Gordon, ourselves as the tenants and Mr. Slamovich, as I've heard, received that this project existed at all. Learning afterward that other neighbors had already previously been consulted prior to the timeline that is required by the Planning Commission and Committee. Well, we were not. frankly, is an omission that is probably costing everyone time in conflict that could have been avoided in the first place. But now that we're here, I want to speak to a couple of things around some of the factual evidence that's thus far been presented, specifically to the photography presented by staff, as well as what's been generated in public comment by their attorney, Leonard Rifkin. I want to speak specifically to a statement that he makes where he says that, quote, the photographs from 804 Spring Street, this is somewhere on page two of his public comment letter, that three simultaneous choices had to have been made. Number one, moving 12 feet back from the door. Number two, lowering the camera to 40 inches above the floor. And three, applying a telephoto zoom. And that none of those, quote, applying a telephoto zoom. And that none of those, quote, reflect the normal occupancy experience of someone living in that home. And that's what I want to focus on my remaining time. So let me take these one at a time. The telephoto lens, I can tell you there was none. We do not own the equipment or a digital SLR. We do not own the lens. It was simply taken with an iPhone without a pinch zoom. What you see is what the iPhone represents, which we know isn't actually optically correct, but it is one representation to communicate to you the impact that we, that Barbara, is personally experiencing. The photos that staff submitted are technically part of the property, but again, are not taken from areas that people normally traverse. Not only that, what Mr. Rifkin has essentially done has triangulated Barbara Gordon's couch position. Primary living space of an 80 year old woman who, like the Coopers, want to agent to Sausalito as well. My ask is that the commission asked to compromise. |
| 00:56:41.74 | ACM Phipps | Thank you very much for your comment. Thank you. And thank you for being here. to the chamber for any last interested speakers who were not called upon previously. OK, seeing none, I'm going to look to the Zoom application for one final time. |
| 00:57:00.81 | ACM Phipps | Signan. Thank you. Vice Chair, back to you. |
| 00:57:04.22 | David Marlatt | Thank you. And so now I believe the applicants have three minutes and some seconds remaining to comment on the comments. |
| 00:57:18.63 | Len Rifkind | Thank you for allowing me the rebuttal time period here. So look. I know this is a hard job when you're the commission and you got neighbors fighting with each other, with each other about this sort of thing. I can assure you that the applicant, through their architect and the direction by the owners to their architect, have truly tried to do everything they can to minimize the potential view impacts. And that's precisely what your code says. You heard one speaker say, the rule of Sausalito is preserve the view. No, that is not the rule. The rule is minimize the impact. That is what the law is. No one is entitled to a panoramic view of whatever they had at all times. And so that's not the case. And I wanna illustrate that. If we could go to slide 27, I think. Yeah, 27, please. I'm just going to briefly stop the timer while we bring that up. Thank you while you try to find it. I appreciate that, Brandon. Thank you. |
| 00:58:39.73 | Len Rifkind | I think it's the next slide perhaps. I think there's numbers, I want number 27. |
| 00:58:46.40 | Andres Edwards | So, |
| 00:58:46.48 | Len Rifkind | that need. |
| 00:58:46.79 | Andres Edwards | That looks like 27. |
| 00:58:48.98 | Len Rifkind | I don't know. Go. Keep going. Keep going, keep going. And... There. Yeah. Good. Okay. Start the clock again. Thank you. So what this is, this is a 2014 picture from the realtors, you know, on MLS or whatnot. And this is the view from the upper story of eight Oh four spring. And what I want to illustrate in this picture is you can see how much landscaping there's almost, I mean, from this thing, it looks just below the deck. uh, level. And so, uh, presumably the first floor of 804 would have a lot more landscaping. Next slide. This picture is also from circa 2014. And as you can see, they're taking a picture of the living towards the sliding doors. And most realtors, if there's a view, they're going to take a picture of you. And I do not see a view in this photograph. Next slide, please. This is a picture looking up at 804, upper story you see, and the lower story covered in bushes. And this picture was taken, as the slide indicates, on March 26, 2024, or a little over a year ago. Bushes. Next slide piece. And this is a more recent picture, and as you can see, very well trimmed. shrubbery, and you've heard staff say that 804 is approximately two feet to three feet from the property line. So all that shrubbery is not on 804 is the point. And what we are here about is to hope not to hope, but to direct the commission that we request that you make the findings based upon the substantive evidence before you. We think you can make all 20 of them, 13 regular and seven heightened. This whole view issue, the key takeaway is that in fact, whether you're standing or sitting, at 8.04 on the first floor, you can still see Richardson Bay. Absolutely, some bay is going to be somewhat blocked with this, but Your job is to determine whether or not the design was created to mitigate that impact. And I think you'll conclude that it was. Thank you very much for your attention. |
| 01:01:15.36 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. So now if there's no other public comment, we'll bring it up to the dais for discussion. Who would like to get us started? at everybody all at once. Commissioner Duggenberg? Okay. |
| 01:01:33.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, I analyzed this. First of all, I visited 804 Spring Street, sat on the couch, sat on the deck. I mean, stood on the deck, stood in the living room and the kitchen. I also went in the backyard of 9 Gordon Street. And so the perspective is very different from the backyard than it is from the street. So did that as well. So I see our job here in four key areas, height, setback, the view, impacts and privacy. On height, I think I understand the calculations of the average height and all of that. So this building could be higher. And so from a height calculation zoning point of view, I'm OK with making the findings on height. On setback compliance through our elaborate 40-foot analysis, there are various ways to look at it, but it is making the setback from 9 Gordon Street larger, but it is close. It is very close. It is very tall, given the slopes. But I think the setback issue is okay from a setback point of view, but I would address that from privacy point of view. I'll get to that in a minute. From the view impacts at 804, I asked the question about the landscape because when I was there, the story polls are in the landscape. So yes, there's some impact when you sit on the couch, but yes, there's some impact when you sit on the couch. You can see, but you can still see the water above that, even sitting down. And we don't, people aren't entitled to panoramic views. So I can make the findings on the view boxes, especially since those plants are going to grow. And they're not, if the plants were on the Spring Street property, I might have a different view on that. But given that they're on this property, and they do block the view a little bit now, and I know I understand they're trimmed from time to time. So I can make the findings related to that. And I mean, one solution would be to take a foot out of the height, but I don't know that through the codes and the findings, we can justify that. On the privacy issue, however, there is a huge impact from the rec room down into this backyard. The other properties that are talked about are farther away. And I think it's totally reasonable to add a condition that those three windows become clear story. They have glass all out the front. It's a rec room, which I'm sure on times will be darkened for TVs or whatever. And so clear story there would make total sense to me. And I would find it difficult to make design review number nine or heightened design review number seven without changing those to clear stories. With regard to regard to the bedroom windows again there's windows out the back, I think opaque surface on that one window set would would still bring the light in wouldn't be a problem. There is landscaping there, but when you're back there, you can see through the landscaping. So that one is, I'm on the border of whether I can make the findings on that one. I do think the OPEG thing is a reasonable thing to do, and I don't know why somebody wouldn't want to be looking down into somebody's patio that's only a few feet away. Anyway, so those are the issues I see at this point. I give it back to them. |
| 01:05:28.58 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. Chair Saad, would you like to? Questions or comments? |
| 01:05:34.18 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, thank you. vice chair and thank you commissioner luxembourg because i think we're in similar feelings here i mean the height the height situation I can make the findings on the height, given the fact that there is room to grow. I do want to acknowledge the 804 abutter and neighbor, I did have a chance also to visit previously for the prior hearing. And I do understand I do understand the general concern, but I do think that the. Uh, the code does allow for so much more height that it does seem like a compromise as it stands today. currently to be where it is and where it's been settled. I'd be, hesitant to have a one foot reduction up here on the dais to throw that back unless unless there's some form of a continuance. I don't want to put a condition in there. At this time for them to reduce height without them having an opportunity to at least look at. what that does to the rest of their plan. So I'm just going to throw that on the table. I'm not opposed to it, but not as a condition of to force the one foot height. Commissioner Altsenberg, I completely agree with your concept on the privacy and the windows. I think that's actually an excellent solution because it's a bit of a win-win for the neighbor. And I don't see that having a detrimental impact for the applicant. So So that's where That's where I am at the moment, Vice Chair. Thank you. |
| 01:07:19.70 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:07:25.96 | Fred Moore | I don't want to belabor the point or repeat what's already been said, but the height setback in view, I think, are very easy to make the findings with respect to the privacy issues. Um, Again, we have two homeowners here. And the obligation with state law regarding privacy, light and air. I personally don't have a problem making the findings regarding privacy as the plan submitted. So I would be inclined to move forward with the plans as submitted. |
| 01:07:55.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. And Commissioner Junius. |
| 01:07:57.34 | Andrew Junius | you chair um i i think we're all there on the height i i would like to again just emphasize the point i think one of the public speakers talked about a rule about views yeah we don't have a rule about views we have a rule about a height limit and the height limit here is 10 feet taller than the building that's being proposed so Um, To Chair Saad's point, I think all the concessions about height have been already made. It sounds like we're probably in agreement here, although we have one architect on the commission, so I can't wait to hear the vice chair's comments as well. Um, Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, the rule about heights is this finding number four, and it talks about reasonable views and, you know, et cetera. And I think the attorney for the applicant, you know, made a number of really good points. So I'm certainly there on that. I'm definitely in Commissioner Moore's camp about the privacy similar to the finding regarding height. the finding we're supposed to make has to do with a reasonable level of privacy. So if the applicant was presenting to us a glass wall that was, you know, floor to ceiling looking over somebody's yard. You know, that's a bit excessive. But these seem like pretty traditional windows on both the bedroom and the rec room or whatever the other room is. don't seem that large um you know i'm reluctant to uh push a design element in that direction although it does seem significantly smaller issue than the height issue But I would like to hear what the vice chair has to say about the privacy issue. Those are my comments for now. Thanks. |
| 01:09:40.51 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Well, starting with the view, I think I join the majority here that the notion of reasonableness is what prevails. And there is perhaps from a seated position, 12 feet inside the room, some impact. I noted that the impact of the railing itself is greater than the impact of the flags in that particular view. And the notion again, that had they taken all the measures reasonably, that we could reasonably expect to minimize it. I, and I can make that finding. Um, I'd also note to the idea of lowering the ceiling to eight feet, uh, just the sense of proportions, because the rec room is pretty large, and so an eight feet, eight foot ceiling in a 12 by 12 bedroom or a 12 by 14 bedroom may seem perfectly generous, but in such a large rec room, I don't think we want to dilute or weaken the design by lowering the ceiling. So I have no problem with the findings. Number four, as with the current design. Number nine, I'm a little bit ambivalent about it. I think I'm surprised actually that the applicant doesn't want to make some sort of clear story window or measure. There's three very large windows looking out from a bedroom wouldn't they want to do something for their own privacy so i'm a little bit surprised about that um i don't know if i feel strong enough that to make it a condition i'd take other people's input on that um but there is plenty of glass on the other surfaces there's no view out that side per se more opportunity for furniture, for rec room furniture, if they would raise the sill up to even five feet or something like that. I would think it would be something that they would want to do, but I'm a little bit ambivalent about whether I want to impose it. And those are my only two comments. Otherwise, the general proportion and layout, you know, it's obviously it's sort of the twin to 17. Placing the deck in the center between the two buildings is a clever way of making it one building appear as two buildings, so that respects the overall neighborhood scale. So I thought that was a good move. That was something to be. uh thankful for so the overall massing no one's really talked about that but i think they've done a good job of articulating the mass obviously 15 matches 17 in terms of its overall style which may not be the style that everyone likes, but that's fine. It's consistent and, you know, well executed. I think those are my only comments. |
| 01:12:04.42 | Andrew Junius | I'm going to make motion that we approve the project as proposed with no changes. |
| 01:12:04.45 | David Marlatt | I'm going to go ahead and make that. |
| 01:12:05.11 | David Marlatt | Bye. |
| 01:12:09.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would like to amend that motion to add two conditions. One is to put clear story windows in the rec room, and one to put opaque glass in the bedroom number two, both of these on the east side facade. |
| 01:12:26.49 | Andrew Junius | and I'm not going to accept those. In terms of the Roberts Rules of Order, do I get a second first before he asks me to amend? Does anybody have a second of my motion? A second. |
| 01:12:28.75 | Fred Moore | So. |
| 01:12:34.49 | David Marlatt | I'll say. Yeah. |
| 01:12:35.57 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 01:12:35.64 | David Marlatt | And then do we have a second to the proposed modification to the motion. Thank you. |
| 01:12:41.05 | ACM Phipps | or something. |
| 01:12:41.24 | David Marlatt | or |
| 01:12:41.75 | ACM Phipps | It is. |
| 01:12:41.76 | David Marlatt | it. |
| 01:12:41.80 | ACM Phipps | is- |
| 01:12:41.95 | David Marlatt | See you. |
| 01:12:41.97 | ACM Phipps | Is that an alternative motion? |
| 01:12:43.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I will make it an alternative motion, because obviously the maker of the motion. So this is an alternative motion with those two changes if I get a second. |
| 01:12:51.77 | David Marlatt | OK. So is there a second for the alternative motion? Second, the alternative. So we need to make a decision on the alternative before we can... Correct....deal with the main motion. |
| 01:13:02.60 | Fred Moore | Well, first we'd have further discussion, right, on the... |
| 01:13:04.60 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. Yes, we got further discussion of alternative motion. |
| 01:13:08.71 | Fred Moore | Again, I think that the, I believe the issue of the finding that the alternative motion is relying on is number nine. And I think the finding says it's a reasonable level of privacy in consideration of a bunch of things. The adjacent properties, it's surrounded by properties. Where Sausalito, all the setbacks are very tight. This particular setback with the angled building increases the setback in the back portion of the building where the majority of the windows are. Also, the density of the neighborhood. Again, everybody's compact here. The landscaping, fencing, and windows. I just don't think this... building design is an unreasonable expectation of invasion of privacy. Again, privacy, you're not guaranteed privacy under state law. So this is a finding that we have to make So we don't violate state law and it's couched in the term of reasonable. So I think these windows are a reasonable expectation if I was the adjacent neighbor, so I would advocate of not approving the alternative motion. |
| 01:14:12.53 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:14:12.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:14:14.10 | David Marlatt | And, Go ahead. |
| 01:14:16.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Uh, so I, again, I think the, uh, clear store, I think is definitively, uh, reasonable. It's a rec room. Uh, I don't know that they would want to be looking down into that patio. I can understand that on the back, uh, bedroom window. I don't know why they want people to look through the landscape, but there is landscape there. So I could revise the motion to do. take out the bedroom number two, but I think the clear story is more than reasonable. And I think it's a benefit to the applicant. I had wished that the applicant, the owner would have come up and answered the question, whether they would consider it, because I think it's actually a benefit to them. They're going to have plenty of light in that room. But I think this is a reasonable, the clear story, especially is a reasonable accommodation and would benefit both parties. But anyways, that's where I'm at. |
| 01:15:11.49 | David Marlatt | Thank you. And Chersad, on that? Alternate motion. |
| 01:15:15.73 | Nastassya Saad | Well, the alternative motion, I still stand by the second with both of Commissioner Lux and Brooks original points on both on all sets of windows. I... there's a looming aspect for This edition to the neighbor and it is close quarters, but It is, nothing exists today. There might be homes all around, but nothing is adjacent to them. today in the way that it will be when this is built. This is a chance to get in front of a little bit of softening to something that is going to be a new construction. that isn't there today. I don't think it's relevant that there are other homes around right now, that's the existing state of the area. We're only talking about the new in my opinion. this new addition. So with that in mind, that is going to create different aspect and it just I think those clear story. It just makes perfect sense to me. I stand by the second if, if Commissioner Luxenberg, if you're keeping your motion the same for all the windows, if you're making an amendment to your amendment, let me know. Uh, but I, I stand behind the second for your original. |
| 01:16:41.86 | David Marlatt | Maybe before we take on that question, I'd actually like to ask the applicant, because I believe Ms. Sir Lufkin had said that they would consult regarding the earlier comments about the privacy. And has there been any, and I saw you chatting, |
| 01:16:57.54 | Nastassya Saad | And if there is, can they come to the microphone, please? Just to answer the question, not get into discussion. |
| 01:17:01.52 | Andrew Junius | I should not get into the sky. Well, yeah, let's keep the discussion going before we all agree to a recess here. |
| 01:17:08.44 | Len Rifkind | Well, anyway, the point is, is we have been tried to be polite and listen to what's happening here. So we truly haven't had a chance to meet and confer to discuss it in detail. The architect has some ideas that she needs to convey to her clients. And so I want to see if. the alternative motion is going to carry or not, and then whether the original motion carries And then if it does, then we're done. If not, We'll have some. we should take a break and let us have a discussion. That's what I suggest. |
| 01:17:41.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:17:41.82 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:17:41.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 01:17:41.95 | Len Rifkind | All right. |
| 01:17:42.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | um, |
| 01:17:42.64 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 01:17:42.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:17:42.97 | Fred Moore | To... To be recess. |
| 01:17:44.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would suggest we recess too, but I just want to correct one thing for the record before we recess. There was a comment made that this is setback farther than the existing project, existing conditions right now. And although the setback has increased, right now there's a carport there. Now we're putting not only a building, but we're putting a second story up going 20-some feet. So this is not... This is having an impact that the current carport it doesn't have i mean somebody drives in the car and it's there but that's it's a totally different kind of scenario anyways but i would be in favor of allowing a recess uh so that we don't have to have a continuance to a further meeting a couple weeks from now so i'm okay with the recess |
| 01:18:32.56 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:18:32.58 | David Marlatt | Thank you. I would really like to avoid a continuous. |
| 01:18:36.05 | Andrew Junius | Exactly. And before we, just another comment, just to keep this conversation going. Again, I'm curious what the architect is going to say about why the windows are there and whatever. Windows allow for light. Windows can be covered with window covering so that, you know, if you don't want to look out the window, you don't have to. But light comes through the window. Windows can also be opened. for ventilation. And so that I believe these are south facing. This is the south facing elevation or generally south facing. A lot of sun from the south. You know, a lot of breeze from the South. Again, I just don't understand why we'd be, you know, messing with the design that the architect has come up with when the expectation and the finding we have to make is about a reasonable level of privacy, and these windows certainly don't exceed that, in my opinion. |
| 01:19:21.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and the Can I just add a comment? It's for the architect. I'm not suggesting that the windows can't open. I'm suggesting clear story windows. You can open clear story windows. And I'm not suggesting that the opaque windows can't open either. So I'm not. So I don't think this is a openable window issue because I actually. |
| 01:19:44.65 | Andrew Junius | I actually do think it's an opal. You know, the fact of the matter is I'm pretty sure clear-steering windows are high. They're small. They're allowing lighting to the ceiling. That's not the same as opening a nice big window on the side of your house to get a nice breeze through. I'm pretty confident of that. So, again, I'm sticking to the fact that I don't think we need to make any changes, but probably a good time for recess. Thank you. |
| 01:20:03.52 | David Marlatt | Yeah, I think so. So I'll just say I'm hoping that we can avoid this whole alternate motion by some reasonable... that we can all consolidate around, but if we can do that with a five minute recess, we're all in favor. |
| 01:20:18.03 | Len Rifkind | just get some clarity on the procedure here, the Robert's Rules of Order or whatever's happening here that We have a motion, alternative motion, Are they supposed to rule on the alternative motion? And if it's and if it's denied, then the original motion can be heard before we have this recess. So I'm just asking a question about |
| 01:20:35.97 | ACM Phipps | supposed to go. Appreciate the question. I will defer to our city attorney present this evening, Attorney Otto. |
| 01:20:44.03 | Mary Wagner | Robert's Rules of Order would have you rule on the alternative motion first, and then exactly what the attorney said, if that fails, then the first motion is then ruled upon by the commission. What I'm hearing the commission say is they'd like a brief recess at this moment to allow the applicant to confer. I don't know that that necessarily dictates whether or not they take their motions now or not, they're asking for a recess. So that's definitely within the purview of the commission. the applicant does not know. need to, of course, commit one way or the other before the commission rules. That's, there's nothing that requires an applicant to agree to a modification of a condition before the commission rules. The commission's decision is, of course, the commission's decision. But, Everything you're doing is within the council's purview or commission's purview. I apologize. But, the attorneys correct that he doesn't necessarily need to commit to anything to get you to make a decision. Does that answer every question? |
| 01:21:48.02 | Andrew Junius | Bye. And it sounds like we can have the recess now if we want, or we can vote now and have the recess later, but probably a recess now. |
| 01:21:53.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, |
| 01:21:53.91 | David Marlatt | I would move to a five-minute recess. Yeah, agreed. So it's 8.55, so we'll be back at, or 7.55, sorry. |
| 01:22:03.06 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:22:03.28 | David Marlatt | Be back at eight o'clock. and we are now back in session. Um, And so the applicant will approach the dais and Mr. Rifkin. Thank you. |
| 01:22:22.04 | Nora Fry | Um, Can you put up A2.2, Matthew? 8242? And then A3.2, please. |
| 01:22:32.22 | ACM Phipps | Just want to confirm that that's okay with the vice chair. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. |
| 01:22:39.49 | Nora Fry | So we can do this, A3.2. So my client agrees to do opaque windows in the bedroom, which is in the back. A clear story window, that awning window there with a five foot sill height. And then we would like to leave the two windows in the front as is, because if you look at the floor plan on A2.2, Well, one, you can see the proportions, but secondly, if you can bring up A2.2, |
| 01:23:20.84 | Nora Fry | You can see the building 9 Gordon. So the very front window on the east side It's actually a bank of window that goes along the front of the house and then goes along the deck. Sorry. So this is all one big system here, and that's why the furniture's like that. So I would like to leave that window and leave this window as is because they're all working together. The proportions are the same. This window could be a clear story and that can be opaque. |
| 01:23:55.14 | Nora Fry | Thanks. |
| 01:23:55.18 | Nastassya Saad | So that's our compromise. |
| 01:23:56.19 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 01:23:57.79 | Nastassya Saad | Very, very selfishly. I'm sorry, just because I'm on the screen. Can you just point those out one more time with the cursor for me? |
| 01:24:04.29 | Nora Fry | I think I can say one more thing. Um, Number nine, my clients have lived here for 10 years and what they see going on. If you can see the site plan, I'm sorry. The aerial view of one of my slides, I don't remember it. |
| 01:24:22.77 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:24:22.92 | Nora Fry | Thank you. |
| 01:24:22.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:26.77 | ACM Phipps | And while that's happening, I wanted to just clarify that it seemed like the chair was trying to say something. Please. |
| 01:24:33.33 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry. Could you just please reuse the cursor to point out the windows that the architect just noted that the compromise is on one more time for me, please? |
| 01:24:46.51 | Nora Fry | Right here. That's going to be a clear story and will be opaque. |
| 01:24:49.28 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. |
| 01:24:53.60 | Nora Fry | Can you bring up my slide three, please? |
| 01:25:00.30 | Nora Fry | Yes, please. |
| 01:25:05.55 | ACM Phipps | Vice Chair, is that OK with you? Yes. OK. |
| 01:25:20.77 | Nora Fry | Okay. One of the reasons why my clients don't want to give up these two windows is because there's no windows on this and it's a solid wall, and that They live there and they know that the owners of, the occupants of 9 Gordon use this back as a parking lot. They've never seen anybody sitting and enjoying the back patio. |
| 01:25:49.96 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:25:53.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was in that patio. There is no possible way you can get a car in there. It has a step up. to go down into that patio, how could they possibly get a car in there? That's just not incorrect information. |
| 01:26:10.11 | Nastassya Saad | I think we should bring it back to the vice chair. |
| 01:26:11.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to the house in the parking lot, they don't park it in the patio. There are steps to go into the patio. You can't physically get into that space. I was there this morning. |
| 01:26:23.61 | Nora Fry | I think we offered a compromise. |
| 01:26:25.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand, but I don't want to have incorrect information on that. You indicated that you can put a car into that patio. You can't. |
| 01:26:37.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You can't. I just don't want incorrect information on the record. |
| 01:26:43.37 | Nastassya Saad | I think vice chair, I think we should we have the compromise. I think we should bring it back up and stop the discussion with the applicant. |
| 01:26:47.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | SHOWING THEM. |
| 01:26:50.32 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:26:51.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:26:51.52 | Matthew Mandich | Like, |
| 01:26:51.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can answer that, but if not, I'll defer it. I would like an answer, but it's up to the rest of the commission. But I also want to go back to the... I want to understand exactly what the compromise is. So I want to see the photographs. |
| 01:27:02.27 | David Marlatt | I think I understand the compromise. And I don't know if we've closed this question about parking or not parking. |
| 01:27:06.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And let's say we don't really need to talk about parking. I just want to get on the record you can't park in that patio. But I would like to go back to the drawings and understand which window... |
| 01:27:16.88 | Unknown | Which window? A 3.2. |
| 01:27:18.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You can't really, couldn't really, I want you to zoom in so I can understand which windows you're in. Are you suggesting that that window that's already higher is going to go even higher? You're suggesting it already is a clear story window? |
| 01:27:33.98 | Nora Fry | A 3.2. Um... It's an elevation. So... |
| 01:27:42.74 | Fred Moore | I'm not sure. |
| 01:27:42.99 | Nora Fry | Thank you. |
| 01:27:43.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:43.07 | Nora Fry | Thank you. |
| 01:27:43.11 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:27:43.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:43.14 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:27:43.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:43.18 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:27:43.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:43.98 | Nora Fry | I thought it was easier to show you the elevation. |
| 01:27:44.02 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 01:27:46.40 | David Marlatt | Yeah, I think you need to. |
| 01:27:49.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:50.16 | Nora Fry | A3.2 is easier to show. Sorry. |
| 01:27:55.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'd like to go back to that drone. I'd like to go back to that drone. |
| 01:27:59.04 | Nora Fry | Okay. And, This window can have a five foot sill |
| 01:28:05.67 | David Marlatt | Right. What is the current still hide for that window? |
| 01:28:06.21 | Nora Fry | What's the I believe it's two or three. |
| 01:28:10.90 | David Marlatt | OK. Probably three, but okay. |
| 01:28:14.21 | Nora Fry | Probably some very... |
| 01:28:15.19 | David Marlatt | Okay, so it's looking free to... |
| 01:28:15.59 | Nora Fry | This would be opaque, and I would We would like to leave these as is. |
| 01:28:19.93 | David Marlatt | I think that's, |
| 01:28:20.48 | Nora Fry | And the reason being because in the floor plan, you can see that they don't really overlook the back patio because the house is there. If you go on to, a um 2.2 you can see the outline of the building nine gordon A 2.2. Right there. That's all, 9 Gordon. And keep in mind, I'm not showing on this plan the existing trees that are back there, but this really doesn't look in there at all. This... you know, like I said, all the furniture is here. Their main view is out towards the bay. and right here. So this is just to keep the proportions right. And the look of the house, not, they're not going to be standing there looking down into somebody's patio. |
| 01:29:08.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the window that you want to go from two foot now to five feet. |
| 01:29:13.37 | Nora Fry | But that's going to have a five foot sill. That's what we're proposing. |
| 01:29:19.21 | Nora Fry | I'm not, I have to definitely. |
| 01:29:20.66 | David Marlatt | I think it was a three foot sill, but it would, the sill would rip. |
| 01:29:25.34 | Nora Fry | Thank you. |
| 01:29:25.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This is one window and this is one. |
| 01:29:27.98 | Nastassya Saad | We can't hear Commissioner Luxembourg. |
| 01:29:28.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Blutz and the Vice President. |
| 01:29:30.64 | Nastassya Saad | on the, We can't hear, Zoom cannot hear Commissioner Alex. |
| 01:29:34.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I? You're several feet away. So, so my, my question is I understand what you're saying about the first, the window that's closest to the street. I get that one, but the other one seems to be exactly in line when I was out in that patio is exactly, exactly in line with that patio, that other window. And if you're telling me that one window is two feet off the ground, then this window is going all the way to the ground. Is that correct? I can tell you, no, it doesn't. |
| 01:30:11.99 | Nora Fry | I think that window is three foot six off right now. |
| 01:30:14.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. That one, the shorter one or the bigger one? |
| 01:30:18.04 | Nora Fry | This shorter one's three foot This shorter one is 3 foot 6 off. |
| 01:30:22.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you're suggesting the three foot six is gonna go to five feet. |
| 01:30:26.78 | Nora Fry | That's correct. |
| 01:30:27.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And the other one, which is two feet off the ground now, is you want those both to stay. The one that's directly opposite the paddy. |
| 01:30:36.62 | Nora Fry | because this is all a whole system, and this is a large space. |
| 01:30:41.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | When you say a whole system, what do you mean by... they aren't big windows? |
| 01:30:42.49 | Nora Fry | So, |
| 01:30:47.53 | Nora Fry | What I mean is that this inside the space was designed so this is all one area here. |
| 01:30:54.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:30:54.76 | Nora Fry | It's not going to work right architecturally if this window jumps out. |
| 01:31:00.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I understand the one closest to the street. Tell me about this other one, which doesn't seem to be part part of that area whatsoever. |
| 01:31:08.02 | Nora Fry | Well, it really was. |
| 01:31:08.80 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's the one I'm concerned about. |
| 01:31:10.16 | Nora Fry | It really is part of this whole area. And I do feel like we just made a compromise to raise this sill up to five feet and to have opaque windows back there. |
| 01:31:18.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It's not about compromise. It's about the reality of somebody looking down. It's not a it's not a negotiation. It's. |
| 01:31:26.45 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Luxembourg, I think we... |
| 01:31:26.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Michigan or Luxembourg, I think we could |
| 01:31:28.47 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, I think I think we've I just want to not sorry, vice chair to take over for just a sec. I want to make sure that we're all I know I'm having a hard time because of Zoom. I think I'm clear. from the drawings on what windows we're talking about. Can we just do a quick gut check with everyone? Does everyone understand what's being presented by the applicant? |
| 01:31:48.67 | David Marlatt | I'm confident that I understand of the four windows, they're proposing modifications to two of them. There would be what they call opaque class, probably the mean translucent, in the bedroom, and the spacing, the sill in that window in the middle section near the table from three foot, six to five foot, and then no changes on the two windows that are closer to Gordon. So that's what I do to add as well. |
| 01:32:13.70 | Andrew Junius | And that's what I understand as well. And I'm very supportive of that if the applicant |
| 01:32:15.08 | David Marlatt | I'm not. So my, if we can, my question basically is to go back to the maker of the alternate motions. |
| 01:32:22.71 | Nora Fry | Translucent frosted? |
| 01:32:24.90 | David Marlatt | Frosted, yeah, frosted. |
| 01:32:26.76 | Nora Fry | Okay. |
| 01:32:27.10 | David Marlatt | Yes, I think we're all same thing. |
| 01:32:27.11 | Nora Fry | Thank you. |
| 01:32:30.13 | David Marlatt | Um, but, um, so that's my question, I guess, then for the maker of the alternate motion, cause that's what we're still debating, whether he feels like this is a reasonable, um, middle ground position that he would like to modify his alternate motion. Otherwise, we'd have to vote on the alternate motion as it was made and seconded. |
| 01:32:47.75 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Based on this information, I would modify my alternative motion to indicate that the windows in the rec room, the one window would be moved from three and a half feet off the ground to five feet off the ground. I would indicate that the front window be left as is, but I would continue in the motion that the middle window, which is the one I was most worried about from the get-go, be a minimum of five feet off the ground. Also, to architecturally match the other window on the backside. So we would have two windows that were the same, and then that window that's in the front, which seems to be part of this architectural idea that wraps it around, would stay the same. So I would modify my motion and would hope that the person in second motion would agree |
| 01:33:43.93 | David Marlatt | that Thank you. So the seconder of the motion, which I believe was Chair Saad, |
| 01:33:49.28 | Nastassya Saad | Second, I think that's fair. |
| 01:33:49.38 | David Marlatt | Thank you. OK, so then the motion before is to modify three of the four windows. And... Attorney Otto has popped up if we just... |
| 01:33:52.43 | Nastassya Saad | I should. |
| 01:33:57.70 | Mary Wagner | I don't know. |
| 01:33:57.75 | Nastassya Saad | to the next. |
| 01:33:57.80 | Mary Wagner | Bye. |
| 01:33:57.83 | Nastassya Saad | Bye. See you later. |
| 01:34:00.16 | David Marlatt | I'm like, |
| 01:34:02.46 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to clarify, there was also the discussion of the opaque window in the bedroom. And when we did the modification to the alternative motion, I did not hear that mentioned. So I did not know if you still wanted that in the motion. Just want to make sure that we're out for discussion. |
| 01:34:17.65 | Jeffery Luxenberg | sure they would do the opaque window so that's still in the motion |
| 01:34:22.96 | Mary Wagner | Okay, I just need you to actually say that's in the motion and have the seconder as well. |
| 01:34:24.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | in the motion. |
| 01:34:25.14 | David Marlatt | Bye. the architect on the what's the difference is a better term opaque means no light comes through |
| 01:34:27.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:34:32.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I intended it to be translucent, so thank you. |
| 01:34:34.99 | David Marlatt | So thank you. I'm privacy glad. |
| 01:34:36.39 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So, yes, we will change the word from opaque to translucent. |
| 01:34:41.52 | Mary Wagner | And Chair Sott, do you agree to that modification too? The motion... Attorney Lotto, yes. Thank you. |
| 01:34:48.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:34:49.40 | David Marlatt | Okay, so then we have an alternate motion that's been seconded. If there's further discussion on the alternate motion, |
| 01:34:57.54 | Fred Moore | I would not be in support of the alternative motion. Again, I think the two windows starting from the street back are architecturally consistent. They go and wrap around the front. The concession to have the translucent window for the bedroom and the window next coming from the bedroom toward the street at a higher height is, in my opinion, more than sufficient that they went. does not breach our obligation to approve a project that has a reasonable expectation of privacy for the adjacent neighbors. So I would be voting no on that alternative motion. |
| 01:35:39.15 | Andrew Junius | I'll also be voting no and I'd really like to call the question. |
| 01:35:42.41 | David Marlatt | Well, I'll just make my comment. before we call it. You're the chair, you do it. Oh, thank you. Yeah, I also would not support the alternate motion. I was hoping that we would get sufficient compromise that we could have some consensus on the alternate motion so we all just sort of agree with the applicant. I feel like the applicant made a big effort that they didn't have to do. I was ambivalent about the design previously because I thought it was in their own interest to have more privacy, not just the neighbor's interest. So I was hoping for something. But if the alternate motion is going to include that second taller window, and the applicant, I think, rightfully says that's part of the architectural character and the proportions, if that's what we have to vote on, then I'm going to vote against this alternate motion. |
| 01:35:45.70 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 01:36:31.99 | David Marlatt | unless we make it once one shot. |
| 01:36:32.46 | Nastassya Saad | Sure. |
| 01:36:36.14 | David Marlatt | I wish. |
| 01:36:36.24 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Luxenberg, will you be open to amending your motion because the alternative here is We're. there will be no changes to these windows whatsoever if there's no compromise. |
| 01:36:48.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | ship talk No, I think that when this goes down, I'll make another alternative motion. |
| 01:36:55.26 | Nastassya Saad | Well, when this goes down, I believe we'll have the original motion on the floor. |
| 01:36:59.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and then I'll ask for an amendment to the second alternative motion at that time. |
| 01:37:05.48 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 01:37:05.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:37:05.60 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:37:05.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:37:05.70 | David Marlatt | Well then let's just call it. |
| 01:37:06.28 | Nastassya Saad | All right, let's give it a whirl, whatever vice chair says. Thank you. |
| 01:37:08.89 | David Marlatt | I think we'll just call this question and move on to the next alternate. So ACM. Okay. |
| 01:37:14.43 | ACM Phipps | calling the question on the unmodified |
| 01:37:17.03 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:37:17.21 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:37:17.23 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:37:17.24 | ACM Phipps | Bye. |
| 01:37:17.35 | ACM Phipps | of motion. |
| 01:37:17.97 | David Marlatt | Well, calling the question on the modified motion that modifies three of the four windows. That's what's currently on the. |
| 01:37:25.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | replaces translucent with opaque with translucent. It has the one clear, it has two clear stories, five feet above ground and one unmodified window. That's the alternative motion. It was seconded and a question was called on. |
| 01:37:44.30 | ACM Phipps | Thank you, Commissioner. And I will call. um we'll call it commissioner genius no commissioner moore |
| 01:37:51.65 | Fred Moore | No. |
| 01:37:52.13 | ACM Phipps | Commissioner Luxenberg? Yes. Vice Chair Merlot? No. |
| 01:37:57.76 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:37:58.71 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:37:58.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Motion does not pass. I will make another alternative motion. which involves the It adds translucent glass for the bedroom number two, changes the middle window, and the higher window in the rec room from three and a half feet to five feet, leaves the other two windows as is. |
| 01:38:25.57 | David Marlatt | There's a new alternate motion. Is there a second for that motion? Does everyone understand the motion, first of all? Okay. Is there a second for that motion? |
| 01:38:32.85 | Nastassya Saad | I will second that motion. |
| 01:38:35.48 | David Marlatt | I don't know if we need a whole lot of comment. Would you like anybody to comment before we call the motion? |
| 01:38:43.24 | Andrew Junius | I'm kind of curious from the standpoint of the city attorney, Does that very first motion get shoved aside again, I'm just kind of curious Robert rules of order. |
| 01:38:54.72 | Mary Wagner | Yes, alternative motions take precedent to the main motion on the floor. |
| 01:38:58.85 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:39:00.23 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:39:02.11 | Fred Moore | And, Just for clarification, my understanding with the commissioner's alternative motion, essentially you're making a motion to coincide with exactly what the applicant has agreed to do in their compromise. |
| 01:39:13.48 | David Marlatt | No. It's a truth. Yes. Well, no. They were going to put translucent glass in the middle window. That's what I understand. No. No, just about it. |
| 01:39:20.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:39:22.12 | Fred Moore | Right. |
| 01:39:22.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I said translucent glass on the bedroom one. in the back window, bedroom window, and the higher clear story than it is currently, and the other two windows left as is. This is exactly what the applicant came back with. |
| 01:39:29.71 | Fred Moore | Oh, maybe I missed it. |
| 01:39:41.17 | David Marlatt | Oh, okay. I understood you wanted to still modify the center window. Okay. I do, but it's... Okay. All right. |
| 01:39:44.77 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I do. |
| 01:39:46.15 | Andres Edwards | OK. All right. |
| 01:39:48.24 | David Marlatt | Okay, so is everyone, including me, clear on the motion? And if so, I think we can call the question. |
| 01:39:52.66 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:39:54.84 | David Marlatt | Is there a second? |
| 01:39:55.41 | ACM Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:39:55.60 | David Marlatt | Oh, I thought... Yeah. |
| 01:39:57.03 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, I seconded. |
| 01:39:58.20 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 01:39:58.23 | ACM Phipps | Commissioner Genius. Yes, Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. No. Vice Chair Merlot. Yes. Troussat. |
| 01:40:08.95 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:40:10.87 | ACM Phipps | Can you say that again, Chair Sarko? |
| 01:40:11.82 | David Marlatt | Bye. |
| 01:40:11.83 | ACM Phipps | on. |
| 01:40:11.85 | Nastassya Saad | Sorry. |
| 01:40:11.90 | David Marlatt | Bye. |
| 01:40:13.30 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, yes. |
| 01:40:14.60 | David Marlatt | Motion passes. Okay, thank you. All right, so now we can move on to the main motion. No, the main motion, which is to... Oh. |
| 01:40:24.59 | Andrew Junius | Bye. Yeah, remember the main. Oh, OK. Well, OK. Yeah, I'm withdrawing the motion that I my very first motion. Yeah. |
| 01:40:32.20 | David Marlatt | With trying no, we're going to vote on main motion. We just approved the project. |
| 01:40:35.56 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. It's, |
| 01:40:36.45 | David Marlatt | Absolutely. |
| 01:40:36.98 | Andrew Junius | the approach. We're done. We approve the project. We're done. Oh, yeah. |
| 01:40:39.00 | ACM Phipps | We're done. Yeah, that motion passes. And unless there's additional comments, I think we can close this item. Thank you very much. Sorry about that. |
| 01:40:46.93 | Andrew Junius | And nothing on encroachment permits or anything like that? This is it? One design review that's all we had? |
| 01:40:46.95 | ACM Phipps | Yeah. |
| 01:40:54.70 | Andrew Junius | And we got that too. |
| 01:40:56.99 | Fred Moore | Thank you. with the resolution. I mean, |
| 01:40:59.91 | Andrew Junius | We did it. We approved it with the we approved what the staff put out there with |
| 01:41:03.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The original motion says the staff thing with two modifications. |
| 01:41:09.06 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 01:41:09.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so we've only been talking about the modifications. Yes, we approve the resolution that's in there with these changes. |
| 01:41:16.50 | Fred Moore | Well, the one issue with the resolution, though, I was suggesting a modification to some language in the resolution. |
| 01:41:17.56 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:41:23.81 | David Marlatt | It's already passed. |
| 01:41:26.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You run it in focus, so you have the right to reconsider, you have a reconsideration |
| 01:41:36.01 | Nastassya Saad | Not always. |
| 01:41:36.66 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:41:36.87 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 01:41:36.94 | David Marlatt | her weight in Okay, thanks. So, there's a motion to adjourn, I believe? |
| 01:41:40.78 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. Absolutely. |
| 01:41:41.85 | David Marlatt | Okay, by unanimous consent, pass. Thank you very much. |
| 01:41:44.17 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:41:44.19 | Nastassya Saad | Mm-hmm. Thank you. |
| 01:41:45.39 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:41:45.42 | ACM Phipps | you |
| 01:41:46.65 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:41:46.67 | Nastassya Saad | Good night. Thank you, Vice Chair. |
| 01:41:50.27 | ACM Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public. Have a great evening. |
Joe Slamovich — Against: Owner of 9 Gordon Street. Expressed concerns about loss of privacy, noting that the second‑story windows would create direct sightlines into his backyard and living areas. Argued the staff report discounts screening and that findings #7, #9, and #13 cannot be made without design modifications. ▶ 📄
Patricia Swenson — Against: Resident of 812 Spring Street. Spoke about Sausalito’s tradition of protecting views and described the view impact from 804 Spring. Suggested lowering the ceiling by one foot as a compromise to preserve water views. ▶ 📄
Andres Edwards — Against: Resident of 802 Spring. Visited 804 Spring and observed the view blockage from a seated position; noted that part of Richardson Bay is blocked. Suggested an eight‑foot ceiling as a compromise, noting his own older house has eight‑foot ceilings. ▶ 📄
Vanessa Jung — Against: Daughter‑in‑law of Barbara Gordon (804 Spring Street). Criticized the story poles’ poor demarcation, lack of early neighbor consultation, and the accuracy of staff’s photographs. Emphasized that the primary living space is the couch from which the view is impacted, and asked the commission to seek a compromise. ▶ 📄