Sausalito City Council Meeting

Meeting Transcript

Time	Speaker	Text
00:01:38.36	Sandy Pellegrini	Thank you.
00:01:38.39	Nastassya Saad	I'm sorry. I know, I know. I'd like to call the Sausalito planning commission meeting on Wednesday, June 10th to order. The time is 6 30. Uh, City manager. No, not city manager, interim director. Interim Director Matthew Mandich.
00:02:00.84	Matthew Mandich	Thank you, Chair Saad. Good evening Chair Saad, Vice Chair Marlott, Planning Commissioners, staff, and members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito's Council Chambers at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. With that, I will move to Col-Roll. Commissioner Junius. Present. Commissioner Moore. here. Commissioner Luxembourg. Thank you.
00:02:28.84	Nastassya Saad	here.
00:02:29.41	Matthew Mandich	Vice-Chair Marlap. Yeah. Cheers.
00:02:31.77	Nastassya Saad	Here?
00:02:32.62	Matthew Mandich	We have a chief quorum back to you chair.
00:02:34.39	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Item number two is the approval of the agenda. Sorry, motion.
00:02:39.47	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
00:02:39.52	Andrew Junius	So moved.
00:02:40.02	Andrew Junius	you
00:02:40.07	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:02:41.84	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
00:02:41.88	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
00:02:42.62	Nastassya Saad	you.
00:02:45.05	Matthew Mandich	And with that, we will call roll. Commissioner Moore. here.
00:02:48.36	Fred Moore	Thank you.
00:02:48.38	Matthew Mandich	Yes. Commissioner Marlott. Yes. or Vice Chairman Marlowe, excuse me, Commissioner Luxembourg.
00:02:55.78	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yes.
00:02:57.12	Matthew Mandich	Commissioner Junius. Yes. Cheers. Thank you.
00:02:59.43	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
00:02:59.82	Matthew Mandich	you Much passes.
00:03:01.78	Nastassya Saad	I'm sorry. Thank you. It's like a squirrely in here tonight. Item number three is public comments on items that are not on this agenda. Could you give us some guidance here, please, Matthew?
00:03:12.03	Matthew Mandich	Absolutely, Chair. This is the time for the Planning Commission to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda, except in very limited situations. State law precludes the Planning Commission from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the Planning Commission may refer matters not on the addenda to staff or direct the subject be agendized at a future meeting. Video or public comment, excuse me, video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker unless modified by the chair. If you'd like to make a comment, Please submit a speaker card to me or my colleague to the right. If you would like to make a comment in the Zoom app, please raise your hand and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when the time has elapsed. I do have one public comment card for public comments on items not on the agenda here. I'm not seeing any on Zoom now, so I'll go ahead and call our speaker from the audience. That is Arthur Giovarro.
00:04:25.59	Nastassya Saad	Welcome, Mr. Giovara.
00:04:30.86	Sandy Pellegrini	how she thought. Well,
00:04:42.20	Nastassya Saad	Adam, do you mind re just resetting it back to three minutes, please?
00:04:47.70	Arthur Giovarro	Chair, vice chair, and commissioners. everything around us, is changing and South Toledo has been frozen. in the same place for the last 41 years because of the passage of Ordinance 1022. Historic and unrealistic building code requirements are slowly destroying the commercial health of Sausalito. present FAR and building heights, are not compatible with a goal of a vibrant commercial neighborhood and therefore are not compatible with promoting new construction. searching for new income streams, charter cities, to maintain control of outdated, unrealistic regulations is not the answer. AIM's proposal proposed ordinance change to a height of 47 feet and an FAR of 3 feet. 3.0 is a step in the right direction that should be expanded to the Central Commercial District. lack of hotels, Less than two hundred. more large retail space. unreasonable permit fees, building codes, and historic preservation requirements need to be amended to promote a new and vibrant Central Commercial District. Walk around and look at the many empty spaces. Sausalito needs to be more than a day. or a weekend destination. the They put you in a box. Ordinance 1022 provisions. were never intended to apply to the Central Coast. Commercial District. or residential zones. and needs to be amended. It's time to stop. perpetuating and air. and give back the means to build a vibrant Sausalito. I, I'm not an attorney, but I put some folders together. for each of you. And you can probably tell me what I'm wrong, how I'm wrong. But That's it.
00:07:18.06	Nastassya Saad	Thank you, Mr. Giovara. I'm sure staff will provide them potentially for us to review at a later date. But do we have them? Matthew, do we have the folders?
00:07:28.05	Matthew Mandich	We have not received those, or at least I have not received those. Art, can you tell me who you sent those to?
00:07:33.39	Arthur Giovarro	get mad.
00:07:34.69	Matthew Mandich	I'm not sure.
00:07:34.86	Arthur Giovarro	Thank you. I gave him five or four. Great.
00:07:37.09	Matthew Mandich	Thank you very much. I'll distribute those right now.
00:07:42.37	Nastassya Saad	Thank you, Mr. Giovar. We appreciate it. I do not see. Let me just take a look at Zoom. Thank you.
00:07:53.39	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:07:57.46	Nastassya Saad	I don't see anybody on zoom for public comment. Just going to look to the chambers. No more. Okay. We're going to go ahead and close.
00:08:01.91	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:08:01.93	Andrew Junius	Thank you. Okay.
00:08:02.35	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
00:08:05.32	Nastassya Saad	public comment for items that are not on the agenda.
00:08:12.90	Nastassya Saad	Item number four this evening is the approval of the Planning Commission minutes. This is item 4A. These are the minutes from May 27th. Are there any notes or points of discussion or is there a motion?
00:08:29.08	Fred Moore	Bye.
00:08:29.12	Nastassya Saad	Move to approve. Thank you.
00:08:31.93	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
00:08:31.95	Matthew Mandich	second.
00:08:32.39	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Matthew?
00:08:35.23	Matthew Mandich	Michelle Genius. Yes, Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxembourg.
00:08:39.56	Nastassya Saad	Yeah.
00:08:40.32	Matthew Mandich	Vice Chair Marlott. Yes. Chair Sott. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.
00:08:44.59	Nastassya Saad	Uh, item number five are communications. Um, interim director, do you have any communications from staff?
00:08:50.63	Matthew Mandich	No communications from staff this evening.
00:08:52.34	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Does anybody on the commission have any communications? Commissioner Moore.
00:08:58.38	Fred Moore	Thank you very much, Chair. I would kind of like to bring up an issue that I've talked about before, whether or not as a commission we could schedule an agenda item in the future to address various items in the city with potential ultimate goal of sending suggestions to the city council for action. And also talk about processes which seem to have maybe fallen off some of the improvements in the city, contrary to what's what's allowed. And I'll give you a couple examples of things I was thinking about. And I would also consider whether we agenda is an item where all of us can come to the meeting that night and give other suggestions. First item was, according to our public works department, Mexican Pebble is supposed to be the concrete of choice in downtown. It's somewhat of an aggregate concrete, but if you look at the new swath of concrete in front of Smitty's, it's smooth, standard concrete you would see in L.A. or a city, rather than the unique character of Sausalito. And that's been duplicated in a number of areas throughout the town where we're replacing sidewalks in front of homes, and also downtown along Bridgeway. And I think it's a significant departure of the look we want to have in Sausalito. And I think we need to somehow deal with public works and see how that miscue occurred. Other things I think are worth talking about are the parking permits and time permits of two-hour parking throughout the city. Recently, there was a change from we had two-hour parking up till 6 o'clock, then it moved to 9 o'clock, which makes a lot of parking for residents who come enjoy some of the parks, they're always moving their cars. Also, the permitting process, I've heard from residents, if you want to visit someone in the other end of town, if you don't have a permit, you go to their party, and every two hours, you're running out and moving your car into already limited spaces um some of the either items we have we had a huge discussion a while back with you know with parking lot one the ferry landing and the cost of parking spaces and parking lots yet currently on a fairly regular basis, we have three of the traffic buggies parked in parking spaces in parking lot three.
00:11:08.25	Adam Blair	I don't remember.
00:11:18.96	Fred Moore	And for example, the Jazz by the Bay last week, people were circling, circling, circling, looking for parking spaces. And so those three spots were automatically lost revenue to the city. And that's occurring on a daily basis. Maybe it's not that impactful during the summer, but it certainly, I mean, in the winter, but it certainly is during the summer. And there's a spot by the police station where those buggies could be parked at a perpendicular angle to the red zone and not take up valuable income-producing spaces in the city. Another item I think we should talk about are the parklets that we have in the city that as a result of COVID. That was six years ago, yet a lot of the parklets have not changed the design since then. So it seems like it's a worthwhile discussion to determine whether or not the parklets should remain or not remain, or whether they should actually be built to look nice, especially the ones on Caledonia. We have a bunch of temporary metal railings, and we have little signs there. It's not necessarily a look that I think we could achieve if we had given more thought to it rather than just reacting to COVID. Another thing, the pedestrian passways on Bridgeway, apparently the prior city manager got numerous complaints about the intensity of those
00:11:57.17	Adam Blair	Yeah.
00:12:33.45	Fred Moore	improvements in whether or not you really need to have three very large scale signs for pedestrian walks or because of the size of the street and the limited lanes or whether you could actually get away with having two of the pedestrian flashing lights rather than the center light. City Manager Chris Zapata said he was going to bring up a motion of possibly removing the center one. Now that he's gone, that maybe has fallen off the wayside. But I think it's worth having a public discussion to see where people agree on that. Two more items, and I'll end real quick here. The other one are various trash can locations and generators in the city that happen to be either on public sidewalks or the public streets, oftentimes taking up public parking spaces, again, which are income generating for the city. So just visually, as you walk through the town, you can see some areas. And your first response is, hmm, wonder why there's eight trash cans blocking the sidewalks. I have to walk into the street to get around the trash cans. and again I think it'd be worthwhile scheduling that with a study session from other inputs from all the members up here as well as from the public who may have a lot of items which they don't have the forum where they can express their concerns. So just a consideration, Chair.
00:13:49.98	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much, Commissioner Moore. Could you kindly, I took notes. Could you send me your list just directly to myself and CC Matthew, just so we don't have an issue with the Brown Act, if you CC vice chair, and we can work to agendize some of those discussions for a future meeting? Thank you for... you being so thoughtful. Any other communication items? No. Okay. I don't have any either. So we'll go ahead and open up communications for public comment.
00:14:22.06	Matthew Mandich	Looking to the Zoom application, seeing none. And looking to the room, also seeing none, Jared.
00:14:23.12	Nastassya Saad	you should have been. Thank you.
00:14:27.52	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Okay. So we'll go ahead and move to our public hearing, um, this evening, uh, just to get started while, um, Associate planner Blair is coming up. Can we please go through ex parte communications for both 302 4th Street and 6268 Lower Crescent? Commissioner Moore, can I start with you? Anything to declare?
00:14:47.35	Fred Moore	I have nothing to declare.
00:14:48.99	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Commission.
00:14:50.76	Jeffery Luxenberg	Nothing to declare.
00:14:51.79	Nastassya Saad	Vice Chair, Commissioner Luxenberg.
00:14:54.73	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. As I did at the 527 meeting, pursuant to section 18702, about 18702.2 material materiality standard i hereby declares that my house is located greater than 500 feet but less than 1 000 feet from the proposed 62 to 68 lower crescent street on the agenda this evening this project will not affect my property's development potential income producing potential the highest and best use of my property and given the location of my property off on a side street, would not change the character of my property by substantially altering traffic levels, intensity of use, parking view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality. Further, would not affect the market value of my property. Thus, any decisions regarding this project is not material, so I will participate in this item. Thank you. With regard to the property at 302 North 4th Street, I also do not think there's a materiality, but given that the project is right on the edge of the 500-foot circle from my property, I will recuse myself for that item.
00:16:08.27	Nastassya Saad	Okay, thank you very much. So we will wait for Commissioner Luxembourg to recuse.
00:16:13.48	Jeffery Luxenberg	just go in the back.
00:16:14.43	Nastassya Saad	Sure. And in the meantime, Vice Chair, anything to declare?
00:16:18.39	David Marlatt	Nothing to declare, thank you.
00:16:19.51	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Thank you. And I walked by to visually inspect both sites, but I did not meet with the applicant or have any discussion. So nothing to declare. Adam Blair in just a moment. We'll turn it over to you for your presentation.
00:16:47.72	Adam Blair	All right. Thank you, Chair, and good evening, Commissioners, members of the public. I'm Adam Blair, Associate Planner with the Community Development Department. The application before you this evening is requesting approval of two variances, one for relief from rear yard and side yard setbacks, one for relief from impervious surface coverage limitations, as well as a zoning permit to facilitate the construction of a 112 square foot elevated first floor rear deck. with a 58.2 square foot firewall in the rear yard area of 302 4th Street. And before we proceed, I would just like to note for the record. that when noticing for this upcoming planning commission hearing. Um, was distributed on May 28th. staff had initially found that three variances were required to facilitate this proposed project instead of the two you just heard. required variances where it's to request relief from rear and side yard setbacks to building coverage and three impervious surface coverage. Following the distribution of these notices, staff identified a discrepancy in the building coverage calculation and found that the proposed project did not exceed the maximum permitted building coverage threshold Therefore only two variances. one for relief from the required setbacks and one for relief from impervious surface coverage are required to facilitate this proposed project. And with that, we'll go to the next slide.
00:18:10.98	Adam Blair	So the project is proposed at Z three zero two fourth Street. The part, the property is located on a 2,126 square foot substandard lot to single family residents. The parcel is identified by assessor parcel number 065-234-11. and has a general plan land use designation of medium high density residential, and is located within the R-2-2.5 Two family residential zoning district. Next slide. So applicant Mark Brand on behalf of owners Dan and Sandra Pellegrini are requesting approval of two variances and a zoning permit to again facilitate the construction of a 112 square foot elevated first floor rear deck. with a 58.2 square foot firewall, as you can see on the renderings on the screen. The deck structure is intended to provide outdoor living space for the occupants of the main residence, with the firewall serving both as a protective barrier for fire risk as well as visual screening. for the deck area. And then as noted earlier, the variances are requested for relief from required setbacks side yard and rear yards, since the deck is located both within the required side yard setback on the southerly side. as well as within the 15 foot rear yards setback. And in addition, the deck causes the property to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage. And so a variance is requested for relief from that standard as well. Next slide. Digging a bit into the background and history of the property. So the main residence at 302 4th Street was constructed in about 1906-1907. There's some discrepancy between a historic valuation that was done on the property versus assessor data. So it's, One of those two years. The property, the residence is a 1,430 square foot Residents. has about that much living area, plus a 500 square foot basement ADU that was approved last year. A historic resource evaluation was performed in 2024 due to the age of the home to determine if that main residence qualified as a historic resource under CEQA. It went to a Historic Preservation Commission hearing, and they determined that it did not qualify as a historic resource under CEQA. Following this determination, the property has undergone some recent remodel work, including the conversion of an existing basement into an ADU, which was approved by the city in October of 2020. Only 24. as well as an extensive exterior and interior remodel, which was approved in December of 2024 by the city. Moving forward to November of 2025, the city received an application from Mark Brand, Mark Brand Architecture, to facilitate the construction of the proposed 112-square-foot rear yard deck. With that 58.2 square foot. firewall in the rear yard. Next slide. Digging into the analysis as summarized in the staff report for this application, the proposed project complies with some of the objective development standards for the R dash 2 dash 2.5 residential zoning district. You can see that the project complies for a number of dwelling units, main dwelling units on the site. front. And left side yard setbacks, maximum building height, maximum building coverage, and Uh, minimum required off street parking. It's worth noting that because this is a single family residence located within a two family residential zoning district. Additional standards were applied for determining the maximum permitted building coverage, floor area ratio, and impervious surface coverage requirements. that those standards are outlined in municipal code section 10.4 4.3 30. The standards vary depending on the size of the lot in which the single-family home sits on within the two-family zoning district. Because the parcel is substandard and it's less than 3000 square feet in size, the standards did not change compared to the base development standards listed in residential site development standard table. So the requirements were 50% for building coverage, 65% for floor area ratio, and 75% for impervious surface. The side yard setback, you'll note that the left and right side side yard setbacks were increased, and that was due to the application. of both a narrow parcel setback, which actually reduces the required side yard setback when you have a parcel with a A parcel width of minimum than 50 feet. They reduced it by 10%. but then another setback roll, which increases the side yard setback. When a building exceeds 40 feet, when measured parallel to a line was applied. So that's what resulted in the five foot. Four and one eighth of an inch required side yard setback. As mentioned earlier, the proposed project will require a variance for relief. From the side yard setback, particularly on the southerly or the right side. You'll see it's noted as It's two feet, six inches. The deck is proposed to be flush with the main residence wall, which sits within the required setback. It's been that way for many years. Um, It does comply, however, on the left side because of the gap provided with the driveway. And then as noted, because decks are counted towards impervious surface, a variance is requested for relief from that standard as well. Go to the next slide. So after... Reviewing the variance finding criteria staff recommends that the planning Commission approved the requested variances for relief from the rear yard and side yard setbacks and for relief from impervious surface coverage limitations. Since the literal enforcement of the provisions of title 10 would result in practical difficulty for the occupants of the main residence. The substandard nature of the lot, along with the small rear yard layout, constitute extraordinary circumstances or conditions which apply to the property which do not apply generally. two other properties in the same district. The footprint of the main residence has existed in its current form since its original construction in the early 1900s. which presents minimal opportunity for exterior improvements, which would result in new impervious surface coverage, or which would project from the building because effectively it would project into one of the required. setbacks. Furthermore, the requested the granting of this variance will not result in a grant of special privilege. The granting of these requested variances would enable the property owners to construct a small rear deck, which would provide outdoor living space in a neighborhood where other houses have rear decks and outdoor living space in their rear yard areas. The substandard nature of the lot renders practical difficulty in terms of making improvements which are routinely permitted on legal conforming lots, both within the zoning district as well as in others. Finally, the granting of the requested variances will be in harmony with the intent of Title X and the general plan. New rare deck will provide outdoor living space for occupants of the primary dwelling unit and a manner which is enjoyed. by other properties within the same zoning district. Furthermore, the deck has been oriented so that it poses no impact to primary views for surrounding properties. It poses minimal impact to surrounding properties with the firewall serving both as visual screening as well as a protective barrier for fire risk. and provides outdoor space for occupants of the main residence to use and enjoy. And before we go to the conclusion, I would just like to note which is... As also summarized in the staff report, since zoning permits are generally ministerial or administrative permit applications, There are no required findings which need to be made by the planning commission in order to consider approval or conditional approval of the requested zoning permit. Next slide. So with that, just to reiterate, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve application 2025-00240 for 302 4th Street. and adopt the attached draft resolution, approving the requested rear and side yard setback variants. the impervious surface coverage variance, and the requested zoning permit. Staff finds the proposed project is in conformance with the criteria listed in Municipal Code Section 10.68.050, subsection A through E. which pertains to variances. With that, that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.
00:26:10.50	Nastassya Saad	Thank you, Adam, for the presentation. Before I turn it over to other commissioners, I know you're not in front of your computer, but I have One, two, three, four. I have four public comments attached to the agenda. Do you receive any other Public comments or is everything here for the Thank you.
00:26:28.34	Adam Blair	Four public comments were posted to the agenda, and we did receive a fifth comment. However, that commenter requested that that comment be kept off of the agenda and just reviewed by the Planning Commission directly through the email.
00:26:39.38	Nastassya Saad	Yeah.
00:26:39.44	Andrew Junius	you.
00:26:40.15	Adam Blair	So that. public comment was omitted or redacted from from the agenda.
00:26:44.72	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let me go ahead and turn it over. Commissioner, do you have questions for staff?
00:26:51.80	Fred Moore	I apologize, Adam, I don't have to print the page with me, but I thought when the staff report you mentioned there were previous public comments a while ago with like the initial submittal, then some changes were made to this submittal. Did I get that? I understand that right?
00:27:07.73	Adam Blair	The staff report noted that one comment was received prior to the publishing of the staff report to the meeting agenda. So it didn't have to do with changes per se. It was just a comment received to the project as a whole before the meeting agenda was formally published.
00:27:21.77	Fred Moore	All right. Thank you.
00:27:25.41	Nastassya Saad	of any Other comments for staff? Thank you. Commissioner Junius, nothing. Vice chair.
00:27:32.04	David Marlatt	Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Adam. Just a couple of small technical things. Just for the public record, I just want to confirm that the deck counts as impervious surface because of Section 10.40.050. All structures which count toward building coverage shall also count as impervious surface. So that's the way that's based.
00:27:50.89	Adam Blair	That's the way that's. Thank you. That is correct for deck areas.
00:27:53.96	David Marlatt	Thank you.
00:27:54.27	Adam Blair	is.
00:27:54.55	David Marlatt	Right.
00:27:54.79	Adam Blair	Thank you.
00:27:54.92	David Marlatt	And then the second is just informational, and this will come up maybe with the applicant. Initially, there's a remodel permit that was issued that did not require planning commission review and What is the approximate time between the issuance of that permit and the application for this deck? Is it weeks or months or? Thank you. Do you know?
00:28:19.29	Adam Blair	From my memory, I believe that remodel project was approved sometime in late 2024. So I believe construction was well underway by the time this application was submitted. The applicants could provide some insight as to why the deck project was delayed in relation to the rest of the remodel.
00:28:34.75	David Marlatt	Okay, but it was a significant Gap of time.
00:28:38.33	Adam Blair	That's my recollection, yes.
00:28:39.73	David Marlatt	Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I have no other questions.
00:28:41.62	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. And I can ask the applicant this as well. But there was a public comment from 414 Richardson Street who owns the property directly behind. Do you know the distance, if the deck were to be approved for based on the plans, what the distance between the neighbor's property lines would be?
00:29:05.87	Adam Blair	Yeah, the deck is currently proposed about 5 feet 10 inches from the rear property line. 5-10.
00:29:10.86	Nastassya Saad	5 through 10. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll go ahead. Thank you, Adam. Appreciate it. We'll now turn it over to the applicant for the evening. Welcome. If you could state your name, um, and address for the record, you will have 15 minutes. And if we do stop you at any time, um, It won't count against you. We'll give you your time back. And you can also reserve time to wait for public comment. You can use it after public comment as well.
00:29:40.68	Sandy Pellegrini	Great.
00:29:41.14	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:29:42.01	Sandy Pellegrini	Hi, I'm Sandy and I'm a resident of 3024th Street. And my husband Dan is over there. We are,
00:29:42.50	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:29:53.42	Sandy Pellegrini	Permanent residence of Sausalito. We bought this house in 2024 and began construction after the permitting in early 2025. We're going to be a little bit more. I can answer the question about why there was a discrepancy there. But we've put our heart and soul into this community and we have no other houses. We have, this is everything for us. And we've done, I have a few pictures, if you don't mind showing them.
00:30:26.93	Adam Blair	if you don't mind.
00:30:29.87	Sandy Pellegrini	We've tried to really adhere to the architectural character of Old Town and building our house. I don't know.
00:30:39.17	Nastassya Saad	Can we stop the clock at 14 minutes and 3 seconds or 14.01 and pull up? We're getting there.
00:30:44.10	Matthew Mandich	We're getting those up right now.
00:30:45.23	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Do you want to just hang on for a second so we... Don't eat into your time.
00:30:59.30	Nastassya Saad	At your convenience.
00:31:00.95	Sandy Pellegrini	Yeah, so this is the original house. And when we did the remodel, we stayed strictly. The house is the same size, and we tried to keep the same architectural details. You can go to the next slide, please. This is the new house. It's the same. We kept the roof lines. We kept the shingles. It's the exact same footprint as the original house, and everything was just done underneath, like the ADU. So, um, We also... have acted in the spirit of community and cooperation. The next door neighbor did a lot, a full remodel of his house too. And we worked with him on undergrounding our power lines. You know, we cooperated, we cooperated to build a fence between the houses. We cooperated on it and that is our,
00:31:53.64	Adam Blair	cooperated on.
00:31:56.91	Sandy Pellegrini	Main objective, we don't want to be intrusive, we wanna be good neighbors. And that's what I've tried to do. We've reached out to neighbors to get support. Some people didn't answer, other people have verbally voiced their support. I didn't ask anybody to write any letters in support. In any event, the next... photo. This is the rear of the house before. And I know there was some concern about privacy from the rear neighbor, but these were the original windows. And there was also like a little deck on the back that went in that door and all of that stuff is gone. And if you go to the next slide. Um, This is the view from the other side towards the south. You could see that deck sticking out that was originally there. And, um, then this is the house. if you go to the next slide currently. So we actually eliminated a lot of the windows on the backside of the house in the interest of privacy. And, then the deck would be off that lower floor, which is kind of level-ish with... driveway. So if you would go on to the next. This is the view from our sliding glass doors into the rear neighbor's yard or house. Basically there's a fence in between which we would love to work with that neighbor to make it a pretty fence and this one's falling down. It's been everything in the house was pretty much not cared for so we're trying really hard to care for it and be good stewards. But you can see we don't, that it would be an upward view from the deck into their bedroom windows there. And if that's what that is. So there's really no, additional privacy concern by having a small deck on the back. that would give us the property right of access to space. Then the next slide. This is what the deck would look like. It essentially disappears. You can see the mountains behind it, anything behind it. So that's what we designed in order to make it as unintrusive as possible. And then the next slide, This is what the house looked like previously. This is a Google map from 2008. You can see our house from 2008 sticking up. above 416 Richardson. So it's the same house. There was just a lot of trees there were sheds and things like that and all that the trees were removed from 416 Richardson Street in order to complete their construction. So if you move to the next and slide. That's another picture. So, across the street from that's what you would see a couple years ago. And then if you go to the next slide, This is what it looks like now with no trees. so um and the little yellow square that's colored in is basically if there was a firewall that would how much they would see of the deck which could be covered in ivy it could we are so willing to work with the neighbors to make it visually appealing and not obtrusive. So basically, We love Sausalito. It's our community and we want to be good neighbors. So that's it for me.
00:35:43.75	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. You have nine minutes and 18, 17 seconds left that you can use. Does anyone else wish to speak?
00:35:54.68	Mark Brand	Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Mark Brand. I'm the architect for the project, and my address is 744 Harrison Street in San Francisco, 94107. I'd like to briefly address three issues that have been raised in the public comment that's been submitted prior to the hearing, the size of the project, privacy, and the impervious surface coverage. First, there appears to be a perception that the house has become substantially larger. In reality, the approved remodel did not expand the footprint or the envelope of the building at all. Most of the additional square footage came from excavation below the existing house to create a legal ADU. And that's all been approved and constructed. The house remains essentially in the same location and footprint that it has occupied for more than a century. In fact, an existing garage was removed before the project began, so there's actually less coverage of the property now than there was before. The application before you tonight is not for an addition to the house. It's for a modest 112 square foot deck intended to provide outdoor living space for the primary residence. Second, regarding privacy concerns, we worked hard to minimize any impacts on neighboring properties. The proposed deck does not create a new story or a significantly different vantage point that already exists from the house itself. As Sandy mentioned, there are fewer windows now than there were before. The deck aligns with the existing side well to residence, which has been located approximately three feet from the side property line since the house was originally constructed in 1906 or 1907. The neighbors have expressed concern that the deck will overlook surrounding properties. However, the deck is relatively small, attached directly to the existing residents, and designed to minimize visibility and privacy impacts. Staff has concluded the project will not result in material impacts to neighboring views, light, or air. In fact, we're to the north of the property on Richardson, so the project will not cast any shadows on that property. goes the other way around. Third, I'd like to address impervious surface coverage. The municipal code classifies the deck as impervious surface for zoning purposes, and we understand that this requires a variance. However, unlike a concrete slab or enclosed structure, rainwater passes through the deck boards to the ground below. As a result, the actual drainage impact of the deck is substantially less than other forms of development that could be counted the same under the code. And as I mentioned, there's also been a garage removed, which is now going to be garden. So there's actually more pervious surface than previously before all the work on this property began. Ultimately, this is a very small deck on a very small and constrained lot. The lot is only about 2,100 square feet, and the existing house already encroaches into the rear setback. Strict application of the setback requirements would effectively prevent the owners from creating any meaningful outdoor living space for the primary residence. We believe the project satisfies the required variance findings and represents a reasonable and balanced solution that provides outdoor space for the homeowners, while creating minimal impacts on the surrounding properties. Thank you for your time and consideration.
00:38:43.14	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Um, there are about six minutes and 29 seconds. Does anyone else wish to speak from your team this evening? Okay. So you know what, we might ask you to stay, because we're going to open it up for questions from the commission. Let me just six minutes and nine seconds. Commissioner Moore, did you have any questions for... the applicant
00:39:08.24	Fred Moore	I do not.
00:39:09.08	Nastassya Saad	OK, Commissioner Junius, no questions. Vice Chair Marla.
00:39:15.07	David Marlatt	Thank you.
00:39:15.11	Andrew Junius	Yeah, thank you.
00:39:16.30	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:39:16.61	David Marlatt	Oh, sorry. Yeah, thank you very much. Also, this is probably just for the public record. The building on, sorry, just for the public record, again, the building envelope of the existing house didn't change, so the house was not lifted or elevated. Did it do?
00:39:34.46	Mark Brand	It was not lifted. Actually, there was a bay window that we deleted from the house. So it's actually gotten smaller.
00:39:39.88	David Marlatt	Okay. And then I think I saw it on one of the drawings, but just to confirm, the side yard setback, the distance from the firewall to the property line is three feet?
00:39:48.50	Mark Brand	Yeah, we just aligned it with the existing side of the house.
00:39:49.21	David Marlatt	WE JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO Okay. Yeah, those are my questions. Thank you.
00:39:54.41	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. That original deck that was shown in the homeowner's presentation, do you know what the square footage of that was?
00:40:05.98	Mark Brand	That little dirty.
00:40:07.03	Mark Brand	deck off the back.
00:40:08.31	Sandy Pellegrini	No, because it fell down.
00:40:08.62	Mark Brand	It. It might have even been a landing for stairs. I mean, it might be three feet by three feet is not not big. Okay.
00:40:17.05	Nastassya Saad	And then Do you know, could you speak to and I'm asking in context of the deck, but since you mentioned the windows, can you just remind me how many windows were there on that side of the home that, and then what? The current windows, I believe can we believe that picture one more time? Yes. And I'm sorry, just for the interest of people on zoom, could you speak into the mic or whoever's speaking, can you please speak into the microphone just so everyone can hear?
00:40:44.86	Mark Brand	I can open the plans to try to look at the before and after. Let's see if I can do that.
00:40:49.89	Sandy Pellegrini	Here we go.
00:40:50.74	Mark Brand	Oh, well, you want to do it, Sandy? This is the rear side of the...
00:40:52.02	Nastassya Saad	it up.
00:40:55.38	Sandy Pellegrini	This is the rear side. So the top and those windows basically are about the same, but they are sliding glass doors. So they are taller and then down below, There, the sliding glass door, but everything to the right. is gone as far as windows go. Um,
00:41:14.38	Nastassya Saad	And just from the elevation, of the proposed deck, I can pull up the plans, but just for the interest of everyone to see, can you just speak to the elevation in relation to the neighbor as well? I mean, as far as I understand, that deck is gonna be adjacent to this, bottom window.
00:41:35.81	Sandy Pellegrini	That yeah, there, there is a six foot fence between our properties. So I would say it's maybe. a foot above the six foot fence. Would you say?
00:41:45.77	Nastassya Saad	from a vantage point into the neighboring property?
00:41:46.59	Sandy Pellegrini	Thank you.
00:41:46.88	Mark Brand	Thank you. I think according to the plans, it's the top of the deck is eight feet, three inches above grade. And then the firewall has to go 30 inches above that. So it's about 12 feet from the ground.
00:42:00.41	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:42:00.94	Mark Brand	And the fence is a six foot fence. And so it's about six feet higher than the fence and about three feet away from the fence. So you're kind of looking up at it. So if you're looking at it from the neighbor's rear yard, you'll not actually see the full six feet of it because you'll be looking up at it.
00:42:19.70	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:42:19.77	Mark Brand	away from the property line.
00:42:22.87	Nastassya Saad	you know, Those are all the questions I have as well. Thank you very much. Commissioner? Yes, I should have.
00:42:27.75	David Marlatt	Just a really quick follow-up. So you said that the firewall is 30 inches above the surface of the upper deck, not 42? So it would be open rolling up to 42 inches? Yes. Some sort? Okay, thanks. I just wanted to confirm that. I didn't capture that in the drawings.
00:42:41.89	Andrew Junius	Sure.
00:42:45.28	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Anything else?
00:42:47.24	David Marlatt	No, I don't think so.
00:42:48.88	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Thank you very much. You can go ahead and return to your seats. We're going to open this up for public comment. Again, just to note, we do have four public comments. attached to our agenda, but we will look to the Zoom application and the room. Matthew, can you help me facilitate?
00:43:07.47	Matthew Mandich	Yes, Chair. So I have one public comment from the room from a Jason Gress, I believe. And please correct me if I'm wrong, last name.
00:43:16.01	Nastassya Saad	Kindly come up to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes for public comment.
00:43:24.32	Unknown	They had to be added.
00:43:33.60	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
00:43:42.54	Jason Grass	Okay, my name is Jason Grass. I'm the resident to the chairs, the South Side Fence at 4106 Richardson. And what I've, so it's a little bit hard to follow the findings because they've kind of moved around a little bit, there's been some revisions, I don't know. Adam, you've sent several of these out. I don't know if there's only like two or three or four revisions, but initially in most of the findings were that this was based on approval, asking for variances into the setbacks and for impervious coverage because there was no outdoor living space. What I've provided you guys in the first page there is approximately 200 square feet in a yellow highlighted area on the north side that aligns with the top part of the deck because the lot slopes downhill. So that area could be used for outdoor living space. So if the state code variance is to provide them out there in space, I would say that they could you know, use that area for that living space and not have to have a deck. When the house was constructed next door at 302 4th street, there was two sets of sliders put in, sliders on the top floor and sliders on the floor with the proposed deck. And they're pushed over towards my lot, which, um, the setback is 2.6 feet with requirement of five feet, uh, 5.4 feet. So there was already an existing, variance per se 50% into the setback, then in the reduction that butts up against 414, which would send my neighbor, there's a 15-foot setback requirement. They're already at a 10-foot setback with the existing building, which hasn't changed in structure, but pushing that to 5 feet 10 inches is very imposing. That's not all of it. It's the 12-foot firewall by 5 foot or almost approximately 60 square foot firewall or 58 square foot firewall my My lot is 1171 square feet. So it's very, very small. This takes up almost half of my backyard, where now I look up at a huge firewall that extends over the deck. And because it's a downsloping lot, that deck actually in that firewall mass appears quite bigger than it really was. So my concern is about the aesthetics of the deck and it pushed into the setbacks. If the siding doors weren't put in place prior to, you know, having this hearing in approval, those siding doors could have been pushed over, the whole deck could have been pushed over, and it would have to be... 60 square foot firewall. My other concern is the impervious coverage. Your comments, time has elapsed.
00:46:52.01	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. I'm sorry we're at time, but thank you for your comments and for the handout.
00:46:57.82	Jason Grass	One last thing before I let you go. The pervious coverage is considered decompose granite DG. So that's my second page with the yellow highlight, which really brings the whole thing probably up to 90 to 95%. Impervious coverage, impervious coverage, because DG acts like impervious. So that's to note.
00:47:21.21	Nastassya Saad	to go. Thank you very much for your comment. Um, Director Mandage, is there anyone, I'm so confused, is there any Other public comment, any other speaker cards or anyone on Zoom?
00:47:35.05	Matthew Mandich	Acting director works just fine, Chair.
00:47:36.50	Nastassya Saad	Okay, acting director.
00:47:37.42	Matthew Mandich	I am not seeing any public comment on Zoom currently. I'll give it a second here in case anyone needs to raise their hand. Looking into the chamber, also not seeing any additional public comment in the chamber. Returning to Zoom.
00:47:41.34	Nastassya Saad	OKAY.
00:47:52.80	Matthew Mandich	and seeing none.
00:47:54.38	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Thank you for the public comment. We're going to go ahead and turn it back to the applicant you had. Nine.
00:48:05.03	Unknown	I have six 29.
00:48:05.22	Nastassya Saad	Six minutes. Thank you. Six minutes and 29 seconds. If you would like, you do not have to use your time, but you're welcome to respond to public comment or finish up any portion of your presentation. Otherwise, we'll close this portion.
00:48:24.42	Mark Brand	I would just say a couple of things, and Sandy can correct me, and I'm not going to use up much of the time. But I would say that during the development of this whole project, there was a different owner next door. And we worked. very closely with him and we were under the impression that he was 100% on board with the project And at the time it was being developed, there were trees in the way so that you would never have seen the deck. But those trees got taken down before he sold the property, I think. That's one observation I'd like to point out. And the impervious surface, I mentioned the deck is actually permeable, even though it's not classified that way, but water will be going right through the deck to the ground below. And if it's a big deal to anybody, I think there's a type of DG that is permeable that we could use as well.
00:49:10.56	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Would you wish to speak anymore? I think we're going to have one more question after you're done.
00:49:16.36	Sandy Pellegrini	Thank you. Um, no, I was just going to answer the question. If you wanted to know why we waited on the deck, that's all.
00:49:23.25	Nastassya Saad	Since it was asked, that would be, yes, if you could.
00:49:25.59	Sandy Pellegrini	Thank you. The reason was we purchased the house and had a 18 month construction loan. And we had six months for the permits. So we decided to wait on the deck and move forward so we could get started and not, lose our loan, you know, so basically it was a practical situation because we wanted to, we figured we'd just try later for the deck. That's it.
00:49:51.68	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. We appreciate that. If you can hang on, I think vice chair has one follow-up question.
00:49:57.10	David Marlatt	Thank you. Thank you very much. So I guess this is more for the architect. Because you had mentioned in your presentation the firewall was 30 inches above the deck surface.
00:50:08.78	Nastassya Saad	I'm so sorry. I'm sitting next to you, and I don't know if it's the fan, but if you can just speak a little louder and slower.
00:50:14.01	David Marlatt	on. Sorry about that, I will go to the mic. The A2.2, drawing 3, shows the firewall at 42 inches tall. So there's a kind of a discrepancy.
00:50:34.66	Mark Brand	That's a mistake on my part. So typically, I just make the firewall as high as required by code, which is 30 inches above the surface that you're protecting. And then I usually put a railing above that. So I didn't do that here, and I'm happy to make that modification.
00:50:48.58	David Marlatt	Okay, so if this goes forward, then you would be amenable to a condition that the firewall would be limited 30 inches. Absolutely, yes. So I just wanted to clarify that. The second question I have, we're going to kind of do the same thing, is, so you are, I'm learning that it had been your intention all along to construct a deck, and because of the time it takes for variances, your construction loan, you did this in two phases, which is perfectly logical. did you consider termination construct a deck, and because of the time it takes for variances, your construction loan, you did this in two phases, which is perfectly logical. Did you consider terminating the deck five feet from the property line so it would have the benefit of being open and also not even blocking your own view from the ADU unit? Did you look at options to keep the deck five feet away from the property line so it could remain open?
00:50:55.47	Mark Brand	Absolutely. Yes.
00:51:04.95	Adam Blair	everything.
00:51:32.73	Mark Brand	Well, because of the interior layout, we wanted to have as much glass in the rooms that are, you know, where that's located. And we didn't want to bring the windows in two feet from the edge there. Also, I think we were working under a mistaken impression that we were allowed to be right to the property, right aligned with it. And I think maybe if I, I think it may, Adam may have pointed out that we needed a side variance as well. I think that we thought we just need a rear yard variance and it was partway through this process that Adam pointed out that we were not aware that we also needed a side variance. So we already had the windows essentially built by the time we realized that we needed a side variance too, but we thought it would be more or less a formality since Lou, the original owner next door was all in favor of the project.
00:52:18.48	David Marlatt	Right. But it could be, and I really don't like designing from the dais, but I just want to get your thoughts on this. It could be a situation where the deck, that edge of the deck is pushed back to five feet, and then it has a kind of a, because the sliding pocket doors are already in place, has a kind of an L configuration. So you have. two feet of open railing along the pocket door opening and then open It's hard, I wish I had a world board I could draw on.
00:52:48.72	Mark Brand	Are you saying that we could just put railings across part of the door and then have it come back? Or two feet of the doors and then return it. I think it would be kind of ugly, but it would technically, yes, be possible.
00:52:54.71	David Marlatt	return it, and then it could all be shifted.
00:53:01.51	Mark Brand	Okay. Yeah.
00:53:02.17	David Marlatt	Thank you. Okay, thank you very much.
00:53:05.09	Nastassya Saad	He's an architect in case you can't tell.
00:53:07.62	David Marlatt	I'm an architect.
00:53:08.95	Nastassya Saad	Okay, so it is your prerogative. You still have a little time left if you wish to close that. Okay, thank you very much. You can go ahead and return to your seats. We will close the public hearing portion and bring it back up for discussion. Who would like to start us off? Oh. Commissioner Moore. Well, I can. I'm going to ask all of us, and I'm leaning into my microphone, this fan that we desperately need because it's hot, but it is hard to hear. So if you could just really speak clearly into your microphone.
00:53:44.56	Fred Moore	Clearly could be difficult, but I'll speak into the microphone. I appreciate the applicants coming to the city and being a neighbor and taking such a care in the construction of the house. Supporting the architectural and the history of the downtown so I appreciate that is a line and looking at it And I appreciate all your comments and concerns about privacy dealing with the impervious surfaces Trying to deal with shadows on the adjacent neighbors trying to minimize all those impacts, but unfortunately I come from a standpoint of variances are not just the wave of the hand Unfortunately variances are taken very seriously in the government code section, city code. There's a high bar in order to meet a variance. You know, exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applying to the property. Having the deck to have some additional living space, I don't think meets that criteria. I could go through the findings A through F and I applaud staff's effort. They get a bad rap from a lot of people in the, in the town about not doing a great job. I think they in this situation did an extraordinary job of trying to be supportive of a resident, trying to enjoy their property and make improvements. However, I, In order to meet that high bar of variance and all these findings, I think it's very difficult when you keep reading multiple findings. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Haven't heard any of that. Preservation of substantial property rights. Can't find that either. Whether it's not materially detrimental to public welfare, that's sort of an iffy item. but I don't see how adding the deck to this house and encroaching on the setbacks which are set by code meet this That's sort of an iffy item, but I don't see how adding the deck to this house and encroaching on the setbacks, which are set by code, meet the standards necessary to say, okay, we need to grant this household a variance. So right now, unless I hear something dramatic, I'm definitely a no.
00:55:46.83	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Commissioner Junius.
00:55:50.68	Andrew Junius	Thank you, Chair. Well, I'll take the other end of the argument there because this is a, In my experience, and I've been practicing land use law for 35 years in the Bay Area, This is a classic variance situation, and the extraordinary and exceptional circumstance is the size of the lot itself. I mean, the rules... you know, basically are all designed for a 5,000 square foot lot. And this is not even half that. So in my world, this is a, that's where you start. That's the easiest one to check the box for small projects like this. You know, I'm not going to deny that it's a little bit, it gets a little difficult to suss out some of these other terminologies about the terminology we're learning. Well, first off, literal enforcement of the code would mean you can't do it. And when you also, back to kind of basic code compliance, the way the house sits on the anything you do, any move you make is going to require a variance. So you can't, I mean, what, by not granting a variance for anything on the outside of this house means it's frozen in time, can't grow with the, with the owner's desires and can't be improved. So again, classic. variance, as well as the age of the house. I'm always a little surprised when the HPC here says it's not historic because it's old and the, you know, the, this, the structure of the house appears sound and intact and the architectural style appears sounded attack. So they, the fact that, you know, the new owners have done everything they can to preserve that, preserve the envelope, preserve the, you know, the roof pitch, preserve all the, those features I think is wonderful. You know, again, I won't deny that some of the more intricate, you know, greater discretionary findings with respect to a variance like detrimental to the public welfare. Well, that's a pretty big statement, and I don't think any small project related to a house would ever count as being detrimental to the general public welfare. So, I'm pretty comfortable with the variance. don't again any Any change that expands the envelope is going to be in an area that doesn't comply with code. So they're stuck with that. And the impervious surface thing, because the deck really isn't on the ground, I don't really even understand why that would be counted as impervious surface, but sounds like the staff supports that as well. So I like it when people come to Sausalito and try to improve existing homes. I like the fact that we've got a very committed new ownership here, and they want to stay. And they've already improved the property. And this is like the last piece adding to a very small house on a very small lot to give them some additional enjoyment of their home. And I'm very supportive. So I'm going to be trying to convince Commissioner Moore.
00:58:51.45	Nastassya Saad	Thank you, Commissioner Junius Vice Chair.
00:58:55.56	David Marlatt	Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, I mean, generally, I also think this is, you know, within the purview of a variance, within the kind of thing you see in a variance, the lot is very small because of the ADU downstairs, the upper unit has, doesn't have no access to outdoor living space, but it's a pretty contorted access to the flat granite area. So adding living space is a right enjoyed commonly by other property owners and as Commissioner Junius mentioned, the lot is very small. So I can probably get there on those findings. I will throw a couple words about the so-called impervious surface just to echo the architect and address Commissioner Junius. A deck is not an impervious surface. Our code says it is, and I believe there's a task force that's tasked with looking at some things in the code, and that might be something we should flag. But just logically, the rain falls from the sky, it hits the deck, the water goes in the cracks. Arguably, it reduces the impervious nature because a lot of that water actually evaporates from the deck. So all of those arguments I just sort of put aside. I do wish, like I said, I really, as an architect, I don't like what other architects say, can't you just do this? But I do wish that they had explored a bit more, some solutions to pull the deck back from the edge by five feet, especially because they knew going into the initial project that they were going to do this. So it's not like they said, oops, we didn't know. So it could have been pre-planned for that. I do think that there's solutions for that, but I don't really want to. But I also accept the argument that it's not terribly visible over the neighbor's fence. I think it's blocking the view slightly from the ADU. That's their kind of business. But I do think there were solutions that could have worked for that. And I do think if we do go forward with a motion, it's important that we condition it on their statement that the firewall will be 30 inches and not 42 inches, as they stated. I think those are my comments.
01:01:05.75	Nastassya Saad	Well, I think we're going to have an issue. I'm with Commissioner Moore, and it's not that I don't want this property owner to enjoy their home, but the variance requirements are strict. It is, unfortunately, a severely substandard lot. But with that, the zoning regulations are in place so that we do not have an overreach. And the debt going that far into the... I have no problem with the impervious surface, by the way, just... conceptually because it is a deck. So I completely agree with you there and hopefully we look forward to an update in the code on decks and impervious surface, but I do have an issue with the setback and going that far in. to the setback is It isn't, isn't overreach in my opinion. And, and if this whole project was in front of us when they were coming together for their remodel, which is beautifully and thoughtfully done. I would have had an issue as a holistic package if there was a deck with that need for a variance. So I don't think I can support a variance based on the zoning and code regulations and where this home happens to sit. And so, you know, with that, I'm leaning to no. Commissioner Moore?
01:02:32.22	Fred Moore	Just one additional comment. Maybe I'll convince one of the two of you. I have five more years of land planning on you, so I trump you there. But again, if the deck could have been half the encroachment, so it could have lined up with the building, which is already 10 feet into the 10-foot setback rather than going five feet. So they could have made a smaller deck. And maybe there, there would have been more justification because it's lining up with the existing building but they decided to go past that and further into the setback area so I still think that for a deck encroaching into the setback this significantly I mean basically going down to five feet is hard to justify with the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, which I know you don't want to hear that, and I apologize, but I just don't see how we can make those legal findings.
01:03:26.47	Nastassya Saad	Commissioner Junius.
01:03:27.76	Andrew Junius	Thank you, Chair. I'm curious from the staff's perspective, um, this is a pretty typical variance request, right? The, one of the basis for it, you know, is that you can't comply with the code because the lot's too small, right? That, Generally speaking.
01:03:42.00	Adam Blair	Yeah, thank you for the question. That is a basis that has been used for variance applications in the past. But, yeah.
01:03:49.80	Andrew Junius	And we've got a fair amount of substandard lots. I mean, I can't, you know, it's funny because, um, the the In other jurisdictions, variances go to a different body. The planning commission usually doesn't look at variances, but I've definitely prosecuted and processed a lot of them. Um, Yeah, it's just interesting that Yeah, interesting. It's a bummer. Really, I thought this was going to be a layup because it's just obvious to me that it's a variance, but I'm not sure what else I can say. I mean, I do think that the that, you know, if you consider the fact that the that the applicants simply cannot comply with the code. There have been laws now that have been created that are imposed on this piece of property that can't be complied with. So, I mean, that's what the variant, that's exactly what the variance process is for. So I'm just, you know, I don't know. I guess that means these people can never do anything outside the property, outside the building. I think that's where, that's where we've got a couple of votes here. So, unfortunate.
01:04:54.58	Nastassya Saad	Vice Chair, did you want to say something?
01:04:56.86	David Marlatt	Yeah, while I generally support the variance concept of a variance and think it does qualify, I just want to follow up with Commissioner Junius about what the project without the variance, without the DEC, does comply with the code because we don't in Sausalito have an open space requirement for the upper unit. So I think it's just to be clear, it's in no way currently code non-compliant.
01:05:19.62	Andrew Junius	Well, the project is the deck. Right, the project is the deck, and the deck requires the variances, so.
01:05:24.63	David Marlatt	Thank you. that cannot comply.
01:05:26.05	Andrew Junius	it. Right.
01:05:26.83	David Marlatt	But the house, the property, the current house with the current permits that are open, Does comply.
01:05:33.93	Andrew Junius	That's because it doesn't expand the house envelope. I mean, we're talking about the, I mean, the key fact here, which I believe is clearly an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance is you have a house that was built a hundred years ago before these laws were in effect and before the zoning took place. And, and laws have been passed for the last hundred years that make it impossible to expand this house. I mean, and we're not talking about like covering the lot from, you know, property line to property line. We're talking about a hundred foot deck, a hundred square feet of deck. Seems reasonable to me.
01:06:07.31	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:06:07.33	Nastassya Saad	Bye.
01:06:07.45	Fred Moore	Mission work. Well, the only other issue is that currently the part of the house already violates a current setback. So it's 10 feet off versus 15. So the deck could have, and maybe it would have been a better argument, that we're just matching the existing building edge and had the deck along the edge. But instead, they've gone beyond the building edge further into the setback. And I think that's where it's hard to justify them, quote, not expanding their house. They could have expanded it less. And you don't, decks are great. Everybody loves decks. I love decks. I'm sure there'd be a great view from the deck and being outside the building, but they had options with a smaller deck or a larger deck and going up to five feet of this, of the setback. I just don't see that we can find the circumstances for a variance where it may be a great design idea. It just doesn't meet the variance.
01:06:32.00	Adam Blair	Yeah.
01:06:57.19	Andrew Junius	I'm really confused. The house is a box. I'm not sure where it could have been pulled back. I don't understand at all where it could be different and be less. I mean, you can make the deck smaller and it would be. less of you'd be asking for less of a variance. I get that, but there's no. Where would the deck, I'm missing the whole point. Where's the deck going to be that would satisfy you?
01:07:23.92	Nastassya Saad	Yeah.
01:07:23.99	Andrew Junius	Okay, yeah, yeah.
01:07:24.99	Adam Blair	Thank you.
01:07:25.04	Nastassya Saad	you're, Microphone. Madam.
01:07:28.53	Adam Blair	Yeah, if I could just make a comment. My understanding is the proposed deck was proposed to a lot... with the wall of the existing residence, and it actually would not be the furthest protruding structure into the setback. As you probably saw on the zoning table, the side yard setback for the southerly or right side was two feet nine inches. That's because there's a small little bump out further along the house that projects further than where the deck would even project at its furthest point. The deck is proposed along that building wall, which sits exactly three feet from the sideline. So I just wanted to clarify that.
01:08:01.40	David Marlatt	That's on the sidewalk.
01:08:03.04	Adam Blair	Thank you. In the side yard, correct?
01:08:05.37	David Marlatt	in the So...
01:08:05.99	Adam Blair	Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
01:08:09.33	Nastassya Saad	Do we need to pull up the plans at all? For anybody? I mean, at this point, I know we're split and we don't have a, a 3-2 here. Somebody can make a motion. We can, of course, continue our discussion.
01:08:27.02	Andrew Junius	Well, maybe, I mean, yeah, if there's a, is there a smaller deck that the applicant would consider that would get one more vote? I mean, that's really, I think, where we're at.
01:08:27.42	Nastassya Saad	I mean,
01:08:37.60	Andrew Junius	Unfortunate, but
01:08:41.48	Nastassya Saad	Can we talk into the microphone?
01:08:43.37	Matthew Mandich	Sheriff, would you like me to share the plan set?
01:08:45.97	Nastassya Saad	I'm not sure. Does anybody need to see the plan set? Do we have any confusion on the setbacks or the proposal in terms of feet?
01:08:57.98	Nastassya Saad	It was just an ask.
01:08:58.69	Andrew Junius	Just an ask. I have the plans open, but.
01:09:02.49	Nastassya Saad	Nice chair. Any other thoughts? Any... I do see you raise your hand. We are at the point of deliberation, so we will not be able to engage anymore with the applicant. Well, I think if we're going to we can't have a side discussion. So let's either think that's okay. Let's just either bring it up on the. This is also this is also what we're looking at here is from the public comment, which is not on the agenda. So I do want to avoid.
01:09:19.77	Sandy Pellegrini	about that.
01:09:33.07	Nastassya Saad	discussing it too much because the public has not had a chance to see the public comment images that we are privy to. Commissioner Moore, did you want to say something? Otherwise, I'm probably going to look for an attempt at a motion
01:09:51.76	David Marlatt	Yeah, I'm just trying to think of anything that can get us out of this rut because I mean, two of the commissioners are just conceptually opposed. I don't think a three foot deck or a three foot six inch deck is going to do the trick. I think it's more of a conceptual thing.
01:10:10.44	Fred Moore	Yeah, it's just, I know the buildings within the 10 feet setback. And so now they're cutting that 10 foot already in violation because it should be five feet back. Now they're putting a five foot deck, which is clearly a usable size. Anything short of that probably would not be very usable. Totally understand why they went to five feet. But it just now takes their non-conforming house of violating the setback by having it 10 feet now within five feet. And I guess I just...
01:10:10.56	David Marlatt	Yeah.
01:10:38.49	Adam Blair	Thank you.
01:10:38.51	Fred Moore	Don't see why we have to allow the deck.
01:10:38.76	Adam Blair	Yeah.
01:10:38.96	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
01:10:39.11	Adam Blair	Thank you.
01:10:42.22	Andrew Junius	We don't. That's why we're having a very successful. But I mean, my my point is another thing to think about is If we were, if they were asking to expand the entire house, You know, from the 10-foot setback, five feet, and make it that much closer, I would probably have a problem with that. But this is a deck. in a very constrained lot with virtually no rear yard. I appreciate the fact that somebody's pointed out that there's a corner of open space, you know, at some point in the lot, but I don't know. It just, this seems it's a small house on a small lot. Then they're not asking to expand the envelope of the home. They just want to be able to slide open a door and stand outside on a small deck. I don't know.
01:11:26.97	David Marlatt	Yeah, I don't know. I don't know, and I don't know if this will get anywhere, but it's not necessarily an argument for a variance, but I also come from a kind of a do no harm approach. Without the deck,
01:11:31.23	Adam Blair	Nobody's not.
01:11:40.39	David Marlatt	Oh, sorry. So I also think about some sort of do-no-harm logic. Without the deck, that rear yard is kind of down in a hole because of the other house that's along the rear property line. And so this elevates the living surface less down in a hole. It puts the ADU in kind kind of a darker shadow situation. But I think that's the choices that they've made as the applicant. I just don't see. I appreciate that you buy the property as is, the rules are the rules, I do respect that, but I don't see where this, compromises any of the city's priorities, general plan, denying rights to nearby neighbors. I don't see the harm of it, which may not be a strong argument in favor, but that's part of my approach too. Is it something they want to do? It improves the property. It provides them with some outdoor space for their upper unit. Almost no one's going to see it when it's done.
01:12:50.23	David Marlatt	This may not be very compelling. Thank you.
01:12:51.84	Fred Moore	No, I totally understand that. I totally understand the desire to have it. So I guess how would you make a distinction between going all the way to the PL and having no setback versus four feet, five feet, three feet, two feet? So what is the justification to say five feet is okay, but eight feet would not be okay or nine feet would not be okay? So that's where I have a problem making the distinction. Either the setback is a setback and we should honor it to some degree unless there's a significant and extraordinary reason why. I know one of the justifications was to have outdoor space because they can't use the outdoor space because it's for the ADU below. I'm not sure that then justifies why, if the ADU can use that. So we need space up above to use for ourselves. So we need a variance from the setbacks so we can have the space because we gave part of our space away to somebody else. I just see us getting locked in a circle there.
01:13:50.88	Nastassya Saad	Yeah, that was well articulated. Commissioner Moore, and that's my position as well. I mean, at this point, it is obviously looking to be 2-2, but I think we should attempt to make a motion, and just in the interest of... trying to move forward. But This is one of our subjective conversations and opinions are as they stand quite clearly. So we can give it a whirl if anyone wishes to make a motion.
01:14:23.59	Andrew Junius	Well, okay, let me, I'm actually going to ask a question, another question to the staff. This is like phoning a friend, so sorry. If the if the if the variance is just flat out denied, Can that denial be appealed to the planning committee or to the city council?
01:14:37.93	Adam Blair	Yes, it may.
01:14:38.81	Andrew Junius	And it would be like a super majority, four votes out of the five to override the planning commission's denial, or it's just 3-2 or-
01:14:44.09	Adam Blair	No, they just need 3-2. It'd be a 3-2. Yeah, the majority of members
01:14:48.16	Andrew Junius	All right, I'm going to... I mean, I think you're in a tough spot here, so... Well, maybe I wouldn't mind having the applicant come up for a couple of questions.
01:14:59.16	Nastassya Saad	Are you going to, you know what? Yes.
01:15:01.47	Andrew Junius	No, go ahead. Basically continuance versus like, do you just want us to take an action?
01:15:04.98	Nastassya Saad	Absolutely. Let's go ahead and bring up the applicant. I have a feeling I know where you're going, but Commissioner Junius, take it away. Thank you.
01:15:11.23	Fred Moore	Before you start there, can I ask one question?
01:15:11.34	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. of course
01:15:16.24	Fred Moore	Commissioner Luxenberg excused himself because he was in the- He's within 500 feet. Barely 500 feet.
01:15:23.95	Nastassya Saad	Yes, it is his prerogative, but he's recused because he's on that 500 foot line. Thank you.
01:15:28.27	Fred Moore	he would not want to reconsider that excuse.
01:15:30.55	Nastassya Saad	At this point, he hasn't heard the hearing. So it's, yeah, it's a non-starter. Yeah, nice attempt. Yes, go ahead.
01:15:37.69	Andrew Junius	So yeah, I mean, so based on what you're hearing, I'm doubting that a continuance is gonna be of any value for you. And a vote to A motion that I would make to approve it as is is likely going to fail two, two. Um, So then I think, and another thing, if there's no action, the application is essentially denied, right?
01:16:02.66	Matthew Mandich	Yes. Can we check with Attorney Otto on a no action call? Thank you.
01:16:09.78	Mary Wagner	Hello, I was actually researching that as you were going on. there's an argument for both ways. I think that in the interest of, uh, The cleanest way would be, and I think is where I hear if I'm reading my tea leaves, is a denial motion because then that is squarely appealable. it becomes, I need to do more research on if it is a stalemate with tutu, there's an argument for both ways as I was looking. clearly delineate that and I can't answer that clearly at this moment.
01:16:43.56	Andrew Junius	at this moment. Well, from my experience in these situations, the burdens on you guys to get the three votes and you're not going to get them tonight. It doesn't look like, and so you're, I would say you're denied. Um, Uh, so yeah, I guess it was a continuance of any value to you, do you think at this point? Yes.
01:17:02.31	Mark Brand	Well, we can even ask you a couple of questions, you know,
01:17:05.01	Nastassya Saad	No, I'm sorry. You can't. We can't. No.
01:17:07.51	Mark Brand	Thank you.
01:17:07.54	Andrew Junius	No.
01:17:08.27	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:17:08.39	Andrew Junius	Yeah.
01:17:08.44	Nastassya Saad	No, I think what
01:17:08.54	Andrew Junius	Thank you. Thank you.
01:17:08.62	Mark Brand	you
01:17:09.40	Andrew Junius	You know, you know.
01:17:09.89	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:17:09.97	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
01:17:10.02	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:17:10.04	Andrew Junius	You'd rather you you would rather have the the matter continued rather than denied. Yes. OK.
01:17:14.38	Nastassya Saad	Yeah. Okay. Um,
01:17:18.58	Andrew Junius	Well, then I'm going to move for a continuance.
01:17:19.07	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Okay. I'll second. just one second with that concept while we have you. So if you, you know, I think we're trying to find some way forward here for you. If you do wish to continue, let me first look to Steph. What would you be able to potentially support for a future I think our next agenda hearing is quite light, but would you be able to, is there noticing requirements?
01:17:47.28	Matthew Mandich	Well, this is the last hearing of June. So we would be into July.
01:17:52.18	Nastassya Saad	We don't have our-
01:17:52.63	Andrew Junius	Thank you. No.
01:17:53.43	David Marlatt	forth with a
01:17:54.19	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
01:17:54.20	David Marlatt	Thank you.
01:17:54.79	Matthew Mandich	Oh, sorry, excuse me, where the 20th.
01:17:55.69	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:17:55.70	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
01:17:55.74	Nastassya Saad	We're on the 10th. Sorry. That's okay.
01:17:56.85	Matthew Mandich	Sorry. I was thinking city council. I've been juggling a lot of different hearings right now. So yeah, excuse me, we have one on the 24th. Correct. However, I believe at this time, hearing what I'm hearing on the dais, we will be looking at some kind of redesign. I would imagine. potentially. So I don't know if pushing it to a date certain in two weeks is going to give enough time to have a redesign and then re-notice. It wouldn't be feasible if there would be a redesign.
01:18:24.01	Andrew Junius	that's,
01:18:24.29	Matthew Mandich	And I don't know how we would get out of the stalemate where they were in right now without a redesign. So I don't think really that the 24th would be feasible on that. That's just a, my opinion on,
01:18:33.08	Nastassya Saad	I agree. I'm going to look back to the applicant to... clearly ask one more time if you're interested in continuance. Okay, so they are very interested. So with that, I mean, assume, but to be quite straightforward, I think if you're looking for it to move forward, you do have two votes. A potential redesign may amend and get you one more if you so wish to choose. Of course, we would strongly recommend that. With that, our July, can I just pull up our calendar? that would be the onus on you, of course, to redesign, and then staff would need time to take that in, review and notice. So our upcoming meetings that are not unfortunately posted,
01:19:26.17	Matthew Mandich	So chair, just a matter of chair, there is a continuance to a date certain we wouldn't need to renotice only date uncertain.
01:19:31.81	Nastassya Saad	Perfect. Thank you very much. Attorney Otto, was that what you were going to say?
01:19:36.16	Mary Wagner	That is exactly what I was going to say.
01:19:38.10	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. But if it's a day uncertain, we would. Okay, thank you. So, yes.
01:19:43.00	Andrew Junius	I mean, again, I apologize if I keep bringing dragging the staff or the applicant back in. But at this point, I might suggest that you we continue to a date uncertain so that your your your application essentially kind of goes into limbo while you think about what what's happened tonight work with the staff and see if there's anything forward. If we give you a date. in two weeks, I don't think you're going to come up with anything. We could give you a date in the, in September, you know, in the fall or something and not have to re-notice and give you plenty of time to think about it. Um, or we could just continue it to a date uncertain and kind of start the hearing process over again, whenever you're ready.
01:20:20.68	Nastassya Saad	I also wanna be clear, Are there, if it's to a date uncertain, there will be no more additional permit fees. Correct. They can keep their existing.
01:20:32.20	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, that's correct.
01:20:33.11	Nastassya Saad	Okay, thank you very much. Um, okay. With that, if there, I think you understand.
01:20:39.65	Sandy Pellegrini	You have no meetings in the summer, is that it?
01:20:41.98	Nastassya Saad	We are on recess in August, but we do have, we will have July 8th and we should be having July 22nd, and then August will be recess and then we'll re resume in September. So a date on certain will allow you to work with staff to figure out the appropriate date that works for staff and, and you. And we'll be here. OK, so good. Thank you. That's a great suggestion. I will let you make a motion if you. If I might just.
01:21:08.37	Mary Wagner	If I might just.
01:21:10.14	Nastassya Saad	I'm sorry. Attorney Otto.
01:21:11.74	Mary Wagner	I apologize. Just as one alternative, it is also possible that you can continue to a date certain And then at that hearing, if they're not ready or you're not ready, it could continue again and still not require additional noticing. I'm not suggesting that's what you have to do. I just wanted to throw that out as another alternative, if that's the commission's pleasure.
01:21:32.14	Andrew Junius	Yeah, I appreciate that, City Attorney. I mean, at this point, I'm going to amend the motion to continue the hearing to that last date in July. And that'll give plenty of time to think about it. And if you're not ready, then we can continue it again. But I think that's about the best we're going to do tonight. So I'm going to move to continue the hearing to July 7th.
01:21:52.12	Nastassya Saad	22nd.
01:21:52.56	Andrew Junius	July 22nd.
01:21:54.11	Nastassya Saad	I'll second that. Thank you. um, Acting Director Mandich.
01:22:00.36	Matthew Mandich	Thank you, Chair. With that, I'll call roll. Commissioner Genius. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxembourg is absent, recused. Vice Chair Marlap. Yes. Chair Saad.
01:22:05.12	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
01:22:11.73	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
01:22:12.59	Matthew Mandich	Motion passes.
01:22:13.34	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Thank you to the applicants. Thank you for the compromise. Okay, we are going to open this up to our next agenda item. which is 6B. This is 6268 Lower Crescent Avenue. This is a design review permit, a non-conformity permit, a tree removal permit, and an encroachment agreement. Principal planner slash acting director, Matthew Mandich, is here to present. And oh, Jeffrey Welsenberg is back. Let's give him just one second to get sorted and then we can proceed.
01:22:53.47	Nastassya Saad	Would someone be so kind as to turn the lights down ever so slightly up here? Oh, thank you. It's just hot. Thank you.
01:23:00.47	Andrew Junius	Yeah.
01:23:01.18	Matthew Mandich	Is that better? That is.
01:23:01.94	Nastassya Saad	That is, thank you very much. Okay. Whenever you're ready, Matthew.
01:23:06.24	Matthew Mandich	All right.
01:23:11.79	Matthew Mandich	Thank you very much, Adam. Okay, so yes, thank you chair for already announcing the item. You all did hear this at the last planning commission hearing. So I'll try to be a little bit briefer with the presentation. But with that, we'll just move into the next slide, please. So yes, location of the property here, as you can see on the map located at the confluence of Crescent and lower Crescent avenues. It's in the R225 zoning district and the lot is 9,014 square feet. You can see it here, the parcel and then here on Google Earth, it's kind of a diamond shaped parcel developed with currently two duplexes. Next slide, please. So as mentioned, site is developed with two duplexes. There are limited records on file at the City of Sausalito concerning the development of this property. Construction date of 1923 is on the county records with a remodel in 1980. Documents in the City of Sausalito indicate that two duplexes existed on the site, at least in the 1970s and probably prior. Several minor permits were issued from 1983 to 2019 that we have on record for re-roofs, additional windows, kitchen, bathroom, and new driveway to serve one of the duplexes. The property was purchased by a new owner in 2025, hence the hearing today before you for the changes proposed. Next slide, please. The proposed project will require a design review permit for the addition of 319 square feet of new floor area to the existing duplex at 6264 Lower Crescent, while also converting that structure from a duplex into a single-family dwelling with an attached ADU. So that preserves the four units on the lot and complies with state law of no net loss. It's also adding 540 square feet of new building coverage to that existing structure, and there will be refinishing work proposed to the 6868 Lower Crescent Structure, which is the smaller duplex on site. That structure is also partially in the right-of-way, so any modification to that structure also trigger design review through our encroachment agreement process. A nonconformity permit is also required to preserve the existing nonconforming multifamily dwelling use as defined in SMC 1088. An encroachment agreement is here for your recommendation for approval to City Council for those existing improvements in the right-of-way, including a portion of the 66-68 duplex at Lower Crescent, two driveways, several retaining walls, planters, existing and proposed landscaping, and a new entry stair and walkways. There's also a true removal slash alteration permit before you today to remove one protected coastal live oak, which is failing and in poor health and located between the two structures. There's also a request for alteration for two protected coastal live oaks for the proposed addition to the property. Next slide, please. So as you can see here, I've got the existing footprint above, proposed footprint here, the existing building coverage here shown in purple. So what we're seeing really is a rather modest addition to the rear of the house to take advantage of the bay views in that direction. There's another small addition on this corner of the property as well. So hopefully that's cleared everyone. Next slide, please. Again, just walking through the floor plans very quickly. Here's the lower floor, additional decking, exterior patio, and the attached ADU at the lower level, highlighted in yellow. Next slide, please. Again, we have the existing on the left, just to clarify and proposed on the right. This is the addition proposed on the second floor, primarily expansion of the deck, some additional square footage being added and a small area square footage being added near the side yard setback there. Next slide, please. Just some elevations. We've got the proposed elevations on top, existing elevations on the bottom. As you can see, The property maintains largely the same envelope, same footprint, same character, and same height as the existing structure. Next slide, please. Thank you. See again here from the side, very similar. The only addition is really shout a bump out of an addition to the rear side here with the addition of some of these decks. Again, you can see it in the rendering right here to take advantage of the bay views out that direction. And of course, there'll be a refinishing of the property, new siding and everything on interior remodel as well. Next slide, please. This is the smaller duplex located on the site, very small, two units of about 370 square feet each, one located on top of the other with a garage in the middle. These are just all the elevations of that, first of all, proposed on the top, existing on the bottom. Again, this is just minor refinishing. There will be replacement of the exterior deck and staircase. However, there will be no additions of square footage or building coverage to this structure. Next slide, please. So here is our table from 1022.2, which is the... the site standards for the R225 zoning district. This is for the total development on the site as a whole. As you can see, the structures on the site comply with all the requirements except for the existing legal non-conforming setback at uh 66 through 68. however that setback and that structure is not being substantially modified so does not require a non-conformity permit for that structure um i would like to point out as we'll probably discuss later that the dwelling unit density here is one unit per 2500 square feet in the r25 district. This aligns with the density prescribed to this district in our general plan, which is 17.4 units per acre. So that's where that's coming from. And the site, as it stands, is nonconforming. However, moving it to a three-unit site with an ADU would make it conform to this density development standard. The parking as well as brought up last time does require five spaces. There are only four, however, pursuant to the parking standard section of our code because no additional density is being added to the site. The parking is not required to conform. And because it is a nonconforming use rather than a nonconforming structure, the nonconforming permit does not require additional parking either. Next slide, please.
01:29:17.86	Nastassya Saad	Wait, wait, you're so fast. Say that last sentence one more time.
01:29:19.67	Matthew Mandich	Oh, did I? Yeah.
01:29:23.99	Nastassya Saad	The parking. Okay, so...
01:29:24.85	Matthew Mandich	Okay, so I'll just explain that in a little more detail. So there are four units on the lot right now. Yes. If you would think about it kind of of how SOS lives in the Simple Code work, you would think there would be two units or two parking spaces required for each space. So that would mean eight parking spaces. However, for the duplex that's being converted to a single-family home with an ADU, that will only require two spaces because the ADU has an exemption doesn't require any parking. So that's just a single family home, two spaces there. Then you have the other duplex. We have a section in our code that requires that only if there is two small units, if the unit is under 700 square feet, it only requires one parking space. So one parking space for one of the units and two for the other. So two, two, one, five parking spaces.
01:29:31.95	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:29:31.97	Unknown	Yes.
01:30:12.77	Nastassya Saad	Perfect, thank you. I just need the math.
01:30:14.14	Matthew Mandich	The existing lot has developed before, so it is legal non-conforming right now. However, because we're not increasing the density, the intensity of the use and the density of the lot,
01:30:23.89	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
01:30:23.93	Matthew Mandich	We're not required to correct the non-conforming parking.
01:30:26.56	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. you
01:30:27.67	Matthew Mandich	You're welcome. Next slide, please. Unit compliance as well. So this is a section we talked about last time and was referenced in the last staff report as well. SMC 1044 330.C. This is a different set of development standards that we have for each individual unit in our R2 and R3 zoning districts. As you can see here, the development standards shift for each unit. They become a little bit more constrained for each unit. This is primarily done to prevent the development of large single-family homes in our two-family and multifamily districts. So those development standards that you see there on the left-hand side are the altered development standards. Each unit must comply with these standards that you see in this table. And then the lot itself, all the development on the lot must comply with the standards in the previous table from 1022.2. So as you can see here, no single unit may exceed these standards and no unit does. So the project does comply with both the standards in SMC 1044.330C as well as table 1022.2. Next slide, please. zoning consistency. As mentioned, the proposed project complies with all the objective zoning development standards for the R225 zoning district in SMC Table 1022-2 and SMC 1044-330C, as was explained in the last two slides. There is a nonconforming setback at 6668 Lower Crescent. However, this is legal nonconforming and will not be substantially altered and therefore does not require a nonconformity permit. However, a nonconformity permit is required to preserve the existing nonconforming use of the premises. Do you have a question, Chair?
01:32:12.16	Nastassya Saad	No.
01:32:12.18	Matthew Mandich	Thank you. Okay. Saw your hand go up. Yeah.
01:32:14.76	Nastassya Saad	Yeah.
01:32:15.49	Matthew Mandich	So, yeah, just want to, you know, make sure we're clear on the two different tables that we have in our residential zoning code. There's table 10-22-1 and 10-22-2. One is for development standards and one is for use. So the project complies with the development standards. However, it does not require, comply, excuse me, with the use as defined. So our zoning code defines a multifamily dwelling, singular, property. has three dwelling units on a lot, which is an interesting conundrum because the density allows one to achieve more. The general plan density actually prescribes more density to these lots than what the definition of a multifamily dwelling would allow. So it's an interesting wrinkle that we've uncovered through this project and one I think that we should address because right now this use table or this definition of the use, not even the table, the table can remain the same. I think the definition has an issue and could be remedied quite easily by saying three or more attached dwelling units. I think the intent is to not allow triplexes or fourplexes on these R225 lots. However, the general plan does have a higher density for these lots where they could achieve, in theory, up to four units based on the density in the general plan, if you had a 10,000 square foot lot, for example, which there are several of. Um, In addition, the side yard setback is compliant pursuant to SMC 1040-07-OD. I think we're all very familiar with our 40-foot rule at this point. So anytime you have a structure longer than 40 feet, for every 5 feet, you need to add 1 foot to the setback. In this case, the required setback for this structure would be 12 feet. I believe that says 8 inches. I can't really read it that well. Yeah, 12-8. All right, great. So the Planning Commission can approve a setback if the average depth of the yard is equal to the minimum required so the minimum required would be 12.8 or 12 feet 8 inches and the average is 16 feet 5 inches so that complies um in addition less than 50 percent of the building wall is allowed to encroach in the required setback the amount of building wall that encroaches is 76 feet 4 inches or the entire excuse me that's the entire building wall. The encroachment is allowed to encroach in the required setback. The amount of building wall that encroaches is 76 feet, four inches, or the entire, excuse me, that's the entire building wall. The encroachment is 36 too, so it's less than 50%. So that also complies. And again, this can only be approved with Planning Commission review, which it's getting right now. So the setback also complies. Next slide, please. This is just a diagram of how that setback compliance works. Our architect or applicant here, Scott Couture, put this together. He's very familiar with this 40-foot rule, and I think this is a really good way of laying it out visually. So that's included in the plan set in greater detail you could look at, but basically just showing how the setback complies with less than 50% of the building while encroaching and the average setback being larger than the minimum required. Next slide, please. So moving on to the tree removal permit. As you can see, this is the tree scheduled for removal, proposed for removal rather. This is the failing oak tree in between the two structures. So you can see in the arborist report, this has a high chance of failure and is recommended for removal. We have two other trees right here in yellow that are proposed for alteration. This is to allow for the expansion of the home right here for the addition and the decks that we discussed earlier. One limb from each tree is requested for removal. So it's a tree alteration. The trees will be preserved and protected after the limbs are removed. So it's not a total removal on those. Next slide, please. Yeah, just a little bit more detail here. Here's that tree number seven we spoke about, again, right in between the two structures. And here's some photos of the arborist report showing the poor health of that tree and why it's being recommended for removal. Next slide, please. Here are the two trees that are in front of the home right here where the proposed addition and decks will be. This is the house as it stands today. It's a little hard to see in these slides, but the tree limbs that are highlighted in green, kind of green hash marks here, you can see those are the limbs here and here that are proposed for removal from those trees to accommodate the expansion of the structure. Next slide, please. Finally, we get to the encroachment agreement. A lot of the encroachments that we see here are already existing, including a portion of the home right here, 66 through 68 Lower Crescent. The two driveways, one here and one here. Retaining walls and planters in this area right there. Entry stairs and a walkway. I've kind of outlined the encroachment area in red here. And then additional landscaping in here. So that is the extent of the encroachment requested. Yes, I'm sure.
01:36:58.02	Nastassya Saad	Question on the encroachment. Sorry, you said there's already existing. Can you just break out real quick what's up here that's existing? Is that what's in the red box?
01:37:06.33	Matthew Mandich	So, The lane plus is existing, the driveway is existing, the other driveway is existing. These planters and retaining walls are existing. There is a stair set here now, but that'll be modified. This walkway will also be modified. There'll be an additional stone retaining wall next to the walkway and the landscaping will be replaced.
01:37:23.62	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
01:37:25.46	Matthew Mandich	Greg Phillips, Next slide please oh alright that brings us to a recommendation so staff recommends the planning Commission adopted resolution approving a design review permit and non conformity permit a tree removal slash alteration permit. Greg Phillips, And recommend approval of an encroachment agreement to the city council for the proposed project at 62 through 68 lower crescent avenue. proposed project conforms to the required development standards in the sosolito music code for the r225 zoning district in SMC Table 1022-2 and 1044-3330C. A nonconformity permit is requested for the nonconforming use as defined, and the proposed project is in conformance with all the required findings for design review, nonconformity permit, encroachment agreement, as well as the criteria for a tree removal permit. The project is subject to the conditions of approval attached to the resolution and any other conditions that the PC may put on tonight. That concludes the presentation. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you.
01:38:22.31	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much for a very comprehensive report and conversation. Let's go ahead and open it up for questions. Wish you more.
01:38:32.96	Fred Moore	A couple quick questions. With respect to the encroachments, my understanding the new elements of the encroachment are essentially landscaping. The hardscape improvements are already there that are encroaching.
01:38:46.87	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, that's correct. The new encroachments are relatively small in nature. It's readjustment of a walkway, new small stone wall, entry stairs, a majority of encroachments are pre-existing. However, the reason. That duplex is being refinished too. So even if that was the only scope of the project would require an encroachment agreement for the work on the structure itself in the right of way. A design review permit, yeah.
01:39:08.28	Fred Moore	With respect to the tree replacement fund for removal trees, how does that exactly work? Is it a dollar figure that caused a tree to be replaced on the property, or is it a fund that the city can use for trees anywhere?
01:39:22.74	Matthew Mandich	So it goes into a fund if you were to pay the tree fee into the fund, and that's dependent on the size of the tree. And we have a resolution that kind of outlines, you know, what the parameters are and how much money goes in. So it would go into a fund. The applicant has requested that the planning commission, you know, waive those requirements from the tree removal permit. So there's, The planning commission can do, you know, one of three things that's either a request that the applicant pay into the fund, B request that a replacement tree be placed on the property or C wave. Both of those requirements due to the fact that the site can't support additional vegetation or that they don't feel that there's a need to pay into the fund for this removal.
01:40:01.17	Fred Moore	The other question is a little confusion over the nonconformity use for the nonconformity structure. Yep. So issuing a permit for a nonconforming use.
01:40:06.72	Unknown	Yep.
01:40:12.32	Fred Moore	What does that actually do, given what this project is proposing? I don't understand what the end result is, other than words.
01:40:20.64	Matthew Mandich	Yeah, well, that's a lot of it. I mean, the project design hasn't changed at all since you've seen it. The only change to the project in the staff report that you've seen is additional findings being added for the nonconformity permit, an additional permit being requested for approval, and additional fees being levied to the applicant. So those are the only fundamental changes. However, the nonconformity permit allows the existing nonconforming use as defined to remain on the premises. So there's a trigger in the nonconformity section that when you're altering premises or a structure that has a nonconforming use, a nonconformity permit is required.
01:40:55.17	Fred Moore	Last question is, I know the Arborist Report indicated that one tree is failing, but Correct me if I missed this. I didn't see anything that kind of identified the tree's been failing for 20 years, two months, three months. Is there anything that I missed in that as far as how long this tree has been failing?
01:41:14.39	Matthew Mandich	If it wasn't mentioned in the arborist report, I really can't speak on it. That's not my profession. It was recommended for removal by the arborist due to impending failure and damage to the tree and very high probability of property damage.
01:41:28.26	Fred Moore	Thank you.
01:41:28.28	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Moore. Thank you. Vice chair. Oh, sorry. I think... Commissioner Junius. Commissioner Luxembourg.
01:41:41.03	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you, Chair. I have a series of questions, some for you and some for the city attorney. I sent them to you in advance so you know they're coming. However, your presentation offered some additional concerns to me today, so I will but lay out those as I ask the questions that you've seen. First, just on definitional, you're... you keep saying on 1044 330 that each unit has to comply with that standard that's not the way that section is written what that section says is the primary dwelling which is the largest one has to be less than the far in the building in the impervis the other ones do not have to meet that obviously they'd be smaller than the primary one. So the language you're using, I'm concerned because some of the language you're using relates to some misunderstandings of our code. So I just lay that out there, but let me get to the questions. You And It also concerns me that the lack of understanding related to uses versus density. So if I follow, which is new tonight, so if I follow your logic, in an R16 zone, which is a single family zone, that's 18,000 square feet. you could put per density three single family houses. That's incorrect, no. Because per density, which is the word you use, you could put three single-family houses. So in this particular loan, let me get to the specific question here. We asked for two things at our last meeting. The first was that pursuant to Table 1022-1, which indicates that three or more units in an R2 to R25 zone is a prohibited use, and that the following statement be corrected. And I'd ask specifically, and I've sent this to you by email multiple times now, although the subject parcel is currently non-conforming as it contains four dwelling units on a parcel, the current zoning code would only allow three. One of the existing duplexes, 62 to 64 lower Crescent, is being converted into a single family home with an ADU, which would make the unit count conform to current code, doesn't say anything about density, current code with three primary dwelling units. And then the second was, so that section should have been removed from staff report. and the second is that we need a non-conforming use permit because the use, i.e. multiple family in an R2 to R3 zone was not allowed. So you did have them add the non-conforming permit. And when you've added the following sentence, and I apologize, but I'm going to read it. Although a nonconforming permit is not required for refreshing the duplex, a nonconforming permit is required to preserve the existing nonconforming use on the parcel. As multi-family dwellings, which are defined as three or more units on one lot, are not permitted in the R2 zoning district. As a subject parcel is located in the R2-25 zoning district and developed with two existing duplexes, one of which is proposed to be converted to a single-family home with an ADU, it has three or more dwellings on a lot and therefore it's considered a non-conforming use. As such, a non-conforming permit is required for the enlargement and modification of the structure and permits occupied by a non-conforming use pursuant to SMC 1062-070-A3. So on the one hand, you make it very clear, which is what we asked you to do, that this needs a non-conforming use permit, not a building permit, a non-conforming and go to which is what we asked you to do, that this needs a non-conforming use permit, not a building permit, a non-nonconforming building permit, doesn't limit the density, which is counter to this other statement that says by changing it from four units to three units, it would comply with current code. It doesn't say anything about density, it says current code. So either the latter one, which I believe is correct, or the earlier one is incorrect, but you have both of them in there. And so what we asked you last time was delete that sentence. So my question to you is why didn't you just delete the sentence and we wouldn't even have to have this conversation?
01:43:10.74	Sandy Pellegrini	So,
01:44:10.45	Adam Blair	Thank you.
01:44:10.50	Unknown	Thank you.
01:44:10.51	Adam Blair	Thank you.
01:46:15.20	Matthew Mandich	Well, I think you're taking that sentence from the discussion on the development standards. So that's what it's meant to reflect, that it complies with the development standards. That's not what it says. Are you confused about the permits in front of you today? Is it not clear why we're asking for a nonconformity permit? Oh.
01:46:34.31	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. I am confused of why we keep getting erroneous staff reports. And when you had an opportunity as Adam did on the earlier one to correct this, and you could have either changed that thing to talk about density or whatever you wanted, or you could have just taken it out. And had you taken it out, we wouldn't even have to have this conversation. So I'm a little confused why, and we'll get to a question from the city attorney about this. We have two statements in here that are contradictory on their face. You can describe what you thought you meant by it. The words speak for themselves. And one section of the report says one thing. And my concern is that the staff has a misunderstanding that in an R2 to 2-5 zone, you can have three or more units. And my concern is that you're going to use this on further projects and take this for what it's worth. But I have seen the staff take a previous report and cut and paste information out of it into a new report. And I do not want to have a report out there that has incorrect information that could potentially set a precedent for further projects where it's wrong. So I want to correct the record. Last time it was clear that I asked that we correct the record. And you have language that clearly contradicts this. The easiest thing would have been to take it out, and we'll get to a recommendation on how we do that, but for some reason, you want to leave that in, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why it matters to you that that sentence, if we delete it, it doesn't change what your opinion is, but it does make it a little easier to move forward. Why can't we just delete that one section?
01:48:18.76	Matthew Mandich	Um, first of all, I think you, you covered a lot of ground there. So I'd like to kind of address some of those first. I think you're taking that one sentence out of context and blowing one sentence in a staff report up to make it the point of the hearing, which I personally don't really understand. The staff report was published. I don't, I think the staff report is very clear about what permits are in front of the commission today and what the decision that needs to be made. The resolution is ultimately the artifact from the hearing and the decision. So I don't know that one sentence has, that's taken out of context and was specifically talking about development standards has to do with this project or the permits before you today. I would like to touch on the issue of the density, because I think it's a really interesting kind of esoteric land use question that we have in front of us with what we have is a contradiction between our code between our development standards and our use tables for the residential district and it's an important one to shed some light on because i think it's one that we need to remedy so for example Right now, the density in our development standards for the R225 district is one dwelling unit per 2,500 square feet. This matches the general plan density for the R225 districts, which allows 17.4 units per acre, okay? So if you have a 10,000 square foot site, Due to the density in the general plan, you should be able to put four units on that lot. The state law,
01:49:42.73	Mark Brand	Before we go further. Let me finish. No, I want you to bring up the general plan so we can see what you're talking about. yet.
01:49:52.98	Jeffery Luxenberg	I mean, talk about the general plan to see the language.
01:49:56.81	Nastassya Saad	I think let's first, you got a chance to speak. Let's. Matthew go through his argument, but I don't want to make this a sticking point. I do want to stick to the permits in front of us, although it is fair to bring up, but we need Matthew to have a chance to respond to your questions.
01:50:13.63	Jeffery Luxenberg	look for
01:50:14.22	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:50:14.24	Jeffery Luxenberg	We'll be right back.
01:50:14.39	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
01:50:14.41	Jeffery Luxenberg	General.
01:50:14.66	Nastassya Saad	I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO
01:50:14.68	Jeffery Luxenberg	The general... That's going to be the argument.
01:50:18.51	Nastassya Saad	But let Matthew go ahead and continue first.
01:50:21.32	Matthew Mandich	Thank you, Jared. I'll be brief. Just want to wrap it up. Again, I think this is an interesting discussion and one worth having and one worth clarifying for everyone, because I think can be a good moment for everyone to understand that we have a contradiction here between our use table and our development standards table. And it's something that we ultimately need to remedy. The general plan has a density of 17.4 units per acre, which the R225 development standards mirrors that as one unit per 2,500 square feet of a parcel. Okay. So the general plan per state law would trump any other language in the zoning ordinance, which doesn't allow for a property to reach its maximum density as prescribed in the general plan. So for example, if you have a 10,000 square foot lot and someone were to wipe that lot clean, they could put four units there because the general plan density allows that. It doesn't matter what the definition of multifamily home is in our definitions table. What matters is that the general plan ultimately governs that density. So I just want to make that as a clear point. So what we really should do to remedy this situation in this contradiction is, alter the definition of a multifamily dwelling to three or more attached dwelling units on a lot. That way, the use table can stay absolutely the same. I don't think the intent is to have triplexes and fourplexes in the R225 district, but the intent is to have one dwelling unit per 2,500 square feet. So if you have a 10,000 square foot lot, the intent of the zoning code is to allow for four dwelling units to develop on that lot. It can be two duplexes, it can be a duplex in two single family homes, it could be four single family homes, but it does allow for four units on that lot. What it doesn't seem to allow for is a multifamily dwelling, which in our code is poorly defined as three units. on one parcel. It should probably read three attached units on one parcel. That would make more sense for a multifamily dwelling. So I think that's the issue. We have an issue with our definition of multifamily, which is not allowing the parcels in the R225 district to achieve their maximum density. The code, the way it reads right now and the definition of the code, textually, you're absolutely correct. That's why we're getting a non-conformity use permit today. The code reads how it reads. Therefore, this property, the premises are being altered. They need a nonconforming permit for the existing nonconforming use based on how the code reads today. And that's the permit that's in front of you today. And that's the permit that I'm hoping we get a decision on.
01:52:47.61	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Um, I want to put a pin in this so we can move forward with the hearing. Yeah, I'll just have a question.
01:52:54.03	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
01:52:54.43	Nastassya Saad	final, okay, yes, let's ask one question of Kylie. I started
01:52:54.50	Jeffery Luxenberg	Bye.
01:52:57.98	Sandy Pellegrini	Thank you.
01:52:59.43	Nastassya Saad	Sorry?
01:53:00.10	Jeffery Luxenberg	I mentioned that I was going to have a couple of questions
01:53:02.31	Nastassya Saad	Okay, let's just move forward because I don't want to be stuck on this topic for too long.
01:53:07.58	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you, Kylie. First of all, I want to make sure I understand the staff person has indicated that if we have a 10,000-foot lot and we wipe it out, completely demolish everything on the lot under SMC table 10-22-1 in an R2 zone, which is a two-family zone, you can put on a 10,000-foot lot, you can put four units if you put them in sort of different buildings. My understanding of R2 zones, which is two units per maximum, and that multi is not allowed, you could not do that on a 10,000-foot lot. And it impacts how to deal with this particular project.
01:53:56.84	Mary Wagner	Based on the Housing Accountability Act, if the general plan allows greater density than your zoning allowed, you'd have to be able to facilitate that density from the general plan. When the Housing Accountability Act came forward, It was purposely made to, stop cities from being able to use their zoning to stop the general plan from actually being facilitated. In this case, I'm hearing, from Matthew that we've discovered and uncovered a an error that we need to fix. I'm not hearing that this was done intentionally. It was just, this has buried it out the problem. So, based off what Matthew said, Staff is saying, yes, that's how you would get the density is four units from the general plan. And that would come from, we'd have to comply with that through the Housing Accountability Act, which is state law.
01:54:53.69	Jeffery Luxenberg	The fan may drown you out a second. You're saying that if it's a 10,000-foot lot, the Housing Accountability Act, in an R2 zone, somebody can come in with all units, even though it's a two-family zone?
01:55:09.13	Mary Wagner	We have to comply with the density in the general plan. I'm relying upon Matthew telling me that that density would give the equation of 10,000 or per 10,000 square foot lot four units.
01:55:23.59	Jeffery Luxenberg	And even though that's not an allowed use, they do not need a use permit for that.
01:55:30.14	Mary Wagner	You have to be able to facilitate the density that's in the general plan. As to how we would get there, we would look at that on a case by case basis. At the end of the day, I think at the end of the day, what I'm hearing from Matthew is that You've identified an issue that needs to be remedied in the zoning. We've covered a problem with a definition and it needs to be fixed. But to move forward today, you have before you a nonconformity permit that allows the commission to be able to move this project forward.
01:56:06.55	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay. So, okay. Second question is, if we delete this one sentence out of this report, does that cause any legal problems? If we have this report reissued with this one sentence deleted, since the language about, as we said, about the other things, I think it's contradictory. If it was deleted, well, I'm not saying change it or try to do anything. We just take this one sentence out of the report. Is that going to cause? If it was deleted, well, I'm not saying change it or try to do anything. We just take this one sentence out of the report. Is that going to cause any legal problems?
01:56:38.33	Mary Wagner	There's no legal reason to do so. The staff report is based on staff's professional input. This is their communication with both you and the public. There's no reason to correct a staff report if the commission and just for clarification, the record is not only the staff report, but it's also the public testimony of both staff, the commission and the public. So that's the whole entirety of the record. So there's no legal reason to modify the staff report.
01:57:10.21	Jeffery Luxenberg	So I'm not asking if there's a legal reason. I'm asking if there's a legal reason that if we do, if we were asked for it to be modified, there's only legal reason that we can't request that.
01:57:20.80	Mary Wagner	The only way that you would be able to request that is if you continued it, but staff still would have the ability to put it in. It's their professional judgment that creates the staff report. So the commission cannot dictate what is contained in a staff report.
01:57:34.51	Jeffery Luxenberg	So tell me how you reconcile that we have one statement in there that says that this is not allowed, and then there's a statement in there that says it meets current code. We basically, twice later in this report, indicate that it does not meet the code, and that's why we're asking for the nonconformity permit. And this statement is contradictory to that. So, on the plain language, it's just contradictory. So I guess I'm asking why, What's that? She answered the question of why she thinks it's possible that it could comply with the code, but then the other part of the staff report that says it doesn't would need to be changed to make that argument.
01:58:24.74	Nastassya Saad	Okay, so we're going to table this for just a moment. We need to move forward. Um, If you're not gonna be able to make the findings at the time based on the staff report, That will be your prerogative. But... we need to move forward from this topic at the moment. So, If there are no more questions of Matthew, I'm not sure.
01:58:44.25	Mark Brand	I'm going to support- I have a question of Adam, is he able to find the section of the general plan?
01:58:48.88	Nastassya Saad	We're not, we're going to, no, hold off on the general plan right now. We just, let's table the whole concept. We need to move forward. We can come back to this if it makes a sticking point at the time for findings. Vice chair, go ahead and answer some questions.
01:59:00.99	David Marlatt	Okay, yeah, thank you, thank you. And yeah, I think we're just getting ourselves wrapped around a tree here rhetorically. But I do have, based on the draft resolution and just the clear understanding Putting aside the general plan, the current use of this property is four units. And that's a nonconforming use. We're being asked to provide a, or to approve a nonconforming use permit. To allow four units to continue to be three or four units to allow more than two units to exist. Correct. Because the draft resolution doesn't specifically mention whether it's for three units or four units. It just says the nonconformity permit. So it could be for three or four. It's just to allow the status quo to continue.
01:59:48.48	Andrew Junius	Correct.
01:59:48.97	David Marlatt	Okay. So then the second part of my question comes a little bit back to the previous hearing, is why, if we're going to have a non-conforming use permit for four units, three units, four units, makes no difference, why do we need an ADU? and I heard last time around that it had to do with internal connections between the ADU and the single family dwelling unit. Is there anything, I couldn't find it, so I'm asking this based on your expertise. Is there anything in our Sausalito zoning tables or codes that prohibit an opening between two units in a single building?
02:00:28.91	Matthew Mandich	No, there is not. And the choice to have the ADU is strictly that of the applicant. Staff does not dictate how they want to...
02:00:35.12	David Marlatt	Okay. That's fine. I'm going to ask the applicant about that.
02:00:36.93	Matthew Mandich	Develop their property. about that. In addition, if we did keep it as four primary units, that would violate the density requirement in the development standards, because the lot is not quite 10,000 square
02:00:48.82	David Marlatt	But it's an existing... It's an existing non-conforming.
02:00:51.79	Matthew Mandich	Yes, but we'd be altering the premises. So it would throw into question whether or not we would need an additional nonconformity permit for a nonconforming structure.
02:00:58.98	David Marlatt	Exactly. I don't follow that at all. My intention was to simplify, but I don't. Yeah, I may ask the applicant.
02:01:01.60	Matthew Mandich	I think it's pretty good.
02:01:07.49	David Marlatt	I'm just trying to save them 1200 bucks why they want to go forward with an ADU permit But if that's what they want to do, you know, go for it, I guess.
02:01:18.13	Nastassya Saad	I...
02:01:19.01	David Marlatt	And those are all my questions.
02:01:20.70	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. I appreciate this commission. Let's try and work with the application in front of us as is. You can definitely ask that of the applicant, ADU is part of this permit, part of this process. So it would just make things a little easier if we stuck to what we have, including the non-conformity permit. Did I ask everybody down here if they had questions? I think I didn't. Okay. I have a question on the the tree permit, but I think I'm going to ask the applicant. So, uh, I do see Kylie back. Sorry, Kylie. I didn't mean to, did you have a comment?
02:01:58.47	Mary Wagner	I just wanted to remind the commission that we need to be very careful when we tread into ADU. Those are controlled by state law. and the applicant has filed an application for it. It is not before the commission. That's a ministerial action. that is done at the staff level. So just wanted to remind you, not that you can't at all, touch on it. but just to be cognizant of, we have very limited, um, her view with that. Bye. as far as the commission goes.
02:02:24.98	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Thank you for the reminder. Thank you. Attorney Otto. Okay.
02:02:27.31	Mary Wagner	Thank you.
02:02:30.09	Nastassya Saad	We'll let you sit down, Matthew. We're gonna bring up the applicant, Scott Couture, the architect. Welcome back. You will have 15 minutes. You know the drill. So... at your leisure. Do you have a presentation this evening?
02:02:45.77	Scott Couture	No, I have a slide if it's available, we can go through it, but
02:02:50.20	Nastassya Saad	We can go ahead and bring it up.
02:02:52.16	Scott Couture	I'm not going to talk through it at the point. So thank you for the discussion. Very lively. My name is Scott Couture. I'm the project architect. I think Matthew has detailed out what we are proposing and the codes around it. I'll certainly answer any questions about it. But I just want to give you a little bit of background. So my client, Lisa Pazer, purchased this property, this investment property, several years ago. The way it is now is what she purchased. She purchased all the nonconformities. None of them were built by her or executed by her. these nonconformities on the property have been there for at least 50 years and probably more, and they've been that way. What Ms. Pazer has tasked me with is to make improvements to the property. We are proposing exterior improvements to both the buildings on there that I think will bring it up to more aesthetic, pleasing structures. We're improving the landscape and the screening and the access, walkway accesses on it. Thank you. And to the whole property on the 62, 64 structure, we were making internal improvements to that. So currently the lower level, the ceiling heights down there is six foot ten. This is a ceiling height that the state has deemed not fit for human habitation. We're going to improve that. We're going to prove the interior material quality and the use of that. And I think we're doing this all with a very modest expansion to the overall structure itself. So I think we're making a lot of great improvements to there. Now, the complexities that we've all been discussing are some of the nonconformities on there. So what we are proposing here is to reduce the number of units in the 6264 structure from two units to one unit. What this does is it allows the site both buildings to comply with a site development table. This is 1022-2. So right now it's a non-conforming with four units on the property. Only three are allowed under. and this is specifically the site development table. We are now bringing a nonconformity back into conformance. So under that one table, this is a portion of the code, the site development table, our proposal is making the application conformant. And this does happen to do with why one of the reasons that we have the ADU instead of a separate unit there, because it reduces the overall units on the property. from the three excuse me from four to three and this is the city's definition of units Under the land use development table, again, we are, the existing property is nonconformin with four units on it. We are reducing the nonconformity. So in the site development table, we were making it conforming property on the land use development table. We are reducing the nonconformity. So I think in both aspects, we've taken the property. and bringing it closer to Sausalito's zoning ordinance and general plan. The overall complexity that we had to deal with is the state law, state no net loss law. So currently there are four units on this property. There's nothing that I can propose. There's nothing the city can do. There's nothing in the ordinance or the city attorney can do that can reduce the number of units that currently exist on that property. But we've managed to figure out is a way to make it three units under city's definition, but continue it to be four units under the state's definition. So we're able to comply with the state. This is a state mandate. There's nothing we can do about it. We can't change that. And we're also able to comply with a portion, more of a portion of the city's own ordinance, particularly the site development table. back to three units. As far as the land use, I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that there's a conflict in the code. And that's why we're applying for this nonconformity permit because of that conflict and that definition. And I think that is something that the city and the city attorney needs to address. Um, The non-conformity permanent, the application fee is $5,400. So it's not a small fee. It's a lot of money. So my objection to the last hearing for the nonconformity application, is just that so currently total of application fees are just under $20,000. That brings up my next point. We are requesting a fee waiver on the tree removal permit. So the tree removal has nothing to do with the application before you, any remodel or any expansion on it. Prior to this, and it's noted in the Arvis report, The same arborist came out to the property prior to my client purchasing it under the previous owner. deem that tree unsafe and needs to be removed. The tree is leaning over heavily leaning over the structure at 62, 64 Lower Crescent. It's rotted out at the base. It will not ever get any better. It's only going to get worse. And that tree will fall in time. So we are not removing the tree. for any expansion of the project. It's being removed because of it's gonna fail. It's gonna fail and it's gonna land on that house. So we request a tree removal fee. I think the fees that my client is paying, the property owner, your residence is well and enough. There is no other places that we can put a new tree on that property and comply with the current WUI standards. I'll take any questions.
02:08:40.04	Nastassya Saad	Thank you very much. Oh, thank you for stopping the clock. So there's nine minutes and 23. seconds left. Let me open it up for some questions. Commissioner Moore, do you have questions of the applicant?
02:08:53.07	Fred Moore	I don't have any questions, but I do appreciate going through the fee structure you had to pay, as well as the rationale for the request for waiving the tree permit. Immoval fee. Thank you.
02:09:03.94	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Commissioner Gerenius.
02:09:06.08	Andrew Junius	I'm curious, the removal of the tree, is that going to improve any views?
02:09:11.75	Scott Couture	So, you know,
02:09:12.05	Andrew Junius	that again? Is that going to improve any views?
02:09:15.38	Scott Couture	I think of the uphill neighbors, probably yes.
02:09:17.72	Andrew Junius	but not your client's house.
02:09:20.22	Scott Couture	No, no, it really has no effect on
02:09:22.01	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
02:09:22.02	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:09:22.30	Scott Couture	I'm sorry. but it's not.
02:09:22.65	Andrew Junius	Bye.
02:09:22.72	Scott Couture	Thank you.
02:09:23.34	Nastassya Saad	OK, thank you. Commissioner Luxembourg.
02:09:27.39	Jeffery Luxenberg	No question to the applicant.
02:09:29.23	Nastassya Saad	Okay.
02:09:32.45	Jeffery Luxenberg	No questions.
02:09:33.60	David Marlatt	Yeah, my questions were surrounding the ADU, but I think that ship has sailed. So I have no questions.
02:09:39.96	Nastassya Saad	I just had one question on, and I don't know if you have the arborist report memorized, but tree... is proposed for pruning to accommodate the new deck off the back of the home.
02:09:56.94	Andrew Junius	Correct.
02:09:57.29	Nastassya Saad	Between that and then the plans, can you speak to the plans of how far that deck is going in to require that Pruning of that tree.
02:10:07.08	Scott Couture	The extension of the deck is like four feet, a little over four feet. So it's not a huge deck that's going out there. My, we would probably be pruning that tree anyways, just to comply with the will we standards. Okay. So both of the branches are growing directly in the direction of the, of the property. Yeah.
02:10:20.23	Andrew Junius	Okay.
02:10:25.78	Nastassya Saad	of the property, yeah.
02:10:27.43	Scott Couture	So it's, it's,
02:10:32.01	Nastassya Saad	I believe I'm on page six. Yeah. Okay.
02:10:34.77	Scott Couture	this branch here and this one here, they're smaller. You know, they do contain some foliage, but as they- But the leaner-
02:10:42.47	Nastassya Saad	but the leaner of the tree will be retained. It's just the pruning of those branches.
02:10:47.92	Scott Couture	So as those tree branches grow, they're growing towards the house. So whether we put a deck there or not, they're still... moving toward closer to the house required five feet of separation minimum.
02:10:57.88	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Thank you.
02:11:02.89	Nastassya Saad	And then... I don't have the plans in front of me at the moment. They're not loading on my computer. The siding, the color. Can you just speak to the color a little bit? This is a general conceptual New California vibe of these dark grays and dark colors. Can you just speak a little bit to the intent behind this?
02:11:24.84	Scott Couture	Thank you. It's key. Yes, it's trendy. I hear you on that. We have some other projects with different colors coming up. Hopefully the new color that's in vogue. I do find the darker tone homes just recede in the hillside, which is kind of from a design guidelines, what is beneficial.
02:11:45.58	Nastassya Saad	Is this the choice of the applicant or was this your personal proposal? I'm just curious to get a feel.
02:11:51.84	Scott Couture	It is the recommendation my client has taken from her architect. THE END OF THE END OF THE
02:11:59.98	Nastassya Saad	Well played.
02:12:01.19	Scott Couture	Thank you. Thank you.
02:12:01.68	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Is there any consideration for Anything a little bit lighter?
02:12:11.47	Nastassya Saad	Potentially if that were to go in this potential direction up here, just to feel it out from, from now. this is a, this is not just the siding, right? This is a, the paint color. I'm sorry. And because they're not loading, I can't look at all the specifics. So if you could just speak to me a
02:12:25.37	Scott Couture	Yeah.
02:12:28.73	Scott Couture	Yeah, I mean the whole house has a little darker toned palette to it. And it is, it's a little intentional on my behalf. So. um proportionally this structure is not beautiful um it is what it is I I didn't modify it too much so it's not a structure that I want to stand out on the hillside as a piece of sculpture so we tend paint them dark, we tend to keep the trim colors the same color so we don't have striped lines around accentuating the shape and form of the house. This is... This is a haphazard been developed, you know, over, I think, 100 years, ended up this shape and form. I try to massage it a little bit best so it looks as pleasant and harmonious as possible. And sometimes that means... minimize the features so that they don't stand out.
02:13:20.64	Nastassya Saad	They don't stand out. Nice to hear the intent behind the choice. Okay, great. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you very much. You got the nine minutes and 23 seconds. I'm sure we'll talk to you again. So let's go ahead and, uh, Acting Director Manage, can you help me facilitate potential public comment? As we have no one in the audience, I'll have you look to Zoom.
02:13:42.78	Unknown	Absolutely. Clearly not seeing any of them in the room.
02:13:48.16	Matthew Mandich	Thank you.
02:13:48.19	Unknown	So not seeing anyone on Zoom.
02:13:52.73	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Thank you.
02:13:53.19	Unknown	Yep, okay.
02:13:54.56	Nastassya Saad	So we'll close public comment. And now we look back to you, Mr. Couture. You do have nine minutes and 23 seconds left. We won't engage with you after this. So final thoughts or words, or do you want to forego your time? Okay, so just for the record, the time is done. We'll go ahead and close that part of the public hearing and bring it back up to the dais. Who would like to?
02:14:17.42	Jeffery Luxenberg	Chair, are we going to get the general plan or we're not going to get it this evening?
02:14:22.97	Nastassya Saad	The general plan, if the, what do you need to see?
02:14:26.87	Jeffery Luxenberg	Design review findings, number one.
02:14:30.28	Nastassya Saad	If staff do not, Do you not believe the statement from staff? What is it that you would like to see exactly?
02:14:36.56	Jeffery Luxenberg	I want to see what the basis of the staff's argument was related to the general plan. But if the commission doesn't want to bring it up, that's fine. I just always.
02:14:45.60	Nastassya Saad	As we kick off this discussion, could you, Adam, potentially, or Matthew, find a general plan to help Commissioner Luxembourg? Okay, let's go ahead. So we'll go ahead and grab that. um, Commissioner Junius.
02:14:57.82	Andrew Junius	I'm going to move to approve the project as proposed by the applicant with no further changes. The entire purpose of moving the hearing to this meeting was to allow the applicant and the staff to do exactly what the commission requested last time. They did that. I'm very comfortable with the documents before me. I... Reluctantly, you know, I'm going to have to agree with the tree removal permit, I think. I'm not going to opine on whether a tree is sick and going to fall over. I'm not going to be supportive of a fee waiver. I'm pretty sure the client here who's spending a lot of money on architecture and all kinds of fees can pay a little bit into the city's tree fund. So move to approve with no changes as recommended by staff.
02:15:39.76	Nastassya Saad	OK, hold on. waiver for the tree. Okay. We can look for a second while we continue discussion. Is there a second as Commissioner Junius and then we can continue discussion?
02:15:54.47	David Marlatt	I'll have a couple of proposed amendments.
02:15:56.68	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Thank you.
02:15:58.25	David Marlatt	Or we should second first.
02:15:58.27	Nastassya Saad	Well, we should second first. Let's try to see if there's a second before amendments and more discussion. And if not, we can just continue discussion. and we can hold
02:16:08.95	Andrew Junius	I'm sorry, just to clarify, thank you. The commissioner more whispered in my ear. I apologize. Did the, is the staff recommending the waiver of the tree fee?
02:16:17.39	David Marlatt	That's one of my questions. Yes, we would go along with that.
02:16:18.94	Andrew Junius	along with that. Yeah. So I'm going to modify my motion to approve every recommendation of the staff with the exception of the tree waiver fee, where I would not support waiving the tree fee.
02:16:32.17	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Oh, exceptional. Is there a second?
02:16:40.35	Fred Moore	Okay. I'll second it to get his discussion going here.
02:16:40.71	Nastassya Saad	I'll say. Okay, thank you. And then let's go ahead and continue discussions. I'm sure there's still some points of clarification. Vice chair, did you have something?
02:16:49.58	David Marlatt	Thank you. Yeah, and actually, some point of clarification, Matthew, if you could just help me. In the therefore parts of the draft resolution, number four, removal of one live oak tree, etc. Where in what we're voting on, where do we capture the waiving of the fee? I'm just drunk.
02:17:06.68	Nastassya Saad	I don't know. Can you bring up the resolution? I know we're asking for a lot of things just so we can all see and people on Zoom. So you're looking at the resolution. Let me go.
02:17:07.67	David Marlatt	Thank you.
02:17:15.13	David Marlatt	And item number four, removal of one. So that's the item that is captured.
02:17:19.52	Nastassya Saad	We're on page two item four.
02:17:20.40	David Marlatt	I don't know. Right. Is it somewhere else? I'm just not seeing it. Where do we capture that?
02:17:27.37	Matthew Mandich	It should be in the resolution, and if it's not adequately captured there, we can, of course, amend and add. Okay.
02:17:32.23	David Marlatt	I mean, it may be, but do you know where in the resolution? Because I'm... Let me in the therefores.
02:17:38.13	Matthew Mandich	Mr. Blair is bringing it up right now.
02:17:46.13	Nastassya Saad	So let me just ask a clarifying question because I don't, I don't see it as well. if that was the intent of staff Um, Attorney Otto.
02:17:56.65	David Marlatt	It's not in the conditions either.
02:17:58.79	Matthew Mandich	BELIEVE. it
02:17:59.43	David Marlatt	Thank you.
02:17:59.46	Matthew Mandich	Good evening, Mr. So the planning commission needs to make a decision on that. I left it open to the commissioners whether or not they were going to choose A, B, A, or seek.
02:18:10.45	Andrew Junius	OK.
02:18:10.63	Nastassya Saad	Okay.
02:18:10.68	Matthew Mandich	Okay.
02:18:10.74	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:18:10.77	Matthew Mandich	SO, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE
02:18:10.85	Nastassya Saad	So that is there that we need to modify. So as of right now,
02:18:10.97	Matthew Mandich	That was a good news.
02:18:14.08	Andrew Junius	The record it is not there so we can either choose to them so the motion has been made needs to be modified The motion will need to be re modified to get
02:18:24.03	Nastassya Saad	Commissioner Junius's intent, yes. that's one good point of clarification we can also just pull that one and start over or whatever your prerogative is do you have any other questions vice chair
02:18:34.02	David Marlatt	Not a question, but also intend to add further, I guess, condition or exception. I'm gonna totally give up on this argument that an ADU permit was unnecessary. I still think it's not, but I give up. Thank you. But I do want to propose then that we recommend crediting the cost of the ADU permit against the non-conforming use permit. I don't think they should be paying for two permits when only one is needed. So if the $5,400, for example, permit fee for the use, I think we should recommend, I think it's $1,250 for an ADU. And I would support recommending a credit basically of that. So they're not paying double. And I give up on all the arguments about whether it's necessary.
02:19:22.61	Sandy Pellegrini	Commission.
02:19:23.18	Fred Moore	Thank you. just have a one point of clarification. So understand the reason why we had the nonconformity permit. But essentially, we're not removing the nonconformity. We're just reducing it a little bit, which still goes back to why we had to pay $5,400 to take nonconformity from here. No. To there. But we didn't. I'm just confused about that, the rationale for that.
02:19:45.27	Nastassya Saad	Well, we did.
02:19:48.76	Nastassya Saad	It is a legal non-conforming. lot. project, excuse me, existing use is legal nonconforming. The amount of the changes trigger the design, it needs a non-conforming permit The non-conforming permit is non-negotiable. It needed that the... I don't think I'm articulating this well at all. The non-conforming permit... Commissioner Luxenberg from the last hearing called out quite clearly and also vice chair the requirement for the nonconformity permit Commissioner Luxenberg.
02:20:25.95	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yes, I am very concerned that the staff is using the permit fee structure to not do the right things here. We should not have, and it's not their control, it's the city council, but I would strongly encourage this commission to request that we not use fees to try to generate revenue from the city when it causes unintended consequences. Yes, we need a non-conforming permit. It should not cost $5,400. I would encourage us to require them to pay into the tree fund. I agree with that 100%. I would encourage us to, as a commission, leave the non-conforming fee for this project because uh the idea that that it wasn't asked for in the first place because they didn't want to pay for the fee when it was clearly what was required and it's like i don't see why a non-conforming fee costs more than a tree permit fee versus all these other fees and that's not our control i understand the city council sets that but in this particular case a case we continue to sort of come back and it would not with the intent of forcing additional financial stuff on the applicant so I strongly encourage us to I get I know on certain cases the community development had waived certain fees that they should waive this one so that we do the right thing and get the right permits and not use the fee structure as how we make decisions.
02:22:04.79	Nastassya Saad	I can't necessarily agree with your outlook on what staff may or may not have been using the fees for. I think there was an oversight. I think you brought up an excellent point that there is a kerfuffle in the code that definitely needs to be fixed in the municipal code. I don't want to get into fee structures. That's not our bag. And also, we are not the most expensive city. I don't know what this concept is. Go to Belvedere. Go to Tiburon. We might even be edged out by Mill Valley if we're not third. But Marin County has very high permit fees. We have high property taxes. If you want to live here and you want to remodel, you have to pay the fees. Everyone pays the same thing. And I do feel bad that they lost time because of the way that it was interpreted last time. I'm very comfortable with what we have in front of us. I don't wish to waive any fees at all. I don't want to get involved in waiving fees, but I do agree with you about paying in to the tree fund, even though I know that's another expense. If they came back the first time and it was interpreted properly the first time, they would have had a nonconformity. permit that they'd have to pay for. And, and I, I know you're coming from a wonderful place, vice chair. Um, and as an advocate of the applicant, There are 80 youth fees. So I'm going to stay far away. And if that gets into a condition, I am going to vote no on this project. Otherwise I'm very happy to support the motion on the floor from. Commissioner Junius. Although I think we need to work that out now with the tree fund, but I am quite comfortable with this project. Thank you. And I'm sorry there are high fees, but you want to you want to work here? Yes, absolutely.
02:23:40.83	Andrew Junius	Commissioner Virginia. Appreciate that. I'm not sure. I have no. Can the commission even waive an application fee? We can't do that. So that's off the table. That's a waste of time. Let's stop talking about fees.
02:23:42.38	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:23:52.28	Andrew Junius	We have the right to either waive the tree fee or not. That's absolutely in our perversion. We're gonna talk about that. I think I'm certainly not willing to waive the fee on the tree thing. And the applicant is stuck with the fees that the city council sets. Full stop. I had no idea what that discussion was by Commissioner Luxembourg. No idea whatsoever. The fees are the fees. If the city council wants to raise them, lower them, change them, that's their business. If they want to give us the right to change them, lower them, waive them, that's their business too. But we don't have that right right now. So why don't we just get this done?
02:24:23.44	Nastassya Saad	Yes, Commissioner Luxembourg. Thank you.
02:24:25.11	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yes. Well, we haven't been able to see the general plan. So my comment is as follows. Can we bring it up? Thank you.
02:24:36.63	Andrew Junius	you
02:24:36.80	Jeffery Luxenberg	OK.
02:24:54.00	Unknown	I'll be sharing the screen now. Bear with me.
02:24:57.31	Nastassya Saad	We have nothing but time.
02:25:13.77	Unknown	Okay. Can we all see that? Yes.
02:25:16.95	Matthew Mandich	So the R225 district is the medium high density residential. 17.4 dwelling units per acre. The R25 district is medium density. That's one unit per 5,000 square feet.
02:25:32.91	Jeffery Luxenberg	Can you give us some context of where this is and what it says before this?
02:25:36.88	Matthew Mandich	Yes. This is in our land use element.
02:25:43.20	Jeffery Luxenberg	Okay.
02:25:43.86	Matthew Mandich	Land use and growth management element.
02:25:45.58	Unknown	Thank you.
02:25:48.32	Matthew Mandich	We'll discuss.
02:25:48.98	Unknown	General plan land use designations.
02:26:00.57	Andrew Junius	And so the 17.4 multiplies to the 2500 square foot per
02:26:05.55	Matthew Mandich	Yeah. If you were to do the math out at seven acre, a little actually over 2,500.
02:26:05.56	Andrew Junius	Yeah.
02:26:10.88	Andrew Junius	Okay. So per the city attorney's advice and everybody in the knowledge of the state law, that's the zoning, that's the density that has to be allowed on this, on our 2.2.5 site. Full stop. I don't know why we're talking about this, but that's what it is.
02:26:28.77	Jeffery Luxenberg	I'm not sure I agree with that based on this snippet here. So what I will do is I will support this project because I understand Rob Rosenberg's rules, which requires me to vote in the affirmative, which will allow me to, in the future, ask for reconsideration. So I will vote for this so that I reserve the right to reconsider this. Once I've had a chance to internalize this, not at the last minute at a meeting, I'll go home and I'll read it, and then if I want to ask for reconsideration at a future meeting, I will do so. So that's what I'll do.
02:27:01.47	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. We do see Attorney Otto popping up.
02:27:04.49	Mary Wagner	I just want to make sure that we understand that, yes, it is. You are correct that you have to be on the winning side of emotion to do a motion for reconsideration.
02:27:13.70	Adam Blair	right?
02:27:14.95	Mary Wagner	But, It typically is at the same meeting. and it only ever goes to the following meeting, just so that we're clear. It's not a future date and this doesn't hold it open. and the right to appeal probably means once it's approved, it's done. So I just want to make sure that we're clear on that.
02:27:32.49	Jeffery Luxenberg	I realize it has to go, whether in this night's meeting or in the next meeting. I realize I need majority approval, but this will allow me to go back and actually read the language. And so I don't think having to read it on the fly, and I wish the staff report would have gone into detail regarding this, if that's their opinion, and on a 10,000-foot lot, you can put four units, no matter whether it's a two-family zone. So I will go back and read it. And yes, I understand Rosenberg's rules, and I understand the concerns. But I... Perfect. Perfect.
02:28:02.47	Mary Wagner	Perfect. And I might suggest, and again, I don't mean to step in, but If you have questions, staff should be able to address those versus you having to do your own work. That's what staff is there for, is to support. and provide information to you. and provide clarification. So if there's something that's unclear and you're only voting because you feel like you're being trapped. the staff should be able to address that. I believe they have, but if you still have questions, you could ask staff, but obviously that's the pleasure of the commission.
02:28:34.37	Jeffery Luxenberg	I will tell you, I gave this information in advance to both your office and staff, and did not get this explanation until three quarters of the way through this tonight. So that would have been helpful if I had not been in advance, but I'll go back and read it tonight, and if I want to file for consideration in the future, I will, thank you.
02:28:56.03	Nastassya Saad	Okay. Thank you. So we have some consensus. We have a motion on the floor, which at this point, You might need to be... amended yet again.
02:29:07.85	Andrew Junius	Well, maybe I'll just withdraw my motion and start over. I would draw the previous motion and make the following motion. I move that we approve the project
02:29:10.53	Nastassya Saad	Oh, God.
02:29:11.07	Unknown	Great.
02:29:16.66	Andrew Junius	as proposed by staff. And now pause right there. Which of the, how do I say that without the tree waiver? I'm sorry.
02:29:26.14	Nastassya Saad	They've got nothing in there, so I think you can make a motion to-
02:29:27.86	Andrew Junius	Yeah. Make a motion. Full stop.
02:29:30.61	Matthew Mandich	Thank you. This was left at the discretion of the commission I just reviewed in the staff for the resolution.
02:29:34.73	Andrew Junius	Yeah. Thank you.
02:29:35.10	Matthew Mandich	So,
02:29:35.15	Andrew Junius	Yeah, absolutely.
02:29:35.44	Matthew Mandich	did not take an opinion
02:29:36.30	Andrew Junius	you know,
02:29:36.35	Matthew Mandich	on the
02:29:36.43	Andrew Junius	to the next episode.
02:29:36.47	Matthew Mandich	THE FAMILY.
02:29:36.64	Andrew Junius	this was left for the commission so we're just approving the project at period and you're going to be paying the tree fee so
02:29:42.64	Nastassya Saad	I think we need to call that out because they've taken no opinion in the staff report. So I think your motion would be that you wanna... I think it's typically a...
02:29:51.33	Andrew Junius	But that's the staff decides what isn't it. Didn't the resolution we decide that the staff decides how much the fee is based on the.
02:29:52.06	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you. Absolutely.
02:29:57.41	Jeffery Luxenberg	THE STAFF DOESN'T HAVE ANY
02:30:00.85	Andrew Junius	But that's in a resolution that's out there. Do we have it in front of us? I mean...
02:30:04.11	Jeffery Luxenberg	I think it's $1,200, but I might be wrong, but it has been set by the city council. Yeah. Maybe before we're on the commission, it's a condition of approval. It just says...
02:30:09.31	Sandy Pellegrini	Yeah. Thank you.
02:30:15.77	Andrew Junius	I was on the commission when we set the resolution and did went through all this. So I kind of thought the fee was, maybe the city attorney can just clarify what, what we're, what's going to happen here.
02:30:15.91	Jeffery Luxenberg	Thank you.
02:30:25.73	Mary Wagner	At this point in time, if you just do a motion to approve, they would be obligated to pay the fee. There's no additional action necessary by the commission because the way that the code reads, it says if the planning commission waives the fee. So if you don't waive the fee, they're obligated to pay
02:30:37.93	Andrew Junius	Bye. And the fees already been set by the resolution. So my motion stands. We're just approving the project. with no further changes to the conditions of approval.
02:30:48.83	Nastassya Saad	That was a good clarification. Thank you. Commissioner Junius is right. I think he had a second from commissioner Moore. Did you want to re second the new motion?
02:30:56.98	Fred Moore	I'll re-second it to get discussion. Sure, we can have discussion. Did you...
02:31:01.96	Fred Moore	I second it. You're just seconding.
02:31:03.19	Nastassya Saad	Just a second. Any more discussion? Okay.
02:31:06.38	Andrew Junius	But now we
02:31:07.04	Fred Moore	I'm going to go.
02:31:07.15	Nastassya Saad	I want to do this.
02:31:07.31	Fred Moore	Oh, no.
02:31:07.96	Andrew Junius	THE END OF
02:31:08.03	Fred Moore	All right. Thank you.
02:31:10.34	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:31:10.36	Fred Moore	Go for it. I totally understand the comments about we shouldn't be waiving fees and getting into fee waiver, et cetera. I totally agree with the concept of that. and maybe it goes back conceptually, $5,400 to take a non-conforming permit to say it's non-conforming 100% to non-conforming 90% seems like a ridiculous amount of fee. I also understand. Commissioner Marlott's comment about whether the ADU was necessary or not and whether that fee should have been in. So compassionately, I feel like the applicant is overpaid. So I guess I would just say, is there any consideration of amending the motion to waive one of the fees?
02:31:52.02	Nastassya Saad	That is not a thing.
02:31:52.97	Fred Moore	Yeah.
02:31:53.68	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:31:54.20	Fred Moore	Thank you.
02:31:54.24	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
02:31:54.34	Fred Moore	So.
02:31:54.49	Andrew Junius	The city attorney will tell us that we can't waive fees.
02:31:56.92	David Marlatt	I believe we can direct this community development director to waive fees. The staff has a question. Our attorney.
02:32:03.01	Andrew Junius	Thank you.
02:32:03.03	Nastassya Saad	We can.
02:32:03.28	Andrew Junius	No.
02:32:03.77	Nastassya Saad	into. I'm not.
02:32:05.88	David Marlatt	Thank you.
02:32:05.96	Nastassya Saad	please.
02:32:07.09	Mary Wagner	The only fee that you have within the purview to waive under your code That I'm aware of. is the tree removal so that that is squarely within your code. The commission does not have the authority to direct staff to waive fees. Staff cannot waive fees unless the code is allowed. The only entity that can waive a fee that is established by city council is City Council unless The code specifically states otherwise, which it does for the tree removal. So the only fee that's within the purview of the commission to waive tonight is the tree removal fee.
02:32:42.13	Nastassya Saad	I mean,
02:32:42.53	Sandy Pellegrini	Thank you.
02:32:43.10	Mary Wagner	The replacement, treatment replacement fee. I apologize.
02:32:45.43	Nastassya Saad	Yes, complete replacement.
02:32:47.02	Mary Wagner	Thank you.
02:32:47.17	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. I value our opinions, and I value each of you on this commission, but we have a way of not staying on topic. And so I just want to ensure we've got no confusion on what we're voting for. We are not discussing fees outside of the tree removal, which we we right. And that's it. So we've got a motion, we have a second.
02:33:12.59	Jeffery Luxenberg	Can we bring up the findings related to the tree permit? I want to confirm that that is what it says. Can we just bring that up on the screen?
02:33:26.95	Jeffery Luxenberg	It's too hard to find it on scrolling while we're here. So if we could just bring it up.
02:33:38.86	Nastassya Saad	Those would be on page eight for the tree removal.
02:33:42.83	Jeffery Luxenberg	I see it on Commissioner Marlott's computer. So I would like the resolution document modified, to be clear, because it says the Commission will either require the applicant to pay in the fee replacement fund or they will waive the above requirements. So I would like to do an amendment to the motion that says it will say the Commission will require the applicant to pay in the tree replacement fund. fun period and delete the rest of the sentence.
02:34:16.14	Andrew Junius	yeah i totally i accept that thank you commissioner luxembourg for catching that that is uh i have Modify my motion to that effect. second.
02:34:24.39	Matthew Mandich	Quick question on clarification. Would that go into the findings? And this is for attorney Yadda. Would that motion go into the findings or would that go into the therefore? Oh. or the conditions of approval.
02:34:37.82	Mary Wagner	I'm sorry, where was the sentence in the resolution that you were stating?
02:34:40.50	Matthew Mandich	So it's on page eight of the resolution. It's regarding the tree replacement fee. Commissioner Luxenberg has requested changing the finding, which is right there. Commission will either require the acclimated payment or will waive the above requirements due to the constraints of the lot. Would you like the finding to be changed? Should it be a condition of approval or should it be added to the therefore clause with the sections of the tree removal permit being approved with the tree fund being added there? I think there's three places we could put it. I'm just trying to find the best location to express this.
02:35:14.42	Mary Wagner	I think it's right under there where it says the commission will either require change that to say the commission I'm not sure. ordered or required to pay the tree replacement fee.
02:35:26.64	Matthew Mandich	So put it in the findings.
02:35:28.40	Mary Wagner	Yes.
02:35:29.02	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:35:29.19	Matthew Mandich	Okay. Thank you.
02:35:30.74	Jeffery Luxenberg	you
02:35:30.79	Matthew Mandich	Thank you. THAT'S A GOOD THING.
02:35:31.84	Jeffery Luxenberg	amendment I made.
02:35:33.24	Nastassya Saad	Thank you for the amendment. It was accepted. It was seconded. Thank you.
02:35:35.94	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yep.
02:35:36.19	Matthew Mandich	you
02:35:36.28	Jeffery Luxenberg	Yeah.
02:35:37.24	Nastassya Saad	Acting Director Mandich
02:35:39.70	Matthew Mandich	All right. Commissioner Genius? Yes. Commissioner Moore? Yes. Commissioner Luxembourg? Yes. Vice Chair Marlott? Yes. Chair Sutt? Yes.
02:35:48.95	Nastassya Saad	Yes.
02:35:49.39	Matthew Mandich	Motion passes.
02:35:50.22	Nastassya Saad	Thank you. Next item is adjournment. All those in favor?
02:35:54.01	Matthew Mandich	Okay.
02:35:54.08	Sandy Pellegrini	Bye.
02:35:54.94	Nastassya Saad	Thank you.
02:35:55.50	Sandy Pellegrini	you
02:35:57.17	Nastassya Saad	I mean,
02:35:59.73	Sandy Pellegrini	you
02:36:15.80	Sandy Pellegrini	.

City Council Meeting - June 10, 2026

Meeting Summary

Meeting Transcript