[0:02] All righty. Welcome to the uh regular
meeting of the Larksburg Planning
[0:06] Commission of Tuesday, September 8th,
2026
[0:09] in beautiful downtown Larksburg,
California. Uh all right, first let's
[0:14] have a roll call.
[0:19] Uh Commissioner Kingsdale
>> here.
[0:22] » Commissioner Chmer's
>> here.
[0:24] » Commissioner Zapar
>> here. And Chair Swisser uh here. Okay,
[0:28] you have four members present and one
absent. You do have a quorum.
[0:31] » Excellent. Good. So, this is the
opportunity for any public comment on
[0:35] matters that are not currently on
tonight's agenda. Anything that the
[0:38] public wants to address that is not on
the agenda. Uh, speak now or forever
[0:43] hold your peace.
Do we have anything here?
[0:49] How about on Zoom?
[0:55] » Excuse me.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
[0:58] » If you're on Zoom and you'd like to
provide a public comment, please raise
[1:01] your hand.
[1:04] » No hand.
>> All right. Excellent. All right. So, uh,
[1:08] community development director's
reports.
[1:10] » Yes. Good evening. Uh,
we just a reminder that Wednesday,
[1:15] September 30th is the planning
commissioner training workshop in court
[1:19] of Madera. If you have not um RSVPd,
please do so now. um if you wish to
[1:26] attend and there should have been a
flyer I think in all of your packets. So
[1:30] um there's no fee. It includes dinner.
You're certainly welcome to sign up uh
[1:35] on um through the link in the flyer uh
and I can email it to you again if you'd
[1:40] like. [gasps]
[sighs]
[1:42] I would love to go, but sadly medicine
calls. Um all right. Uh
[1:48] anything else or is that it?
>> Yeah. Um the uh
[1:53] » the Mount Tam Racket Club uh application
that you considered at your last uh
[1:57] planning commission meeting was appealed
>> uh in a timely manner. We received one
[2:02] appeal. Uh and that item is scheduled to
be considered by city council at the
[2:07] Crep Center next week on Wednesday at
the usual meeting time. Uh so just to
[2:13] let you know that that that is moving
forward and uh the agenda packet will
[2:18] get posted by uh the end of this week on
Friday.
[2:21] » Great. And it's going to be at the same
place that we had.
[2:23] » It will also be at the Crep Center
because of course we have no room in
[2:26] here for
>> Yeah. 200 size crowd.
[2:29] » Yeah. I'm curious just as a point of uh
interest. Um, when something is appealed
[2:36] to the planning commission, do they have
to have a specific
[2:39] it goes I know that goes to the city
council. Thank you, lawyer. Um, um, when
[2:44] it's appealed, is there a specific point
of appeal that they have to have or is
[2:48] it can just be like some general I don't
like the decision kind of thing?
[2:52] » Um, it's really at the discretion of the
appellant. Um, but, uh, you know, it's
[2:56] good practice to have a reason for the
appeal whenever you file one. Um, so
[3:00] that it can be responded to in the
hearing. Uh in this instance, the
[3:04] appellant provided a one-page uh uh
attachment to the appeal form uh
[3:09] explaining the the the reasons for their
appeal.
[3:13] » Okay, great.
>> Is that all public record?
[3:16] » Um it it is uh I don't have a copy of it
here. It'll be with the agenda packet uh
[3:22] that goes to council and it'll get
posted at the end of this week. So,
[3:25] » right.
>> You'll certainly see that. And my
[3:27] understanding is that if any members of
the planning commission want to attend
[3:31] that meeting, it's allowable. However,
not advisable to comment.
[3:35] » Yes. Uh you're certainly all welcome to
attend that or watch it in Zoom. Um but
[3:41] uh because you've already decided on the
item, um yeah, it would be best just not
[3:46] to
>> even as an interested citizen, just keep
[3:49] it keep a lid on it.
>> Yeah, you've already you've already made
[3:52] your your deliberations and comments on
it. So
[3:55] » great. All right. Wonderful.
>> All right. Uh, next, uh, public hearing.
[4:01] So, uh, item 4 A on the agenda is 11:30
Magnolia Avenue, APN020-34-16.
[4:09] Katherine Gian, I hope I'm pronouncing
that right, Keon. Applicant, Magnolia
[4:14] Village Homes, LLC owner. Um, public
hearing request for a conditional use
[4:18] permit to allow a dog grooming business
in the C2 zoning district. Do we have
[4:23] the uh committee staff report?
>> Yes. Let me share my screen here. I will
[4:29] keep my comments for you brief this
evening. As you've just mentioned, this
[4:32] item before you is use permit 26-003
for the priority at 1137 Avenue,
[4:39] excuse me. Um it is on in the northern
Magnolia commercial corridor. Um the
[4:46] site I've highlighted it for you in this
orange outline here. It's a multi-tenant
[4:51] commercial space. It currently houses uh
the the vacant space uh under
[4:55] consideration this evening, the Gravity
Salon, and then Rustic Bakery. And if
[5:00] you're familiar with the Magnolia
Village development that is just right
[5:03] next door to it. So, the project
proposes requests approval of a
[5:08] conditional use permit to allow a dog
grooming facility in the C2 zoning
[5:11] district. Uh that would allow Wolf Gang
Bakery and Grooming to occupy the space.
[5:17] And here's just a quick floor plan
provided by the applicant to give you an
[5:20] idea of the buildout. Here you've got
all the grooming facilities kind of at
[5:24] the rear and then the front of the space
would be reserved for a retail area for
[5:28] um all kinds of pet goods to be sold per
the application materials. The facility
[5:34] would operate all week Monday through
Sunday from 9 to 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
[5:38] and it would start with approximate
employee count of four to five employees
[5:43] and as time goes on and and the
clientele builds it would rise to a
[5:46] total of 10 once the use has been
established. Uh the applicant is
[5:50] proposed to mitigate potential noise
associated with the use which be barking
[5:54] dogs obviously uh with the construction
of noise attenuation walls on the
[5:58] interior of the existing demising walls.
So there would be no exterior changes
[6:02] proposed as a part of this conditional
use permit approval. Should exterior ex
[6:07] should exterior changes be proposed. Uh
that would require design review
[6:11] entitlement and would come back to this
body. Uh the proposed use has been found
[6:16] consistent with the applicable general
plan land use designation which is
[6:19] neighborhood commercial which talks
about providing uh re retail services
[6:24] for the general populace to use.
You have received no public comments on
[6:29] on this item. So with that, I'm going to
conclude my remarks here and say that
[6:34] our staff recommendation is that you
hold a public hearing, consider public
[6:38] testimony, discuss the project, and
adopt planning commission, excuse me,
[6:42] resolution 02-26, 2026, which approves
the project subject to findings,
[6:47] conditions of approval, and a class one
SQA exemption.
[6:50] » Great.
>> So I'm available to answer questions,
[6:52] and the applicant, architect, and
landlord are also here for you. Great.
[6:56] Is the applicant here?
>> Here, but also she's on our architect's
[7:02] on Zoom.
>> Okay. Would you like to uh make a
[7:05] comment about the project? Anything you
want to say?
[7:08] » Uh we're excited.
>> Fine.
[7:11] » To introd.
>> My name is Matt Beer. I'm the um
[7:14] franchisee for Wolf Gang.
>> Um love dogs, love animals. Uh love
[7:20] community aspects of this uh location,
retail location. reminds me a lot of
[7:25] where I grew up in Los Angeles. Um, we
have a lot of ideas of integrating with
[7:30] other businesses nearby, including the
Rustic Bakery to do like cross
[7:34] promotional things where say dog treats
are designed for dog consumption, but
[7:40] human consumption treats could be
designed by rustic bakery and sold back
[7:44] and forth and people can really enjoy,
you know, their pet. It's a it's an
[7:48] elevated grooming experience. It's meant
to be calm and conducive for the pets so
[7:54] that they enjoy it. And um having worked
at um various companies for over 30
[8:02] years through community marketing or to
Disney for 10 years um I'm really just
[8:08] excited about this opportunity to kind
of um deliver a great customer
[8:12] experience.
>> That's great. Thank you.
[8:14] » Yep.
uh architect any comments to Katie Kon
[8:19] should be able to unmute and speak.
>> Hi, yes, my name is Katie Gian and I am
[8:24] the architect on the project. Um we work
on multiple WOF gang locations across
[8:30] the country. So, um it is a national
brand. There's over 250 locations and
[8:37] growing. Um they're building many of
these stores all over the country
[8:42] currently.
And it's one-on-one dog grooming
[8:46] appointments. So it is not um walk-ins.
There won't be um you know spare dogs
[8:53] lining up outside or or anything like
that. It it's one-on-one with
[8:57] appointmentbased grooming. Um typical
grooming appointments are about 90
[9:03] minutes for each dog. And if we can go
back to the floor plan, you could see
[9:09] the front is the retail area which sells
mostly dog treats, dog accessory items.
[9:15] Um there's a a freezer for some frozen
food. Um a typical pet shop, but more
[9:22] specialized for dogs. The second room is
the grooming room, which has um tables
[9:27] where the dogs are are placed and
groomed. And the back is the wet wash
[9:32] area where they have the dog um wash
tubs and the the employee restroom. So,
[9:40] it's a pretty standard build for Woof
Gang. Um and I think it could be a great
[9:45] addition to the neighborhood and for all
the pet owners um to have this resource.
[9:51] » Awesome. Great. That's fantastic.
All right.
[9:56] Any other comments?
Do you have any like before we bring it
[10:01] open to the public um any questions for
the applicant?
[10:06] » Uh just a question. Um do you have any
parking spots that are designated for
[10:10] your store? How's the parking situation
there?
[10:18] » Here's the the landlord who works for
edge development because the co um for
[10:23] our contract we're going to have one
dedicated non-inforcable parking spot in
[10:28] the front. Um and for the our staff
there would be one spot in the back.
[10:33] Okay.
that that would enable people to they're
[10:38] going to have a scheduled appointment,
come in, park, drop their dog off, take
[10:42] off, come back later.
>> Got it. Um, with the number of employees
[10:46] that you have, uh, I guess the rest will
have to find offsite
[10:51] uh, parking. Yeah.
>> Yeah, they'll have to The other thing
[10:55] that, um, we haven't locked in yet is
with parking spots available in the back
[11:00] » because there's a couple that are long
enough that we think we can stack
[11:03] » can
>> cars and Yeah. and get two out of one.
[11:07] » Great. Excellent.
[gasps]
[11:10] Um, any any comments, questions, Tasha?
No. All right. Are there any public
[11:16] comments here or on Zoom?
[11:21] » You're on Zoom and you'd like to
comment, please raise your hand.
[11:27] » No Zoom comments.
>> All right. Very good. Um, would anyone
[11:33] like to make a motion?
[11:36] We don't need to discuss it then. Is
anyone need to discuss any
[11:40] » discussion? No.
>> No. Okay. Then I'll make a motion.
[11:44] » Um,
tell me if I get this right. I'll make a
[11:48] motion to approve a conditional use
permit to allow for the operation of a
[11:52] dog grooming business at 1137 Magnolia
Avenue.
[11:55] » I'm going to jump right in here and say
your motion should be to adopt planning
[11:58] commission resolution 02-2026.
Do
[12:01] » you want me just to stop there at those
two? We've made it easy on you. So we
[12:05] started preparing resolutions started
reading from the bit of a minute motion.
[12:09] » So moving forward
>> unless it's if for most projects unless
[12:12] it's a minor thing we'll we'll approve
it by resolution. So um
[12:17] » okay then I'll just approve as planners
it also memorializes the approval in a
[12:22] um in a permanent record. So
>> okay. So, all I need to do is approve
[12:27] the uh resolution 0226
>> unless you have a motion to change a
[12:33] condition or modify the project. But
yes, effectively yes.
[12:37] » And then the other one is going to be
0326. Okay.
[12:43] » Um Oh, there's just one. Okay. Then I'll
start again. I'll make a motion to
[12:48] approve adopt the planning resolution
planning commission resolution O2-
[12:56] 2026.
[12:59] We need a second.
>> I'll second that.
[13:02] » Roll call.
>> Okay. Commissioner Kingdale.
[13:05] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Chalmer's.
[13:07] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Zapar.
[13:09] » Yes.
>> And Chair Swisser.
[13:10] » Yes.
>> Your motion passes. Four yeses, one
[13:13] absence. Uh, your decision can be
appealed. Interested parties can appeal
[13:18] your decision by filing the required
form and fee with the city clerk prior
[13:21] to the expiration of the appeal
deadline, which is 10 days from this
[13:24] evening.
>> Excellent. Congratulations. That wasn't
[13:27] too rough. Get it? Rough.
>> All right. See, our bark is not as bad
[13:33] as our bite, right? Or it's worked.
Yeah. Okay. Okay. Enough. All right.
[13:40] What more jokes can we make tonight?
Alrighty. Next. Uh
[13:47] 4B 2062 Redwood Highway, APN021-261-22,
[13:52] Titan Davis, applicant, Catalyst Real
Estate, owner, zoning district, project
[13:57] number PLN26-011.
This is a public hearing request for a
[14:01] conditional you to allow a restaurant in
the L1 zoning district.
[14:07] Can we have the report, please?
>> Yes.
[14:15] All right. Yes. Good evening again. This
item is PLN 26-011
[14:21] for 2062 Redwood Highway, more commonly
known as the Cost Plus Plaza Shopping
[14:26] Center. It exists just to the east of
the 101 highway. Uh, and the space in
[14:31] question is currently occupied by the
Vitamin Shop. It's the first, well, I
[14:35] would refer to it as the first
commercial space on the property, the
[14:37] closest one to the right of way. Um and
that space would be um demised to make
[14:43] room for the new proposed restaurant
which is um and you can kind of see here
[14:48] on the site plan.
It's just this uh shaded area here would
[14:55] become the the new suite in question.
And so the item before you today is
[15:00] another conditional use permit which
would allow a restaurant in the L1
[15:03] zoning district, alo known as the light
industrial zoning district.
[15:08] And here is just they provided a pretty
basic floor plan of the space just
[15:11] showing that the demising walls that
they would be putting up
[15:17] and uh for the provided application
materials. The facility would operate
[15:21] again all week Monday through Sunday
from 10:30 to 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
[15:26] There'd be approximately eight employees
per shift up to 12 when they have
[15:29] promotional events. deliveries would be
scheduled to occur during off hours, so
[15:34] it doesn't impact uh visitors to the the
shopping center or the rest of the
[15:37] tenants. There are no exterior
alterations proposed. Similar to your
[15:42] last item, should they be proposed, that
would trigger a design review
[15:45] requirement, uh the and again, the
proposed use has been found consistent
[15:49] with the applicable general plan land
use designation, which in this case is
[15:52] industrial and service commercial.
You have received no public comments on
[15:57] this item. And with that, staff
recommends that the commission hold a
[16:01] public hearing, consider public
testimony, discuss the project, and
[16:04] adopt planning commission resolution
03-2026,
[16:08] which would approve the project subject
to findings, conditions of approval, and
[16:11] a class one exemption. And that
concludes my remarks, and we have the
[16:15] applicant and landlord here for you.
>> All right. And can we hear from the
[16:19] applicant?
[16:25] Good evening. Thanks for having us
today. My name is Ari Blum. I'm uh a
[16:29] larkser resident and also uh the owner
of Catalyst Real Estate, which manages
[16:35] and represents the entity that owns
Costlas Plaza. Um my family constructed
[16:41] the shopping center in 197577
[16:46] somewhere around there. And we've owned
and operated the shopping center since
[16:49] that time. As I'm sure you are aware,
the nature of retail has changed a lot
[16:56] over that period. And you know, there
are just less soft goods type retailers,
[17:01] more shopping centers of this type. Food
service is more what the community seems
[17:07] to want and where the demand is for
tenants. Um, and in this case, uh,
[17:12] Vitamin Shop was looking to downsize to
a smaller amount of square footage,
[17:17] leaving us with the endcap there vacant,
and the restaurant use seemed to be the
[17:24] best uh, opportunity for that space and
that's uh, the impetus behind our
[17:30] application and happy to answer any
questions.
[17:36] » Question.
>> Sure. Go ahead.
[17:38] » You have question.
>> No, you can ask it.
[17:41] Um, so thanks for coming out. Um, uh, I
love Chipotle. It's good, good, good,
[17:47] good food. Um, so how many, if you had
to estimate like how many customers
[17:52] would you estimate having come in each
on a daily basis, let's say? I don't
[17:58] have the number at the top of my head.
Um, I do know that when we did the park,
[18:03] we did a parking study to confirm that
we had sufficient and ample parking for
[18:08] the use. and um parametrics did that
study and in that study they um did have
[18:15] some kind of assessment of the count but
I don't have the number on.
[18:20] » Yeah. No, I I see I see that daily
vehicle trips what what they what they
[18:26] estimated based on the square footage of
the store. I was wondering if you had a
[18:30] different expectation or any other
number that you are I mean you're
[18:34] running a business so you must have some
projections.
[18:36] » Yeah. Well, but we just we have
projections of what Chipotle will pay us
[18:40] in rent, but like because their credit
tenant regardless [clears throat] of how
[18:43] many people come or don't come, um they
pay the same rent. So, we didn't really
[18:47] dig into with them exactly like what
their counts would be, but I could get
[18:51] that and follow up if it would be
helpful.
[18:54] » Yeah. And and then I just want to
curious, so you're you're assuming as
[18:58] well that there will be delivery to
customers, not just deliveries. I
[19:03] understand the late night deliveries of,
you know, products coming into the
[19:07] store, uh, wholesale, but like you're
going to do GrubHub,
[19:10] » pick up, you're saying?
>> Yeah, pickup. GrubHub and all that sort
[19:13] of thing as well.
>> Again, I'm not 100% sure of what the
[19:16] volume would be on that, but I
definitely do know that they have a
[19:21] number of parking spaces that they've
asked to be made available for
[19:25] short-term parking for uh for customers
to come pick up and and and leave.
[19:31] » Who is they? Chipotle.
>> Chipotle. But you're going to be owning
[19:35] Chipotle and you also own the shopping
center. Is that correct?
[19:38] » Or you're shopping center. But yeah, but
we're leasing to Chipotle.
[19:41] » He's not the franchisee.
>> I'm not the franchisee.
[19:44] » You're you're not the Oh, you're you're
just the landlord.
[19:46] » The landlord. Yeah,
>> I get
[19:49] my I thought you were also
the uh landlord.
[19:54] » Okay. So Oh, so you've done a parking
study then for this?
[19:58] » Yes, I believe so.
>> It's in the It's in the pack.
[20:00] » This parametric study? Yes, correct.
>> Yeah. No, I I see it here. I see it here
[20:04] that where you calculate the trips
generation report. Have you done any
[20:07] other parking studies for this cost plus
>> plaza? They have. So, um the cost plus
[20:15] plaza I found that they at their peak
that that parking lot is 41.9% occupied
[20:21] » at the peak.
>> At the peak.
[20:23] » Oh. Oh.
>> It's a total of 291 parking spaces.
[20:28] » Uh
>> oh.
[20:30] » Okay. I that's fine. I could I'll leave
my comments to the comments. This is
[20:34] just question period because I' i've
been to this shopping center many times.
[20:37] I'm sure you have as well.
>> Um
[20:40] » but um
>> yeah, I mean I guess I would just say
[20:42] about that is that um it's there's a
there's a concentration of parking in
[20:47] the area around Trader Joe's, but
generally there's quite a bit of parking
[20:52] in the on on like the I guess that's the
south side of the parking lot. And so
[20:57] our uh expectation and I think that of
parametrics is that that parking will
[21:01] kind of like basically filter south into
the lot over time.
[21:08] » Yeah. My only issue with is that people
have like there's some crazy thing that
[21:12] Trader Joe's releases into the air which
makes people go insane at parking.
[21:16] » Right.
>> Oh yeah.
[21:17] » And then the other and it's true. It's
be careful of your car there. The only
[21:20] other thing is um leaving that parking
lot, making a lefthand turn onto that
[21:24] road I think is really dangerous. Uh and
people take their life into their hands
[21:28] sometimes taking a left out of there. So
I I kind of wish there was a it's not
[21:31] your issue of course, but it's more the
city issue. I wish there was some better
[21:34] way of left turning out of that parking
lot cuz it's kind of dicey.
[21:38] » Yeah, we agree. It would be great to
have a traffic light there or something.
[21:42] » Yeah, something because Yeah,
>> especially bike lane makes me nervous.
[21:46] Yeah, that's one of the
>> that I think we do hear about that I
[21:50] assume. Right. But
>> yeah,
[21:51] » staff may be able to further describe
it, but I think there is a grant in
[21:55] process studying perhaps that area.
>> Again, it's not that's not your issue,
[22:00] it's the city's issue. I'm just kind of
like,
[22:03] » well, I I mean, I guess I differ a
little bit because if if it was if they
[22:07] met a certain threshold, they'd have to
do conduct this traffic study that would
[22:12] probably account for the number of
vehicles that the difficulty of turning
[22:17] in and out, getting in and out of that
shopping plaza, which is
[22:20] » from my experience quite difficult. Um,
I I guess I just I look at this study
[22:25] and it and it I understand I've had
conversation with staff who explain that
[22:29] this is typical the way that this
calculated. I have trouble believing
[22:32] that like because vitamin shop is going
to be decreased 2,000 square ft that the
[22:39] number of customers are going to
decrease by like 50%.
[22:42] I just don't understand how that how
that happens.
[22:45] » Yeah, I don't know. I don't again I
don't know if that's necessarily our
[22:47] purview but
>> in staff's
[22:52] estimation this this this holds water
this this traffic study analysis
[22:57] » it is actually interesting point
>> especially like the assumption that
[23:00] we're chopping this up because traffic
to that vitamin shop has not been
[23:04] » that's the reason that it doesn't meet
the threshold according to this
[23:07] analysis.
>> Yeah.
[23:08] » Well there is there is plenty of parking
in that. I mean if you go further away
[23:13] from
>> there's lot there's lots now. So I I I
[23:15] suspect that it's going to be used more
uh you know because it's open late at
[23:20] night. You don't have too many places
that are open late there like Chipotle
[23:24] would be open. That'd be a great place
for people to go get you know
[23:28] » late night dinner.
>> Yeah. Post
[23:30] » kids,
>> you know, post um
[23:33] » Yeah, postplanet commission. I was
thinking something else, but
[23:38] » Okay. All right.
>> And there's no dedicated parking spaces.
[23:42] I thought you were going to ask that,
but no. Uh, I think not. I think that
[23:46] there's a couple of spaces that we
expect to have signage that says like
[23:50] Chipotle parking, maybe two spaces, I
can't remember exactly in the lease.
[23:54] » Um, but not like, you know, that that's
for the pickup like the kind of quick,
[24:00] you know, pickup spaces, but broadly the
uh the customers will park throughout
[24:04] the lot.
>> Are you going to have to do a lot of
[24:06] modification of the building for kitchen
use? I mean, like putting in a kitchen,
[24:09] etc. in there.
>> Chipotle will do that. our job will be
[24:13] to split the current um 6,000 square
foot uh space into two 3,000 square foot
[24:20] spaces
>> and that's um you know a pretty big
[24:23] project for us and then Chipotle once we
complete that will take it over and then
[24:28] build out the internal kitchen
facilities for ourselves.
[24:31] » Okay. All right. Anything else?
Okay.
[24:36] » Any more questions? No.
>> Do we have any public comments? Thank
[24:39] you. Thank you very much.
[24:44] If you're on Zoom and you'd like to
provide a public comment, please raise
[24:47] your hand.
[24:50] » Okie do. Um, all right. Bring it back to
the commission. We've already mentioned
[24:55] parking. Is there anything that we want
to discuss?
[24:58] » No, I think it's a I think it's a great
addition to have a Chipotle in town. I
[25:04] think it's great. I just I hope if this
if it's true that there is a grant that
[25:07] the city is working on the traffic
analysis because as we've all observed
[25:12] it's getting in and out of that cost
plus plaza isn't can be a nightmare
[25:15] especially the 101 traffic and I just
mentioned one other thing is that
[25:18] there's a emergency pet uh veterinarian
in that plaza and if you need to get in
[25:24] there at peak time which is
>> I don't think getting in is the problem.
[25:28] I think getting out is
>> both. Yeah. I mean
[25:30] » even driving past is
>> Yeah. So maybe we can say just as a as
[25:35] from our forum as planning commissioners
since the owners of the shopping center
[25:39] are here. It would be great if there's
an opportunity for you to talk and
[25:42] promote and support any kind of traffic
study or any kind of I mean that's not
[25:47] part of any decision we make tonight but
since we have a dialogue with you it'd
[25:52] be great if you could look into that or
support anything that the city does
[25:56] because I do get stuck in that traffic
as well. So
[25:59] » yeah, I just want to say we've actually
expressed I think directly to the staff
[26:03] that we're really supportive of the
study of that area and we very much
[26:08] would love to see um what I think you
guys are saying really which is to have
[26:11] some kind of a traffic light.
>> Yeah. Or or some, you know, turn
[26:14] corridor safety thing because Yeah.
Okay. That'd be great. That sounds good.
[26:18] » Well, thank you.
>> All right.
[26:19] » I have no other comments.
>> Great. So uh a motion. Do you want to do
[26:23] the
>> You want me to I know what I'm doing
[26:24] now.
>> Yeah. Now that Natasha knows what she's
[26:26] doing. Go ahead.
>> Okay. So, we make a a motion to adopt
[26:30] the planning commission resolution 03 SL
uh-2026.
[26:38] That's all I have to say.
>> All right. Second.
[26:42] » Second. A second.
>> Excellent. All right. Roll call.
[26:46] » Commissioners of Park.
>> Yes.
[26:48] » Commissioner Kingsdale.
>> Yes.
[26:49] » Commissioner Chalmer's?
>> Yes.
[26:51] » And Chair Swisser?
>> Yes. Okay.
[26:52] » Your motion passes. Four yeses, zero
nos, one absence. Interested parties can
[26:58] appeal your decision by filing the
required form and appeal fee within 10
[27:01] days.
>> All right. Excellent. Thank you very
[27:04] much.
All right. Next
[27:11] 4C 16 Elm Avenue APN021-223-49
[27:16] Pski Pearlstein Architects applicant
Michael Folk uh first residential zoning
[27:22] district uh plan 260008
public hearing request for design review
[27:27] to permit demolition of an existing
single family residence in the
[27:30] construction of new uh I didn't see how
many square foot twotory single family
[27:35] residence with an attached garage uh a
floor area ratio exception to permit a
[27:40] property with an F of 0.21 which is 393
ft where.192793
[27:47] is the maximum allowed by the code. Uh
slope use permit to permit 283 cubic
[27:52] yards of cut and 79 cubic yards of fill
in conjunction with the proposed
[27:57] construction staff report please.
>> Yes. One second.
[28:07] Hey, good evening planning commission.
The item before you is PLN 26-008
[28:13] for the property located at 16 Elm
Avenue that is located just to our east.
[28:18] Um that is on the north side of Elm
Avenue and a well landscaped residential
[28:23] neighborhood. I've got an overhead shot
for you on the left here again
[28:27] highlighted with the orange boundaries
and then a a Google Maps view of it. And
[28:32] the property in question is this tiled
roof residence right here
[28:37] in the middle.
Uh so the project proposes to demolish
[28:42] the existing residence and construct a
new 2970
[28:45] ft two-story single family residence
with an attached 175 ft garage/ gym
[28:51] space. As designed, this would require
planning commission to approve a design
[28:55] review entitlement, a floor area ratio
exception, and a slope use permit.
[29:00] [clears throat] Here's [sighs and gasps]
the site plan. The structure in
[29:04] question, the new residence is shown in
this dark gray, and it might be easier
[29:09] to see in in the plans in front of you,
but the existing residence is shown in a
[29:12] dashed line here. It occupies a somewhat
similar footprint, though obviously the
[29:17] new residence will be will have a larger
footprint. Um, and then this area in
[29:22] question here, which is on the western
portion of the lot, would be the
[29:27] proposed J AU.
And then there is a two-story portion of
[29:31] the residence twotory above grade which
is at this the rear of the structure.
[29:36] And then there's the property is also
developed with an existing ADU at the
[29:40] the rear of the lot and then a small
accessory office. And I will point out
[29:44] in the in the staff report I believe the
word office is dropped. At one point it
[29:47] says 123 square feet. It should say
office. That is what that portion is
[29:52] referring to. So my apologies there.
And then I'll get into the floor plans
[29:58] here for you. This is the first level.
This is the garage and gym area. So the
[30:01] garage is located at the bottom of this
image with the the gym which would be on
[30:07] the western side of the of the floor
plan here or the top as you can see it
[30:11] in the slide above.
And if you can see this this kind of
[30:15] dashed line here that delineates the
areas of the residence on this level
[30:18] that are more than 50% below grade which
is why there's a large portion of this
[30:22] residence which does not count against
the floor area ratio. So it is all this
[30:27] this garage here that is exempt. There's
I think it's 246 square feet uh here and
[30:33] that is included in the floor area
ratio.
[30:38] Moving to the first floor,
it is again just living area. There's
[30:43] bedrooms at the front, a living area,
and then a kitchen at the rear. Um
[30:47] again, this wing here on the western
portion of the lot is the junior ADU
[30:51] that's proposed.
[30:56] And
pretty much this entire level, I'll I'll
[31:01] discuss the J AU section when we get to
the floor area ratio exception, but this
[31:04] this area will count against the allowed
floor area ratio.
[31:10] And here is the second story portion.
The second story is limited just to the
[31:13] rear of the the residence here. And it
is the the primary suite.
[31:19] And then it because of the the slope of
the lot, it's going to you'd be able to
[31:23] basically access the backyard here. Um
where the the that two-story portion
[31:28] would be grayed at the at the rear of
the home.
[31:33] And here are the renderings and
elevations here for you. This is the
[31:37] front on the top. Uh it's what you would
see from Elm Street. And then the
[31:41] twotory portion is shown kind of this
the gray behind it here.
[31:46] Western elevation is just beneath it.
And the highest point of the residence
[31:52] would be actually this the peak of the
chimney. I believe it's just over 27 ft
[31:56] tall. The peak of the roof it's beneath
that it's 25 and change.
[32:04] » Then here are the north elevation just
the rear of the home on the top here.
[32:08] And that that is the second story
portion. This is just how it would
[32:10] appear from the rear of the lot where
again it meets grade.
[32:14] And then beneath it is the eastern
elevation. Uh and I will just point out
[32:18] the the staff report does call out a
large window and this is the window that
[32:22] it's being that we are discussing in the
staff report. And so one of the findings
[32:26] in front of you tonight is that there is
not an unreasonable loss of privacy
[32:30] associated with the project. So it was
raised in a public comment that this
[32:34] window will face a neighbor. Um so it's
up to you if you find that it is does
[32:38] result in an unreasonable loss of
privacy. is something you could uh make
[32:42] request modifications to.
[32:46] Okay. And then to speak about the floor
area ratio exception, I think we're all
[32:50] familiar with the the floor area rules
and how they interplay with the slope of
[32:55] a lot. So the allowed floor area ratio
here is 0.19 or 2793
[33:01] square ft. Um the project proposes an F
of 0.214
[33:05] or 3,148
square feet. um which is what 0.102
[33:13] below the neighborhood average when you
conduct a survey of all the properties
[33:17] within 300 feet. I will just point out
and it does say so in in the staff
[33:21] report a number of those properties are
much smaller lots which kind of skews
[33:25] the data. There are believe properties
of a similar lot size over 10,000 square
[33:30] feet and this would be the fourth
largest home of those 11 properties. And
[33:35] then just to kind of make it clear, this
is how we've broken out the floor area.
[33:39] So there's 256 ft of the garage that is
included there. 1448 is excluded. The
[33:46] first floor uh includes 2007 ft of
living space without the JADU and I'll
[33:52] get into that last actually. The second
floor totals 705 ft and the rear office
[33:57] building is 123 ft. Now the JADU and ADU
are both they meet the provisions of the
[34:04] code to be granted the 800 square foot
floor area bonus. The two units together
[34:09] total 857 square ft. So 57 square ft of
the combined two units is being included
[34:15] in the floor area. So that's why it says
the JADU has a 57 square foot impact on
[34:20] the floor area ratio. So other than
that, the the rest of the ADU and the
[34:26] rest of the JADU footprint are not
included in that total.
[34:31] And the last entitlement requested is a
slope use permit. This is triggered by
[34:35] the cut and or fill of 25 cubic yards or
more on a property with a slope greater
[34:40] than 25%. This project proposes a total
cut and fill volume of 362 cubic yards
[34:46] which is required to dig the residents
into the hillside and then create a
[34:50] landscaped area at the sides and rear of
the lot. And this is the the grading
[34:54] plan here for you. And it's also
included in the plan set if you want to
[34:57] look at it a little closer. But again,
most of it is to access the garage and
[35:02] in there. And then the landscaped area
I'm referring to is kind of all back
[35:05] here. There's some terracing that will
be done at the rear of the lot.
[35:09] and you have received a total of three
public comments on this project. I would
[35:14] say they are generally all opposed to
the scale of of the proposed
[35:17] development. There is one from the
neighbor directly to the east which is
[35:22] the one with the potential privacy
impact based on that kind of large
[35:26] picture window.
And with that, I'm going to close out my
[35:30] remarks here. So staff's recommendation
is that you hold a public hearing,
[35:33] consider public testimony, discuss the
project, and adopt planning commission
[35:37] resolution 04-2026,
which approves the project subject to
[35:41] findings, conditions of approval, and a
class 2 SQA exemption. And that
[35:45] concludes my report, and the property
owner and project architecture are here
[35:48] for you as well.
[35:56] » Uh, first we have to hear the It's not
time for your question. It's
[35:59] » got staff questions. Oh, go ahead. Staff
question. Sure.
[36:02] » Right. And I had called Alex about this
earlier just to understand the square
[36:06] footage, which I do understand now, but
I want to make sure cuz what was the
[36:10] number that you had up on the screen the
the for the permitted F? No, not the per
[36:16] the requested
[36:24] because cuz here it says 4532
[36:29] » I think
>> and then the permitted F is 3093 and
[36:32] what was the number 31
>> I think it may have been the at the time
[36:37] that that was written I think the the 57
square ft had not been included in it.
[36:42] It's the 57 square feet which is why the
number is
[36:46] » got it. Okay. So the
>> but it is 3,148
[36:50] » square feet. Okay. And then
so the way I understood it the entire
[36:56] property is 5,396
ft of which
[37:02] 1,448
is below grade. So you don't have to
[37:06] include that.
And then 800 of that is JD, ADU, and
[37:13] ADU. So you don't include that either.
So you take 5396 and you take away 1448
[37:20] and you take away another 800. And
that's how you get to the 13148.
[37:25] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[37:29] Okay. Everyone with me on that?
[37:36] Because what?
[37:42] » Because they're not subject to F,
>> right?
[37:45] » The J AU and the AD.
>> Okay.
[37:47] » Yes.
>> But and everyone's [clears throat] on
[37:49] the same page, right on that?
>> Yeah.
[37:51] » Yeah. Okay. Good.
>> Um I have a comment or a question to
[37:56] staff. Um the comment the late comment
that was received from Miss Lacy Trisha
[38:02] Lacy regarding the existing ED you
constructed before July 1st 2023. Can
[38:07] you give me clarification on what the
rules are on that?
[38:10] » Uh yeah to touch on that. So that it was
an existing accessory structure. It was
[38:15] converted to an ADU in 2024 under a
building permit. So staff's
[38:20] interpretation is that that does meet
the requirement of the code for the
[38:23] exception. The way it's phrased in the
code is ADUs and J ADUs constructed
[38:27] after I'd have to look at it for the
>> July 1. Yeah, July 1st, 2023. Um, those
[38:33] are the only units that are eligible.
So, the structure did exist, but it was
[38:37] not used as an ADU at that time. So,
staff's position is that by converting
[38:42] it to a JADU or excuse me, an ADU in
2024, that's the date that we're using
[38:46] for the the F. Were there a remodel of
the building after July 1st, 2023, or
[38:52] did they just not call it that before
that and now they're calling it that?
[38:55] » I can't speak to that. that the
documentation that I I found in our in
[38:58] our docu in our files was not didn't
provide any sort of clue as to whether
[39:04] or not it was an ADU at that or used I
suppose used as a guest house or ADU
[39:08] prior to that but it was legally create
converted into an ADU
[39:12] » and and then therefore does not go
against the
[39:16] » square footage. That is staff's
interpretation. The planning commission
[39:20] can choose to interpret it a different
way if it wishes.
[39:23] » Okay.
All right.
[39:27] Any other questions? But, uh,
>> nothing. I mean, I had, maybe this is
[39:30] more for the applicant. I had questions
about access to the ADU because I I went
[39:35] to go see it. And I mean, you can't
really see much because it's a lot of
[39:39] foliage and vegetation. And um, and I
saw lock gates, so I wasn't sure what
[39:44] was going on behind at the back of the
property, but it sounds like that there
[39:47] isn't I mean, there is an existing ADU
there.
[39:50] » Yeah, there there's two accessory
buildings in the rear of the lot. It's a
[39:53] It's a 123 square foot office and needs
>> four
[39:58] and the ADU adjacent to it. They're
connected by a by a deck.
[40:03] » Okay. But I'm assuming the the ADU needs
to be accessed by the street at the from
[40:07] the street level, right?
>> I'm sure the owner and architect could
[40:10] tell you exactly how it'll be accessed.
I believe it's a path that runs up the
[40:13] um the western side of the propert that
you can use to get back there.
[40:17] » Okay.
>> All right.
[40:20] » All right. Do we have the applicant?
[40:32] Yes.
[40:43] » While Alex is getting set up, I'll tell
you I've scripted this because I want to
[40:46] get a lot of information to you as
efficiently as possible. So,
[40:50] » okay. Could you introduce yourself?
Sure. My name is Rich Pearlstein. I'm
[40:53] with Bolski Pearlstein Architects and I
want to wait until Alex gets a chance to
[40:59] throw that up and
[41:04] Okay, good. Thanks. Okay. Um
um our office has worked with Mike Folk
[41:11] for many years on other residential
projects. Last year he asked us to begin
[41:15] work with him on the design of his new
home. This is a property that Mike has
[41:19] owned for 21 years. He and his wife, his
former wife, raised their daughter here.
[41:24] Mike has deep roots in Marin. He decided
that he wanted to create a new home for
[41:27] himself and his family.
The existing home was built in 1937 as a
[41:32] one-bedroom home. In the 70s, an
existing covered patio was fully
[41:36] enclosed to make it a two-bedroom home.
Today, it has an F, the house itself, of
[41:41] just under.11,
one of the lowest FS in the
[41:44] neighborhood. Even though this property
is notably larger than most neighboring
[41:48] lots, given the existing home's Spanish
inspired character, Mike wanted to work
[41:53] within the Mission Revival style. Where
am I pointing? Where am I pointing?
[41:57] Okay, good. There you go. Uh, with their
light stuckco walls, tile roofs,
[42:02] occasional arches, divided light
windows, and simple architectural
[42:05] detailing. These would be combined in
our design with what we're calling
[42:09] biomodern elements,
more contemporary forms with planted
[42:14] green roofs. In this way, we believe
that the design would be sensitive to
[42:17] the neighborhood's fabric, maintaining
continuity with other similar homes in
[42:21] the area with planted roofs acting as a
softening feature and a linkage between
[42:25] the gables.
Our site concept was constrained in a
[42:29] few significant ways.
Mike wanted to preserve the Chinese
[42:34] pistache tree in the front yard.
[42:39] And the trees uh size and placement
dictated the location of the garage and
[42:43] driveway that would be tucked underneath
the main floor.
[42:47] And you're familiar with that. Uh as
well as the pedestrian approach up to
[42:52] the front door, which is the heavy blue
line leading you up behind the tree.
[42:56] Along the western side, the building
maintains a greater than minimum setback
[42:59] from the acquired six-foot setbacks
varying from 7 to 10 feet as the
[43:03] building jogs along. Towards the rear of
the house, the Japanese maple on the
[43:07] western property line dictated that the
building remained far enough away from
[43:11] the tree to not affect its root zone.
On the uphill, we needed to respect the
[43:17] large oak trees root zone.
[43:24] Went too far. Sorry.
There we go.
[43:30] The existing garage behind the house is
sided in an excavated cut that was made
[43:34] into the hillside back when the garage
was first built. As you can see here,
[43:40] so it seemed logical for us to make use
of that cut in extending the main floor
[43:44] back into that area. The property size
allowed Mike his desire to substantially
[43:48] have a one-story floor plan for the
house's core functions with only the
[43:52] primary suite upstairs.
During early schematic uh design,
[44:00] we developed two massing alternatives
for an upstairs primary suite. Mike
[44:04] viewed both of these with the neighbors
at 20 elm, realizing that they may have
[44:08] a preference as to where it would be
located with their preferred location to
[44:12] the northernmost portion of the
building.
[44:21] The upper floor roof height varies from
about 13 feet to about 21 ft at the
[44:25] ridge along the east elevation. Though
of course the first 6 to9 ft above grade
[44:30] are masked by the eastern fence which is
this shading block here. So at the north
[44:35] elevation of the upper floor, the
building essentially is a single story
[44:38] stepping out to grade. As Alex
mentioned, the homeowners at 20 created
[44:43] a photo simulation using the story poles
to show a view from their rear yard
[44:47] area.
[44:51] Although note that we've shifted because
the AI had the windows in the center, we
[44:55] shifted it so that the photo is a little
more accurate.
[44:59] Um, based on the photo simulation, we
think that it was taken from a vantage
[45:03] point on their site towards the back of
the their deck. Um so the red triangle
[45:11] if you can see that in on the screen
represents where the views of East Pac
[45:17] would be hidden behind the proposed
upper floor. The east pink east peak
[45:21] would otherwise be visible from the
remaining center and southern areas
[45:26] when you're standing more to the middle
of the deck. We also however looked at
[45:30] an alternative window configuration for
this elevation
[45:36] uh based on the [clears throat] letter
that the owners had sent into staff.
[45:41] This would keep the higher windows in
the stair hall for morning light
[45:47] then eliminate the middle windows and
keep the lower windows so that we could
[45:52] get natural light back into the corner
of the dining area on the main floor.
[45:57] While we believe that the larger
architectural uh assembly of the windows
[46:02] may be look better, we think that the
visual impacts on the neighbors may
[46:06] argue in favor of modification.
In the final design, the three
[46:11] traditional gable forms are linked with
the biomodern sections of the building.
[46:17] Two gables linked, two gables linked,
and two gables linked together.
[46:23] Conceptually as well as practically, the
various elements create a well
[46:27] articulated building that we believe is
respectful to its location.
[46:30] The landscape design firm put together a
series of illustrative images that we
[46:34] think conveys a good sense of how the
finished project will feel when
[46:38] landscaped. And these are the landscape
drawings that were in your package.
[46:44] In summary, we chose a substantially
one-story design that echoes and
[46:48] respects the mission influence of the
current house and other homes in the
[46:51] neighborhood.
The street facade follows the
[46:55] streetscape as each success successive
home coming down Elm is cited comparably
[47:00] lower than the house immediately uphill
from it.
[47:04] We're responding to the crossgrade of
each property. We believe that the home
[47:07] artfully integrates into the
neighborhood with its historic
[47:10] references rather than alternatively
just building a purely modern home.
[47:18] And that's
all three questions.
[47:26] » Um, yeah. Would you mind answering the
question about the ADU at the back and
[47:31] access to the ADU?
>> Yes. So, um, you'll notice
[47:36] if you go to your south elevation, it's
a little fainter in this perspective.
[47:41] The set of stairs continues up the side
of the house. And if I went back to
[47:46] back,
[47:50] if you imagine those stairs are
they start up now they're coming up the
[47:55] east side. So behind the sixoot fence
the stairs come up. There's a a walkway
[48:00] and then they start to step up and in
the new landscape design the stairs will
[48:04] get here and at that point they will
start to cut the middle of the site and
[48:08] their existing stairs that they connect
to. And that that probably shows up in
[48:11] the landscape site plan if you if you
[clears throat]
[48:14] » Yeah, shows on my my site plan as well,
I think. So, the intent is that the um
[48:20] the resident of the ADA would go up the
east side and then connect to those
[48:24] stairs.
>> Okay. So, if somebody's in there and
[48:27] they have to just walk all the way up
the stairs to get in
[48:29] » one way or the other.
>> Okay. Um and then the other question I
[48:34] had is what is the final parking count?
because I understand you have a big
[48:39] garage and some driveway space.
>> Yes. So, and one thing I wasn't sure if
[48:44] Alex was going to mention, but if you
look at the floor plan at the back of
[48:48] the garage, there is an area that Mike
is intending to put an elevator in at
[48:53] some point. So, he's trying to connect
so that as he ages in place, as many of
[48:58] us have discussed, aging in place
sometimes precludes stairs. And so
[49:04] a a driver of that garage was getting
back to where we could actually step up
[49:09] into the elevator for a second floor. So
that becomes the southeastern corner of
[49:14] the second floor in the garage up into
the closet.
[49:17] Um but so as to your question, if one
parked tandem in the garage, you would
[49:22] have two plus two in the garage. And
then of course there are at least two in
[49:26] the driveway. And Larksburg's
requirement is two plus two.
[49:29] » Okay. But it sounds like you can fit six
if you do. If you do tandem.
[49:33] » Yes. And
>> in the driveway, given car sizes these
[49:36] days, possibly, but certainly six.
>> Okay.
[49:40] Thank you.
Anyone?
[49:46] » Um, you comment on again I'm looking at
at the bus line and letter uh about the
[49:55] modification of the of the second story
to pull back from the property line a
[50:00] bit. Have you guys considered
uh the massing of that second story on
[50:06] the property line and whether or not you
have some alternative ideas about
[50:10] lowering that a bit? Um so let me get to
[50:21] this. So and I'm not sure this is the
letter from the neighbors at 20. Yes. So
[50:28] I guess the question at hand is in in
consideration that um Mike had had those
[50:34] discussions early on um
whether the masting would have been
[50:39] better there or here which was the other
alternative. And so if you think about
[50:46] the height we could say well maybe we'll
lower the slope a little bit and that
[50:51] point would come down about a foot. Can
you see the pointer? Okay. Okay. Yeah.
[50:55] Um, you know, you could consider that.
Um, Michael, as you have may have
[51:02] noticed and you will notice when he
stands up, is very tall, 6' 7, eight.
[51:07] So, the height upstairs is just somewhat
sensitive, at least in terms of the
[51:10] plate height, the height of the walls.
>> And so, the real question, even if you
[51:15] say, well, let's push that back a few
feet, I don't know that the perception
[51:20] of it changes that much. So, I guess the
way that Mike and I had been discussing
[51:26] it was that as we went through this, if
we went about and pulled much of that
[51:32] glazing out so that we're just getting
not essentially clear windows dropping
[51:36] light in that that ideally that would
take care of the primary concern. But if
[51:45] you imagine that wall pushed back 5 ft,
let's say, where it'll take a magic
[51:50] number, it doesn't really appreciably
change that wallpap as seen from here.
[51:56] Does that make sense?
>> What What about the ceiling heights on
[52:01] the inside? Because there's a living
room, right? And then a bedroom.
[52:04] » Yes. And they both of the
>> How how high are those?
[52:08] » Uh I'm going from memory. The ceiling
height in the bedroom is 9 ft. And this
[52:12] is why I was mentioning as Mike may
describe in a few minutes. And I recall,
[52:17] let me flash forward to um looks like
living rooms 10 ft.
[52:22] » Actually, Alex, you had that
information, didn't you?
[52:24] » It's on the A31's got the
elevations.
[52:31] » A31.
She looked at
[52:34] » Yeah. So, I believe we're 10 foot floor
to floor, which so is my point of puts
[52:39] the kitchen at just under uh 9 ft, which
is I don't know that we've built a
[52:45] project
of late that went lower than that. So,
[52:51] it's not it's not an unusual number.
>> 10.
[52:57] » No, 10. I can't say. It's too small.
It's too I can't read it.
[53:03] » But to be clear, the living here. So
um
[53:10] Alex, can you switch to the building
sections because I have not included
[53:13] those in
[53:16] might be easy.
[53:26] So, while we're waiting for that, so
there is the height at the kitchen,
[53:30] which is I'll call it a flat ceiling,
which is the floor underneath the the
[53:35] primary suite. And I'm going from
memory, Mike recalls, I think we went
[53:39] 10T floor to floor. And so, that puts
the ceiling just under 9 ft. The living
[53:45] room is different because it's a higher
ceiling space with the green roof over
[53:48] it. So, it sits higher, but it's not
really they're they're
[53:53] not tied to each other, if you will. So
it's the height of the dining and living
[53:57] area. I think that we're that may be
gerine that you're wondering about.
[54:06] » Thank you. So
[54:11] yeah, so from the first floor level to
the second floor level in squinting, but
[54:18] I believe that's 10 foot.
>> Yeah. So the height here it ends up
[54:24] given the construction it's a little
under nine feet 8 foot n 8 foot 10 from
[54:29] here to there
[54:34] » in the catch.
[54:38] » Okay.
>> Thank you.
[54:43] » Any other questions?
[54:48] I guess I just want to understand you're
showing this this photo from the moose
[54:54] leen or it's a rendering I guess based
on the story polls.
[54:58] » Yes.
>> Are you saying it's not accurate?
[55:00] » Oh, it was just where whatever system
may have built that the size and
[55:05] location of the windows within the gable
it that was centered in
[55:09] » the window location. Window location but
the other than that the scale is is
[55:13] pretty accurate. Yeah, they were
breaking up the the uh story poles,
[55:16] which is a great way to do uh photo
rendering. So So the massing of the roof
[55:20] is accurate to the story poles.
>> Yeah.
[55:23] » Which is if the window is
>> Yeah, the window is a little off, so I
[55:26] just corrected it.
>> I see.
[55:27] » Just like the picture of the deck view
today versus the deck view with the
[55:30] house. That would be go from
green plants all around to large house.
[55:37] Right.
>> Sorry. Could you please?
[55:39] » You have no You said no concerns about
this one in terms of its accuracy. No, I
[55:43] think that the I'll say the walls.
>> Yeah, they're they're tracking the story
[55:47] polls, which is as it should be.
>> Cool.
[55:50] » And so what what is behind I'm trying to
I can I can't see actually with my eyes
[55:55] can't see the small writing, but on the
on the the whole proposed site plan. You
[56:01] have the I see the entry of the house. I
see the the rear of the house where the
[56:06] living room and then the primary
bedrooms up top and then there's a yard.
[56:10] Yeah. in between [clears throat] there
and the ADU is just is just yard.
[56:15] » It's it yeah it's a patio
>> patio area.
[56:17] » In other words, within within this area
between two wings.
[56:21] » Yeah. Did you consider I mean I think
the main issue here is privacy and and
[56:27] bulk and massing. I think you understand
that and we have three three pe
[56:32] neighbors who raise that issue. Is there
another design that you've considered
[56:38] that wouldn't require a second story
right next to their the yard at least of
[56:47] that pushes it back or pushes it forward
to the to the front of the house or it
[56:51] pushes it further back on the property?
>> Well, I I think the appropriate thing if
[56:55] Mike you want to Yeah,
it's great.
[57:05] Uh my name is Mike Folk. I've u been a
Larksburg resident for 21 years. Uh
[57:11] served on multiple committees in the
city. So I'm been in the community for a
[57:15] long time. Um
we raised our family there. Uh so I have
[57:21] a great appreciation for the town and a
lot of sensitivity to the neighborhood
[57:26] and how that house would integrate into
the neighborhood. Um,
[57:31] so if you look at the uh if you saw that
first uh slide that Alex put up showing
[57:37] the neighborhood, um, the property was
sort of this remainder piece when they
[57:43] subdivided Elm. They went with 50 foot
wide lots, 150 ft long. They were all
[57:49] 7,500 feet, sort of like coming right
down the hill until they got to this
[57:53] last piece uh before it kind of it turns
onto aacia. and 16 Elm was the
[57:58] remainder. So 16 Elm actually touches
seven different properties. Uh it is
[58:05] almost it's 14 and a half thousand ft.
So it's almost double uh what the other
[58:09] lots are.
Um,
[58:13] so that's that's created an unusual
situation, but we wanted to keep the
[58:18] rhythm of sort of stepping down the uh
hill and that's why we opted for
[58:22] substantially a one-story house with all
the garage tucked underneath and we're
[58:27] digging that out. But really, if you
look at the existing house, the floor
[58:31] plate for the existing house is the same
floor plate for the new house. So, we're
[58:35] not changing elevation there. And we
really wanted to keep that stair step
[58:39] down. Now, obviously, when you add a
second story, uh that's going to have
[58:43] some impact. So, my process was to talk
to the neighbors early on. So, every one
[58:50] of the every one of the neighbors that
uh wrote in um I told them a year ago
[58:55] what we were starting to do. Um but I
knew that 20 Emily and Andrew would be
[59:00] the most impacted. And so, that's really
where I started. And so last October, I
[59:06] went to them when we were just starting
our design phase with only hand sketches
[59:12] and said, you know, there's there's
basically two places that we could add a
[59:17] second story. We could either add it
more to the middle or we could add it
[59:21] all the way to the north and push it to
the back of the property. Um, and they
[59:26] said at the time like, you know, we we'd
prefer not to see this, but you know, if
[59:31] all things being equal, we would take
the version that pushes the bulk to the
[59:35] back. And I happen to agree like if
you're going to you're going to take a
[59:40] slope property and there's an existing
cut in it, why don't you move one
[59:44] twotory element deepest into the cut? So
that cut, as you saw from that second
[59:51] story, comes out onto grade. So that
means that the first story there is
[59:56] substantially below grade. So that that
kitchen and dining room are like six
[1:00:01] feet under grade. So um can we go to
that one? The eastern view.
[1:00:18] This one's fine.
So
[1:00:22] this is the 30 foot uh that's that's the
max that can go the 30 foot height line.
[1:00:28] Now clearly we we our goal here was to
keep something that was fairly modest
[1:00:33] and really from a street level that's
actually what it is and this is
[1:00:37] basically replacing a one-story house
with a one-story house. And we uh put
[1:00:41] the twotory element into that cut. So
like I said is really from grade here up
[1:00:47] to the uh up to the eaves it's like 9 10
ft and up to the peak I think is 12 or
[1:00:55] 13 total from the grade. Um so that was
the thinking like how do we how do we
[1:01:02] minimize that impact and I I understand
that certainly from 20 elm there will be
[1:01:08] impact. I mean there's just no there's
no getting around that. And that's why I
[1:01:11] started that process early with them.
That's why uh we you know they
[1:01:16] registered their um their interests
early on and we moved forward from that
[1:01:22] point. And I know that historically the
commission has wanted to see neighbors
[1:01:26] work with each other before coming to
this forum and then you know you having
[1:01:32] to decide something like that. Um so
that's that's the process there. Um, you
[1:01:39] had had questions about the ADU.
>> Just out of curiosity, um, have you
[1:01:43] talked to them since the story polls
went up?
[1:01:44] » Yes. So, okay. So,
>> I I delivered plans to everyone back in
[1:01:48] April when we actually had the full plan
set, and that includes not just the
[1:01:53] three that uh that wrote in, but also
other neighbors. Uh, and then when these
[1:01:58] story polls went up that day, I texted
everyone and said, "I'm available to
[1:02:03] meet and talk." And so, yes, I did go
over to uh Andrew and Emily's place and
[1:02:09] looked at it from the backyard. And
there's there's no question there was an
[1:02:14] impact. Like, you know, if you put uh
you put a property, if you put a
[1:02:18] building there at the setback, there's
going to be impact. Um we're happy to,
[1:02:23] as Rich said, we're happy to work with
the windows. Um, but if you if you you
[1:02:28] know code allows for up to 30 feet of
building height and we're trying to
[1:02:34] minimize that as much as possible and I
think we've done a pretty successful job
[1:02:38] there. It doesn't mean that there won't
be impact impact but it does because you
[1:02:43] have these lots that are only 50 feet
wide. If you look at the rhythm of the
[1:02:47] houses going up Elm and down Elm,
everyone's at their setbacks on both
[1:02:51] sides. So if everyone's got five or six
foot setbacks,
[1:02:56] you know, as you go up to I think 36 El
like I mean these houses are right next
[1:03:03] to each other. They're two stories right
next to each other. So that is not
[1:03:06] uncommon in that neighborhood. Anyway, I
digress. Um I wanted to answer your
[1:03:11] question about ADUs. So the ADU was
actually built in 2014 as a accessory
[1:03:17] structure. It was not a accessory
dwelling structure at the time. Clarks
[1:03:22] didn't really allow ADUs. Uh they didn't
want to have extra units and as you know
[1:03:27] with the arena numbers that has changed
dramatically and so we updated we didn't
[1:03:32] make any changes to the uh the structure
itself. It always had sort of a
[1:03:37] kitchenet and that kind of thing. Um but
before we rented it out and it is rented
[1:03:42] out now before we rented it out we made
it legal. And uh so if you look at that
[1:03:48] application it was strictly a name
change. it was going from an accessory
[1:03:52] structure to an accessory dwelling
structure so that we could legally uh um
[1:03:58] lease it out and uh it wasn't without
significant cost as it turns out um to
[1:04:04] go through the process with Larksburg um
but Larksburg got another extra reena
[1:04:09] unit out of it um so you know I think
that was generally good and as far as a
[1:04:15] you know the the point of ADUs and the
point of the state wanting ADUs is to
[1:04:20] create extra housing
and we've done that. We built it and
[1:04:24] we're renting it and so we created that
extra housing in the neighborhood. Um,
[1:04:28] so that's kind of the history on the ADU
and how it came to be.
[1:04:32] » Got it.
>> Um,
[1:04:36] I'm going to
I'm going to reserve the rest of my time
[1:04:40] just so that if there's someone that
comes up and I can address a neighbor's
[1:04:44] concern directly, I'm happy to do that.
Um, but you know, I could tell you all
[1:04:49] sorts of things about like why this is
our, you know, 30, 40year home and how
[1:04:54] you make a a house work like that and
you know, why I think doing something
[1:04:59] that's mission inspired but biomodern,
having this sort of these three gabled
[1:05:05] sections linked by a meadow is, I think,
pretty progressive and uh takes into
[1:05:10] account the kind of thing that the kind
of thing that Larksburg would like to
[1:05:14] see as opposed to a modern white box or
another modern farmhouse or that kind of
[1:05:19] thing. So,
we work hard on that.
[1:05:22] » Yeah, I mean the the design looks
beautiful for sure. Um, I do want to
[1:05:25] jump back to Andrew's question real
quick and I wasn't sure if I I missed
[1:05:28] it, but basically I'm going to hold up
uh C2.1 which kind of has this uh
[1:05:34] » the paper area there.
>> Oh, yeah.
[1:05:36] » Um and right now there's no there's no
house there.
[1:05:39] » Um obviously it's a patio, it's
enjoyable. Is there any design that
[1:05:43] would remove the need for the second
floor, preserve the same square footage
[1:05:46] you have, and then move part of the
house into there? Is that not
[1:05:50] » basically you move that square footage
into that? So, if you're if you're
[1:05:54] taking the mission style as kind of your
vernacular, you know, having a courtyard
[1:05:59] is standard. Um, that's also the view of
Tam. So, we're organizing that courtyard
[1:06:06] around a view. Um, if you take that
second story and drop it right in the
[1:06:10] middle, what you've got is sort of a uh
setback to setback, one big flat yard,
[1:06:16] it doesn't it doesn't really it's it's
not a great design.
[1:06:20] » Wait, I don't think he means you didn't
mean this area here, did you? You meant
[1:06:24] this area,
>> right?
[1:06:26] » Yeah. I mean,
>> didn't you better address? Yeah.
[1:06:31] » Yeah. Right behind the
>> You're talking backwards.
[1:06:35] which just goes goes higher up the hill.
>> I think Pearl Stein was thinking coming
[1:06:39] in.
>> I was actually asking that I understand
[1:06:42] your question.
>> Okay.
[1:06:42] » I I thought you were talking about that
area
[1:06:44] » about what's in between
>> two separate areas.
[1:06:47] » I think that's what
>> Andrew was saying. [laughter]
[1:06:53] » The the main question is like is there a
place where it's not a second floor? Cuz
[1:06:58] like you said, you've built this
beautiful patio around a tam view. Um,
[1:07:04] and the only way you can achieve that is
by
[1:07:07] taking away someone else's tan view. If
>> that's not true.
[1:07:10] » Okay.
>> Um, if you we'll uh let me go back to
[1:07:16] the uh view from 20.
>> If I change it from taking away
[1:07:20] someone's tan view to materially
impacting someone's tan view, would that
[1:07:24] Okay. Yeah.
>> So like if someone were to build next to
[1:07:26] you and materially impact your cam view,
would that would you oppose that or
[1:07:32] would you support that?
>> I mean
[1:07:35] » hypothetical. Okay, that's fair enough.
That's right. Yeah.
[1:07:40] » I I guess the question they're asking
maybe is this being asked right now is
[1:07:43] is there a way that you can spread the
property out more along the property
[1:07:48] along the land as opposed to going up
you go along the property? And that's
[1:07:53] what what you're asking, right?
>> Yeah,
[1:07:55] » it's a fair question.
>> Uh I think it was slide number
[1:08:00] two.
[1:08:08] Go back.
[1:08:30] » Go back.
[1:08:38] two or three I don't remember the one
that basically shows the uh
[1:08:42] » the cut and how the bill six act
[1:08:52] » no
>> yes
[1:08:58] so
if you're if our interest was to build
[1:09:04] only in the cut um and not not cut
further into the hill. And so, you know,
[1:09:12] at least historically, larks larks has
been very opposed to sort of regrading
[1:09:18] uh especially slope properties. And so,
we've worked within the cut and that's
[1:09:24] that's essentially this one. You can see
the uh grade actually up there, but this
[1:09:29] is the existing cut and
conraints on the property.
[1:09:36] So that's where we put the house, but
there are these trees that also
[1:09:41] constrain the property, too. So it's not
if you move the mass farther up the
[1:09:45] hill, then you've moved right into a
heritage oak. And so that's problematic.
[1:09:50] If we're pushing out, we're pushing out
to the uh west, then we're into a
[1:09:55] Japanese maple. If we're pushing out to
the south, well, we've got a front yard
[1:10:00] setback and we got a tree there. So, um,
unless we're building something up here,
[1:10:07] which would be very obvious from a lot
of properties, you know, really you're
[1:10:12] trying to put the mass into the cut and
keep it as low as possible. And that's
[1:10:18] why we built essentially a one-story
house with this small two-story element.
[1:10:23] And that upstairs is, you know, we put
the gable end uh toward Andrew and
[1:10:29] Emily's side. So, it goes longer. It's I
think the I don't know what the width is
[1:10:34] there, but um you know, if you're
putting a rectangle there, you're
[1:10:37] putting the short end toward your
neighbor and you're putting the long end
[1:10:39] on your property. Um and that's what we
did. And we and we actually um
[1:10:47] so this this mass here, we actually cut
this corner back here. It's sort of an
[1:10:52] odd odd shape. Get to that uh
the story pole planner.
[1:10:59] » But we really we really made an effort
to minimize the effect of
[1:11:07] Yeah. So right there we actually cut
this corner right here so that it would
[1:11:12] impact them less. Um this is their
backyard and you can see from most of it
[1:11:19] you can see tan from this corner. Um you
you lose a bit of tan. Um so
[1:11:27] and I'm I'm again I'm not in any way
suggesting there's not an impact. There
[1:11:31] is an impact. Um,
but it's also,
[1:11:37] you know, to say that they've lost all
their TAM view is not true. Actually,
[1:11:43] from most of their backyard or for a
good portion of certainly the majority.
[1:11:47] Um, it still maintains a TAM view and
it's not a remote portion. It is the
[1:11:51] central portion. Um, so and I said
before like I think the commission would
[1:12:00] choose to have neighbors that try to
work their problems out before they get
[1:12:03] here and that's absolutely we did um
starting a year ago.
[1:12:07] » Okay, great.
[1:12:11] Great. Can we uh any other real good
>> watch?
[1:12:15] » All right. Excellent. I will address. So
there are two other letters that you got
[1:12:20] » u from tan elm gave uh and their concern
is um because they sit lower and they're
[1:12:28] also on a about a 3500 foot lot. So it's
a very small lot that our project sort
[1:12:33] of looms over them. Definitely a
concern. I get it. Um
[1:12:39] when we when we removed our driveway up
the west side and pushed the building
[1:12:44] out, the building still still a single
story there got closer to the fence. So
[1:12:49] what I've offered up and what we sort of
agreed upon was uh we would put a
[1:12:53] trellis on top of the fence that would
uh cut down that sense of like looming
[1:12:58] over.
>> So more vegetation
[1:13:00] » more veget more vegetation higher.
That's right.
[1:13:03] » Okay. Um, and it would allow our windows
to clear and not look down into their
[1:13:06] property. Um, and then for 110 Elm, uh,
110 110 Acacia,
[1:13:14] um, we did a render there. I can show it
to you later. Uh, but I would say their
[1:13:20] view from the back of their house to
that two-story element in our house is
[1:13:24] about 140 ft. Um, so it's not not right
next door. It's it's a ways away. And
[1:13:31] then and the last thing I'll leave you
with is F.
[1:13:36] Um,
as I mentioned, there are seven
[1:13:39] properties that touch uh 16L. Um,
we are by far the lowest current F and
[1:13:48] the lowest requested F. Um, so ours is
uh allowable 19. Uh, we're asking for
[1:13:56] 21.4. It's 112% of F. Um, our neighbors
are 90% 213% 136 136 185 213 and 454%
[1:14:09] of F. Our average neighbor that touches
our property is 203% of F.
[1:14:17] So, you know, yes, we have a large lot,
but that's the standard that is in our
[1:14:24] neighborhood.
So,
[1:14:27] um, yeah, great.
>> Any questions? Appreciate
[1:14:31] » it.
No, we're good. You're good. All right.
[1:14:36] So, public comment.
>> Yes, ma'am.
[1:14:48] » I am not nearly as tall as Michael.
[laughter]
[1:14:51] Um, for sake of efficiency, I just
prepared something. Um, so my name is
[1:14:55] Emily Leiden. Um, and me and my husband,
Andrew Busy, lived at 20 Elm. Um, which
[1:15:01] is right next door to the project. It's
our first home. Um, we moved in about a
[1:15:05] year ago. Um, and then we had submitted
a letter with some of the photos and
[1:15:09] some of the fancy AI rendering that my
husband did. Um, and we really want to
[1:15:14] echo what Michael had said. appreciate
him engaging with us from like the very
[1:15:19] beginning of um the project and really
want him to build his dream home and his
[1:15:24] forever home here. Um but we do have
concerns as you've seen by the photos of
[1:15:29] the overall um size of the structure and
where it's placed on the property line.
[1:15:34] Um particularly just the second story um
there really impacts our experience of
[1:15:39] the backyard. Um, and as has been
commented on before, our stretch of Elm,
[1:15:44] um, all the houses are on relatively
small lots, but kind of thoughtfully set
[1:15:48] back from each other, which kind of
preserves the views from everyone's
[1:15:52] houses and from the backyards um, of
Mount Tam and also the surrounding ridge
[1:15:57] line and how amazingly green and
beautiful it is there. Um, but this
[1:16:01] design, especially mainly just the
second story, kind of breaks that
[1:16:05] pattern and puts like the tallest part
of the house, no other way to describe
[1:16:09] it besides looming um over our backyard.
Um, and right next to our property line
[1:16:16] alongside the deck. Um, and then one of
the things we love about living in Larks
[1:16:21] uh is how amazing the weather it is
every year. Um, and throughout the
[1:16:26] entire year. Um, and the deck truly is
one of our living spaces. Um, and our
[1:16:33] main place that we spend spend time and
entertain. Um, and when the story poles
[1:16:38] went up, we just walked out back and
really just towered over our fence and
[1:16:43] um, and did from parts of the backyard
kind of block our view of Mount Tam.
[1:16:48] Though I agree with Michael that from
different areas of the yard, we still do
[1:16:51] have a view. But the whole structure
definitely does loom and it's the first
[1:16:55] thing you see when you walk out into our
backyard. um which is included in some
[1:17:00] of the photos. Um so this house would be
a lot bigger than ours. Ours is 1100
[1:17:04] square feet. Um and it is asking for an
exemption to go above what is requested.
[1:17:10] And we know that exemptions are approved
all the time for like very good and good
[1:17:14] reasons. Um but I think this one is
being used and massing the largest part
[1:17:22] of the house kind of in a way that does
impact us and our experience of our
[1:17:25] home.
um and just
[1:17:30] makes us feel a little bit enclosed in
our backyard and blocks our view. Um so
[1:17:34] I think we appreciate that Michael came
to us with kind of two options when he
[1:17:40] was first starting this, but I think
regardless of where a second story was
[1:17:43] placed, it was always going to be um
impacting our experience of our backyard
[1:17:47] where we spend so much time. So,
obviously want him to get a a his plans
[1:17:53] approved um to build a home there, but I
think maybe a thoughtful redesign of how
[1:17:59] big that second story structure is or
even ideally not having it entirely
[1:18:04] because I don't think there's a world
where there's a second story there that
[1:18:06] doesn't significantly impact our um our
experience of our home. So, thanks.
[1:18:14] » I've got a question.
>> Yeah. How would you redesign it if you
[1:18:16] were to not um if you were not in your
ideal world?
[1:18:22] » I mean, I think you guys have made some
good suggestions of
[1:18:28] I mean, in an ideal world, we wouldn't
have that second story at all. The house
[1:18:31] is already quite sizable if you take
into account the
[1:18:36] basement area not being counted the far,
the junior ADU, the additional ADU in
[1:18:40] the back. Um, I obviously have no idea
how Michael's intending to use it or
[1:18:44] family come in or rent out the ADUs, but
um,
[1:18:49] but yeah, there is a big patio area.
Ideally, keeping it to one story, I
[1:18:54] think, would be
ideal from our standpoint, knowing that
[1:18:58] of course there needs to be a a middle
ground. But I think even if you I think
[1:19:02] Michael made the good point of even if
you push it out a few feet, it's still
[1:19:06] going to look the same and feel the same
from
[1:19:09] from our view in the backyard.
>> Okay.
[1:19:13] » Yeah.
>> All right. Thanks.
[1:19:15] » Thanks.
[1:19:26] » Hi, my name is Trisha Lacy. My husband
and I live at 110 Acacia Avenue and
[1:19:31] we've lived in Larksburg for almost 11
years now. Um I did submit a letter. A
[1:19:36] number of the things have already been
discussed. Um I want to begin with
[1:19:41] saying um that I really like the modern
interpretation of the California Mission
[1:19:46] style. Um, I love the planted green
roofs and um I appreciate um that they
[1:19:55] will be preserving the three heritage
trees and in particular the valley oak
[1:20:00] and the maple in the backyard um are
very important because it's something
[1:20:03] that we see from our backyard and it
provides the maple in particular
[1:20:08] provides important screening between the
two properties. Um I do have some
[1:20:13] concerns. one um we've discussed which
is the ADU um and I I really question
[1:20:22] that
um reszoning something is the same as it
[1:20:27] being constructed. It seems to me that
the laws or the I don't know if law is
[1:20:31] [clears throat] the right word, but that
the code specifically says that the ADU
[1:20:36] must be constructed after July 1st of
2023. And that is not what happened. So
[1:20:41] I I question that that ADU should not be
counted towards the total F
[1:20:47] um the application of the 800 square
foot ADU Junior ADU allowance. So Alex,
[1:20:54] thank you for correcting that and I want
to make sure that um that new number of
[1:20:59] the 3148 is reflected in um the
exemption application or whatever the
[1:21:07] exact terminology is. so that he's he's
applying for the right thing. Um, in
[1:21:13] terms of floor area ratio, exception,
and overall scale,
[1:21:17] um, I understand what Michael shared
about neighboring properties. I do want
[1:21:23] to point out that I don't know that any
of the neighboring properties have a ADU
[1:21:29] or a junior ADU on the property. And so
when you consider that there's this from
[1:21:36] what we see living below, I see the the
ADU and then the office unit of 123
[1:21:43] square feet and they're attached with a
deck. The the net impact in in our
[1:21:48] visual is nearly 600 square ft of
building. And then now you're talking
[1:21:54] about another junior ADU and this space
that's underground. There is quite a lot
[1:21:59] of building space and just not all of it
is being reflected in the floor area
[1:22:04] ratio. Um, in regards to the height of
the second story window, yet or the
[1:22:10] second story bedroom wing, yes, from our
home, we are from our actual residence,
[1:22:16] we are quite far away. And I recognize
that we do at the back of our property,
[1:22:21] it's the way that we're able to utilize
the capture the tam view, there's a
[1:22:25] deck. And so when you are on that upper
deck and you turn around and and you see
[1:22:29] the story poles, it it was quite
dramatic. And so and also because of the
[1:22:34] sloping from our perspective, we do see
that 27 foot high roof line. And so um
[1:22:43] or I guess it's 25 foot roof line with
the three-foot um chimney. And so I
[1:22:50] wonder if the chimney height could be
reduced, if the overall pitch of the
[1:22:54] roof could be reduced. I understand that
he's trying to echo the pitch of all
[1:22:59] three, but this one has a different
orientation. So, if it was slightly
[1:23:04] different, I don't think that's
something that would be picked up um
[1:23:08] when you're viewing it. So, I I do think
that there's an opportunity to at least
[1:23:12] bring down the height of that roof line.
Um, and then finally, I just want to
[1:23:17] make sure that there is true protection
of these heritage trees, especially the
[1:23:24] oak, which I think has a 42 foot
diameter. Um, but that wouldn't be
[1:23:30] right. 42 in and um and also the maple
tree because there's going to be a
[1:23:36] significant amount of earth work and I
just worry about the um roots being
[1:23:42] disturbed and then in particular as it
relates to the seconds story bedroom. Um
[1:23:47] it will require some significant pruning
of that oak tree and I know you can only
[1:23:53] safely prune a certain amount at a time.
So if nothing else I think that work
[1:23:57] might need to be staged. Um,
so thank you.
[1:24:03] » Thanks very much.
All right. Are there any comments on
[1:24:08] Zoom?
>> If you're on Zoom and you'd like to
[1:24:10] comment, please raise your hand.
[1:24:15] » No hands.
>> Okay, great. All right, let's bring it
[1:24:18] back to the commission.
[1:24:24] Um, sure. Do you have any objection?
Anybody? No. Go ahead.
[1:24:35] I know he doesn't like that. Too bad.
>> Um I totally agree on the trees. That
[1:24:39] was you know a primary motive for us to
keep those trees. So protection pruning
[1:24:44] 100% there.
>> Um I do think there's with our ADU and
[1:24:49] office um we we rent them together. So
those are are a combined unit. I would
[1:24:54] say I would argue that they're really
one ADU and not two different buildings.
[1:24:58] But from a bulk and massing standpoint,
um, our property is 200 f feet in
[1:25:04] length. The distance from the house up
to the ADU and office is another 100
[1:25:11] and change. Um, so when you're looking
at any one of the structures, whether
[1:25:15] it's the ADU in its office or the house,
that that bulk and massing is completely
[1:25:21] separated. like it's not, you know,
you're not looking at x number of
[1:25:25] thousands of feet
>> the way you do with most houses, right?
[1:25:28] This is a big lot. And I've been asked
many times like, "Why'd you make the ADU
[1:25:33] so far away?" Um, it was always intended
to be like a different thing. And most
[1:25:38] of the time when we have people come
over, they look up and they're like,
[1:25:40] "Oh, isn't that the neighbor?" They
don't even recognize them and they don't
[1:25:44] connect them.
>> Yeah.
[1:25:45] » So,
I don't I don't think that was the issue
[1:25:48] as much. was just whether it was just a
question of F and and I think these
[1:25:52] they've already decided that your ADUs
are illegal and that's again not our our
[1:25:57] area to discuss
>> making the connection. Yeah, that's all.
[1:26:00] » Okay, great. Thank you so much.
>> All right, [clears throat]
[1:26:06] let's bring it back sir.
[1:26:10] Um I'll admit I I do have concerns a
little bit about some of the privacy
[1:26:14] impact. um if that's one of the findings
we're supposed to find. I don't know if
[1:26:19] I could plainly come up with that
finding
[1:26:22] » is it I if I can jump in for you. The
one you are referencing I believe is
[1:26:27] finding B uh for design review.
>> Y
[1:26:30] » compatibility with neighbors and the
sentence in question reads
[1:26:34] » further the proposed structure or
addition avoids significant and
[1:26:37] unreasonable loss or interference with
privacy light solar access and
[1:26:41] prominence and abuse.
It's up to the commission whether or not
[1:26:44] the impact is significant and
unreasonable in order to meet that
[1:26:48] finding.
>> Okay. So, but like if I was saying I
[1:26:53] think it would be unreasonable, you'd
say that that would be enough to say
[1:26:56] that doesn't meet the finding or I don't
understand if I
[1:26:59] » Oh, I'm just pointing out that that the
language in the finding is that it is a
[1:27:02] significant and unreasonable loss of
privacy. It's not that there is any
[1:27:05] impact.
>> Totally. Totally understood. Understand
[1:27:07] certainly up to the discretion. I think
that's where I'm trying to that's where
[1:27:10] I'm trying to figure out like what
becomes unreasonable loss of privacy or
[1:27:15] um view. Um
>> there's there's no set standard
[1:27:18] established in the in the code for that.
It's up to your discretion.
[1:27:23] » Cool.
[1:27:26] It's not a state law.
>> No.
[1:27:29] » Yeah. There's no no constitutional right
to a good view or good privacy. Well,
[1:27:34] city some cities do have a uh view
obstruction ordinance. Larksburg does
[1:27:39] not.
>> Yep. Great.
[1:27:40] » And this comes up very frequently in
planning commission meetings when we
[1:27:44] have second story additions that excuse
me that look out onto neighbors etc.
[1:27:49] We've litigated this issue on many many
many occasions. And so I guess the main
[1:27:54] question is is this a significant and is
it unreasonable? Um, and that that's
[1:27:59] what is up to our discretion to to
discuss is whether it is and you
[1:28:03] certainly can think you in your opinion
whether it is or not. That's up to you
[1:28:07] to make that decision whether it's
significant and unreasonable.
[1:28:11] » Again, our our job isn't to redesign the
house.
[1:28:14] » Totally. Yeah, understood that.
>> Yeah.
[1:28:16] » Yeah.
>> Cool.
[1:28:20] » Okay.
>> Me to go. Um
[1:28:25] just want to make a comment to one of
the uh public comment people about the
[1:28:29] existing ADU and and can staff correct
me if I'm wrong but when we reddrafted
[1:28:35] the law here in Luxbor about the ADUs um
this was required for it was required
[1:28:42] for us to do this by state law and this
I'm not sure what the exact language
[1:28:47] says I don't have it to memory but the
spirit of the law was to encourage ADUs
[1:28:53] and we are not allowed to to account for
them. So I don't think it really in the
[1:28:58] end end of the day makes any difference
when it was built right. Um I mean maybe
[1:29:03] there's something in the language I
think staff is discussing
[1:29:10] » you know ADUs have a special status
under state law
[1:29:15] » and the state says that we have to
accommodate the legalization of ADUs.
[1:29:20] Um that date is not common among every
city. I mean it's not necessarily every
[1:29:26] agency has adopted the same standard. Um
it is our interpretation
[1:29:32] uh that of the law that this you know
how did you word it meets our
[1:29:39] yeah it's our interpretation that the
ADU was constructed
[1:29:44] after July 12. The ADU did not exist pre
July 1, 2023. It existed after July 1,
[1:29:50] 2023 and is therefore eligible for the F
bond.
[1:29:54] » What do you mean it didn't exist?
>> Well, it wasn't an ADU.
[1:29:58] » It wasn't.
>> You know, and the thing is we don't have
[1:30:01] good documentation of what structures
were used for historically. I mean,
[1:30:06] » you know, people don't come out and say,
"Oh, yeah, I have all this documentation
[1:30:09] that says on this day it started
existing as an ADU." So,
[1:30:13] » I don't even think it was relevant,
right? because my my my my recollection
[1:30:17] was that if it's an ADU, it's an ADU. We
just we the this what we were trying to
[1:30:21] do was in encourage more ADUs to be
built in the city.
[1:30:25] » It's an issue of spirit versus letter of
the law. And I think that the way that
[1:30:29] this the state
>> and the city wants to encourage as you
[1:30:33] say ADU use that the spirit of the law
is that it is an ADU now and it has was
[1:30:39] after that and you've litigated that and
certainly if someone objects to that
[1:30:42] from a legal standpoint they certainly
could take that up with the city
[1:30:46] » and they and but the burden of proof is
on yeah
[1:30:48] » the the applicant or the appellant if
they're challenging that.
[1:30:51] » Yeah. It's not a planning commission
issue. It's more of a legal issue that
[1:30:55] the city attorney and the city would be
dealing with if someone were to sue
[1:30:59] saying that it was not that.
>> Right. I just wanted to add that comment
[1:31:02] and just address it because
maybe if you read the language that's
[1:31:07] exactly what it says, but my
recollection of what we were trying to
[1:31:10] discuss at the time was to encourage the
ADUs. So that's where that came from.
[1:31:15] Um, but back to this particular
property. Um,
[1:31:21] you know, I'm I'm a little kind of
challenged as to what to do here because
[1:31:25] I think the the one-story portion of it
is actually beautiful and I really
[1:31:29] enjoyed listening to your thought
process and the fact everything you've
[1:31:34] tried to do to make this a very
beautiful property, including preserving
[1:31:38] the trees and how you've looked at the
whole street as a design um is is really
[1:31:43] good to hear.
I don't love the sort of I call it kind
[1:31:47] of the tower. It just looks a little bit
like a tower at the back. Um
[1:31:54] but I mean strictly speaking, you're not
really doing anything wrong there. I
[1:31:58] mean you're within the height, you're
within the stepbacks. So um
[1:32:05] I wasn't really sure which way to go on
this. I mean I'm kind of finding it a
[1:32:09] really hard decision. Um,
I I don't I think it's a real shame that
[1:32:14] it impacts the property next door. I
mean, both sides. And I I wouldn't ne
[1:32:18] want to look at that either and have
them looking down on you. And I think if
[1:32:22] this commission approves it, then you
should definitely go with the the
[1:32:26] altered window design. Um,
[1:32:32] I mean, the one actually the one thing
that kind of struck with me was the F
[1:32:36] exception. I mean we have as a
commission
[1:32:39] agreed to a lot of F exceptions but in
those cases it was a very very clear
[1:32:45] reason where there just wasn't a lot of
room and it was a very steep slope and
[1:32:49] there were really good reasons to why we
had to agree to that. This is a really
[1:32:53] large property. Um
and the STO the slope is not that steep
[1:33:00] and um so I was kind of looking at that
and saying gosh should we force you to
[1:33:06] reduce the F and therefore reduce the
size of the the second story just to
[1:33:11] reduce kind of bulk and mass on that. Um
but I actually don't know. So, I'm I
[1:33:18] haven't made a decision yet, and I guess
I'll just hear what my last two
[1:33:21] commissioners are going to say.
[1:33:26] » Okay,
>> you next.
[1:33:33] » Um, yeah, I would echo that a lot of
that. You have you have to appreciate
[1:33:37] the the the the style, the design and
and the uh bio roof I think is
[1:33:43] wonderful. I think it's a this the style
is very compatible with the uh with the
[1:33:49] neighborhood I drove by earlier. Um but
it's um it really comes down to I think
[1:33:56] this standard which u merits you know
reading aloud for the for the design uh
[1:34:06] review which is the proposed structure
or addition avoids significant and
[1:34:11] unreasonable loss or interference with
privacy light solar access and prominent
[1:34:17] scenic views i.e. views of hillsides,
Mount Tam,
[1:34:22] San Francisco Bay. Um, and and the
standard is significant and unreasonable
[1:34:28] as as Commissioner Swisser said. So, you
have to define both of those. Um, and I
[1:34:33] think there's no question that it's
significant. I think that the um, you
[1:34:39] know, even applicant has admitted that
there's is is there is an impact here
[1:34:43] and um, and certainly the visuals show
that it's fairly significant. The
[1:34:49] question is is it unreasonable
[1:34:53] and that's where I get stuck.
Um you know I would just note that for
[1:34:58] the F exception they all there is a
similar similar question which is that
[1:35:03] uh you know the technique or culmination
of techniques results in a design design
[1:35:08] that blends with a neighborhood or is of
a unique architectural design that is
[1:35:13] sensitive to the immediate neighbors and
compatible with the overall neighborhood
[1:35:17] character. So in both but for both
uh
[1:35:23] standards, you know, you really have to
factor in the the neighbors. And I guess
[1:35:27] what I've seen this commission do in my
short I mean I'm don't have a lot of
[1:35:31] experience but I've seen a few um and
and
[1:35:35] from what I've seen when you ask a
an applicant to go back to the drawing
[1:35:42] board often they can come up with a with
some sort of solutions with a feedback
[1:35:48] that that you know it
maybe there's there's got to be a way to
[1:35:53] get the house that you want that's going
also minimize make this make this impact
[1:35:59] on the neighbors less significant. So I
think that's where I would I would lean
[1:36:03] is to say um you know please please go
back to the drawing board. I love that
[1:36:08] you talk to your neighbors.
Unfortunately your neighbors didn't
[1:36:11] really weren't on board. It sounds like
I mean it's one thing to it's great you
[1:36:16] got to talk to your neighbors but the
whole point is you you want to try to
[1:36:19] get some consensus here and I think that
there isn't any consensus as it appears.
[1:36:24] Um, so that's where I'm leaning, but I
can be persuaded otherwise.
[1:36:30] » All right. So,
I think that uh I like the fact that you
[1:36:36] worked with the neighbors. Um, let me
Well, first off, let me say that the
[1:36:39] design
of your architectural firm is always
[1:36:43] elegant and beautiful and it's a
beautiful design. It's really, really
[1:36:46] nicely done. Uh, the tower, it does have
a little bit of a tower element on that
[1:36:50] second story. The issue is whether or
not you can build a second story without
[1:36:54] doing that. Uh and I don't think you
can. I think that you have a right to
[1:36:59] build a second story. That we've gone
through this many many times with people
[1:37:03] doing second stories. If there's going
to be a second story, how do you
[1:37:06] mitigate it such that it does not impact
the neighbors? Sorry, I've got to
[1:37:12] cancel
planning commission. Sorry, I'll talk to
[1:37:15] you later.
My wife is in Tucson with my daughter
[1:37:18] right now.
Um, so
[1:37:22] I I don't think that you could put a
second story here and not impact the
[1:37:26] neighbors. And the question is, uh,
again, as we've talked about it, is it
[1:37:30] significant and is it unreasonable? Uh,
it is somewhat significant, I think,
[1:37:35] because really from the back of the lot
is or from the your deck, the neighbors
[1:37:40] is where you're seeing the blockage and
you know, from your house, you are not
[1:37:44] you are still seeing Mount Tam. Uh, and
I think that the issue is you're not
[1:37:48] going to make everybody happy all the
time. And I think it is would be
[1:37:53] unreasonable if the entire second story
obstructed your view out of every window
[1:37:57] of your house. To come off of your deck
and see that, yeah, it's a bit of a
[1:38:02] bummer, but this is something we've done
many, many, many times. Um, and I think
[1:38:07] that if you go down William Avenue, this
issue has happened a lot. People lost
[1:38:11] their Mount Tam views entirely because
the House did that. Uh, so in my
[1:38:15] opinion, this is somewhat significant,
but not unreasonable. Um, and I do think
[1:38:21] it is a beautiful design. I like your
courtyard. I think it it complies with
[1:38:25] the mission. I was in Tucson this last
weekend, and there's a lot of uh mission
[1:38:28] houses like that that have that element
that are really beautiful. Um, I think
[1:38:32] you have the right to build the house
you want to build. Um, again, without
[1:38:35] significant and unreasonable impact, and
I don't believe that this does that. Um
[1:38:40] so I think um I would um favor approval
of this um as as it is with the one
[1:38:47] exception that you do modify the window
design so it is not um violating a loss
[1:38:52] of privacy which it would be both on
both sides by the way on yours as well
[1:38:56] as your neighbors that it would do that.
Uh I think this is a hard call and it's
[1:39:00] tough because no one's going to be happy
all it's like a solommonic decision that
[1:39:04] you know not everybody's going to be
happy with it. Uh but I think that
[1:39:07] you're well within the allowed height.
you're well within the allowed setback.
[1:39:11] You're within allowed setback and that
it is a beautiful design. So, I think
[1:39:15] that it does improve the neighborhood
and I think it does comply with larks
[1:39:19] design standards and that's where I
would stand on this.
[1:39:24] So,
any other comments?
[1:39:30] » Oh, then it's two and two or it's three
in one. It's the waiters.
[1:39:36] Gosh. I mean,
>> part of me thinks, what if you had to
[1:39:38] choose between
building a different design and and
[1:39:42] keeping the tree?
I mean, do you know what I mean? It's
[1:39:46] like I'm just kind of almost, you know,
it's there's some something has to give
[1:39:51] at some point. So, either you lose your
view. I'm talking more to the neighbors
[1:39:54] here. It's like you don't want to lose
the tree, but on the other hand,
[1:39:58] um, where else is the second story going
to go? It's this is this is hard. I I do
[1:40:03] agree with Commissioner Swiss that this
is actually a really hard one to to um
[1:40:08] come to a decision on.
>> Can I uh can I staff a real quick
[1:40:12] question uh more point of order? Um how
far away does one need to live from the
[1:40:17] house to make sure they're not in a
conflict of interest? I live on Elm
[1:40:20] Avenue, so I want to make sure
brought that up at the beginning.
[1:40:23] Apologies.
Kind of thought that would be one thing
[1:40:26] you guys monitored, but I'm just
thinking through
[1:40:29] » feet is the standard. There is a
difference.
[1:40:31] » Is the crow flies or is the
>> Yeah. Yeah. And
[1:40:35] » anyone know off top of their head how
far? I think it's far enough because
[1:40:38] it's a half a mile drive. But
>> where where on where on Elm are you?
[1:40:42] » 355.
>> I'm sorry. You want to check?
[1:40:46] » 355. Let me think about that for a
second.
[1:40:48] » It's I was thinking more of the It's
pretty much from 106
[1:40:52] » 500 ft.
>> Okay. Golden. Awesome.
[1:40:55] » We didn't catch that when you know
>> Golden like again this is like my fourth
[1:41:00] meeting. I just want to make sure I'm
not like
[1:41:01] » we get to the end of it and I'm like,
"Oh, no."
[1:41:03] » Nice of you to ask before you vote. So,
>> yeah, you're you're outside of F.
[1:41:07] » Golden. Cool.
>> Um, okay. So, any further discussion?
[1:41:18] Someone like
[1:41:22] » You got
>> Well, you have to make a decision.
[1:41:25] That's why you're here. [laughter]
>> You could
[1:41:32] Can I ask maybe to Jeff like what what
would become unreasonable?
[1:41:37] » Well, I think again unreasonable would
be in my opinion, this is my opinion,
[1:41:40] you know, versus
I have the same vote as everybody else.
[1:41:44] My idea of unreasonable would be is if
the house uh the the views from the
[1:41:49] windows of the house was obstructed by
the thing where it's now looming over,
[1:41:54] you know, your living room window, which
you had a view of Tam, now you don't.
[1:41:57] That's not the case here. This is a case
where a portion of the deck you don't
[1:42:00] have a view and it's a partial view of
town. You still maintain a partial view,
[1:42:04] » but it it is it is an impact. I mean,
you know, again, I I know several
[1:42:08] properties on William where people went
up second story and completely blocked
[1:42:12] people's view. Yeah.
>> Of Tam, and those have been approved.
[1:42:15] So,
>> they should be.
[1:42:17] » Well, except we've done it.
>> Well, I mean, I
[1:42:20] didn't just to be clear, but
>> yeah, there's no Well, put it this way.
[1:42:23] There is no rule in larks. There's no
law that says you cannot obstruct
[1:42:28] another person's view. There are places
in this county like Tibber or or
[1:42:33] Belvadier where that is in fact the
case. This is not the case in LSP.
[1:42:36] » Does that become more true though when
we're like if if say we're just doing a
[1:42:40] second story but not exceeding F.
>> I think I think you're right. Like it
[1:42:44] doesn't exceed F. Second story. It's
kind of like well I mean
[1:42:48] » that there's still designer view when
you do a second story there. But but in
[1:42:52] that case the designer view is different
I think than
[1:42:54] » than the separate issues to be
considered.
[1:42:57] » Can I ask a separate question?
>> It's actually for the architect. I know
[1:43:01] we've closed the public hearing part of
this but can um is is there a way um and
[1:43:08] the problem is you are very tall. So I I
I I this is going to be challenging that
[1:43:13] you can bring down the um the second
story or the ground floor or even the
[1:43:19] garage just to bring the height of the
building down by a foot or two. Um this
[1:43:25] one yeah the garage the height of the
garage is set currently um so that where
[1:43:32] the new curb cut would be the driveway
would be it's more or less level into
[1:43:36] the garage. Maybe your question is could
we slope down into the garage and
[1:43:40] excavate out that much more
>> or the roof? I mean I don't know if
[1:43:42] there's a standard I'm sorry I'm not an
>> architect. I'll talk through it. So if
[1:43:46] if we assumed okay we're going to go
level in which is rational way to build
[1:43:50] and then from the garage the height in
there it's a little over 8 ft. So I
[1:43:55] think I've got
>> because of the slope of the garage it's
[1:43:57] a little over 9 ft from the garage to
the main floor. Nine and a maybe nine
[1:44:01] and a half. Um because we set the main
floor where the existing house is and
[1:44:06] then from there to the second floor as
we discussed earlier where the kitchen
[1:44:10] is and the main floor to that to the
primary floor is 10T so that you get a
[1:44:16] little under 9 ft in the kitchen and
again talking about Mike's height. So
[1:44:20] that was how we set all the heights.
Could we take the entirety of it and
[1:44:24] just push it into the ground further? We
could add a cost of excavation,
[1:44:29] concrete, everything else. And then when
you walk out to grade right now,
[1:44:33] » the new walk more or less out to the
courtyard more or less where it is now
[1:44:38] because we kind of match the grades
within inches.
[1:44:43] There's always a way. So I don't know if
that answers your question.
[1:44:46] » I mean that that's what I was thinking
is I think it because when I look at it,
[1:44:50] I see sort of a tower and I was just
wondering if there's a way to or even
[1:44:54] you bring the roof down.
in the roof and then
[1:44:58] » I don't know if that wouldn't be that.
>> Could you bring the plate height down
[1:45:01] one foot? Let's just say would that be
would that be an insubstantial would
[1:45:05] that be substantially alter your design
to bring the plate height down one foot
[1:45:09] » cuz I have like 8 foot ceilings like in
my house and we live with it and it's
[1:45:13] fine. So,
>> yeah,
[1:45:14] » I know you're 67, but
>> yeah.
[1:45:18] » Um, the garage ceilings at 8 ft. The
ceiling above the kitchen's at 9 ft, but
[1:45:24] that's a big room. So, if you brought it
down to 8 ft, it'd feel weird in a
[1:45:28] larger room to have a nine less than an
8 foot ceiling.
[1:45:32] » And at the um, you know, the whole the
whole design here is three gabled
[1:45:38] sections to give you this mission style.
I mean that is the standard mission
[1:45:43] vernacular
>> uh a gable roof. Um and so
[1:45:49] we have a 9 foot plate height on the
second story. So to answer I think where
[1:45:55] you're going with this if it all came
down a foot or a foot and a half or two
[1:46:00] feet would that make a difference? And
my honest assessment is not really. I
[1:46:05] mean, what I think the impact on Andrew
and Emily is not necessarily the very
[1:46:12] top. It's the mass.
>> Yeah. The mass. So,
[1:46:15] » it's the mass that drops down another
foot. It's still that mass.
[1:46:19] » It is still that mass, but it's less of
a mass.
[1:46:21] » Yeah.
>> And so, I think a reasonable compromise
[1:46:25] would be to bring it down one foot on
the upper floor. I wouldn't touch the
[1:46:30] lower floors because I think then you
have that problem of it being cavelike
[1:46:33] in that first floor. But in the in the
upper floor, I mean a lot of mission
[1:46:37] houses, etc. have a a shorter ceiling in
in or you know lower ceiling on that
[1:46:43] third on that second floor
>> and it it wouldn't be that
[1:46:48] huge an impact but I do think it would
make a big psychological impact as well
[1:46:52] as an impact on the massing of that
structure.
[1:46:54] » Put it this way when trying to find ways
to make this work. I mean the other
[1:47:00] solution that comes out is can you
redesign something?
[1:47:04] Can you redesign something to
>> I guess if we had a a clear
[1:47:10] Commissioner Swisser kind of put it well
as far as like you know we have the
[1:47:13] right to build a second floor. It does
have um some impact um but I don't think
[1:47:19] it's unreasonable.
>> Could we bring it down a foot? Yeah, we
[1:47:24] could. I think maybe you're right. It
maybe it's a psychological I don't think
[1:47:29] it'll have a appreciable difference. I
think it the only reason I'm saying is I
[1:47:33] think if we were to continue this and
you were to come back with a one foot
[1:47:37] redesign I think that you would make a
lot of parties happier. Um, and I think
[1:47:42] that it would go much I'm looking at
just I'm listening to what my other
[1:47:45] commissioners are saying here and I
think that's their their main issue and
[1:47:49] and again I'm trying to you know kind of
like tow you know some line where
[1:47:54] everybody you know no one's ever going
to be totally happy but could we make
[1:47:57] people happier and still
>> here's my solution then that if that is
[1:48:02] if the commission has generally agreed
that that would be the thing that would
[1:48:05] kind of get this over the line. Yeah.
>> Here's what I would propose.
[1:48:08] » Okay. We have a 9 foot plate height on
that second floor. If we reduced it to 8
[1:48:14] foot6, there's six inches of it. We have
a 6 and 12 roof right now. If we bring
[1:48:21] that down to a five and 12 roof, and
we'd actually do five and 12 on all I
[1:48:25] mean, you have to have a consistent
>> Yes.
[1:48:27] » all the gables. Yes.
>> Um that gives us another 8 in out of the
[1:48:32] um out of that peak. So, combined that's
14 in.
[1:48:35] » Yeah.
>> Um
[1:48:37] » I think that would go a long way. So if
I So I would say if you can approve it
[1:48:42] stipulating that it has the 86 512
um
[1:48:48] » on all the roofs and we change that
window design.
[1:48:50] » Yeah.
>> Yeah, we certainly can make that kind of
[1:48:52] motion. But you don't speak.
>> No, I'm not. I'm not. I'm just saying
[1:48:58] » we could agree to that and we could make
that
[1:49:00] » we could make that motion made.
>> Um
[1:49:04] » I I would kind of be curious like what
are the neighbors
[1:49:07] » Yeah. I mean I mean
>> thank are we gonna keep going into a
[1:49:10] » I don't
but I'm saying I wouldn't reopen it but
[1:49:14] I'm saying I personally think looking
out that that would make a big issue. I
[1:49:18] mean this is I mean this is a
deliberative body obviously we're
[1:49:21] deliberating right now.
>> So I have a question for staff actually
[1:49:24] don't go anywhere yet. So, if we were to
come to, and I don't wish to speak for
[1:49:28] anyone else on the commission here, um,
if we were to come to some kind of
[1:49:33] agreement where they would lower the
roof, um, or the side I'm I'm butchering
[1:49:38] all the words here. So,
>> I think they they appreciate what I'm
[1:49:42] trying to say.
>> Is this something they can do working
[1:49:45] with staff or do they have to come back
to commission? How does that work? If
[1:49:50] you are very specific in your feedback,
we can certainly process it as staff. If
[1:49:54] it's going to be general, please lower
the height of the residence, then we
[1:49:58] would want it to come back to
>> Got it. Okay.
[1:50:01] » So, we could, in other words, we could
say very specifically, we would like to
[1:50:05] see the roof roof pitch changed to 5 and
12 and a plate height reduced by 6 in uh
[1:50:12] and make that as part of the additions
for approval. We would impose that as a
[1:50:16] condition of approval, but it would be
based on your motion.
[1:50:19] » You would oppose that as
>> impose that oppose that. Impose that.
[1:50:24] » Impose that. And that would save us the
issue of having to
[1:50:27] » because your motion is adding a
condition of approval.
[1:50:30] » There we go. Good. Correct. All right.
>> Wait, what what do you guys think? I
[1:50:34] have
>> I'm bumped to hear the that's the way it
[1:50:37] would go. And I I don't I'm trying to
think if that like would that
[1:50:43] meaningfully change it
>> and it may not. I mean
[1:50:50] » I I do get a little I don't know trying
to think of
[1:50:54] » your opinion too.
[1:51:02] » Um yeah I think I think the
there it is. Um, I think that's a
[1:51:08] reasonable compromise. You know, from
what I hear, it's
[1:51:13] it's various factors. It's not just it's
not just the the mass. There's privacy,
[1:51:18] which we can address through the
windows, the loss of a scenic view, as
[1:51:23] you said,
you know, there's been many cases like
[1:51:26] this in the past, and it's not a
complete loss. And uh you know I think
[1:51:31] if you buy a house on a slope till this
is like some this is sort of the the the
[1:51:36] risk that you take. So I can I can
>> and I guess maybe to the privacy side
[1:51:38] those windows are staircase windows
right? They're not even living area
[1:51:42] windows. Yep.
>> Yeah. All right. So let me make a motion
[1:51:45] then.
Um, I move to approve 16 Avenue uh per
[1:51:51] the I don't know how you guys want to
word it with per the recommendations
[1:51:55] with the condition that the plate height
of the second story is reduced by six is
[1:52:02] it 6 in and that the pitch of the roofs
are decreased from the current 6 and 12
[1:52:08] to 5 and 12
[1:52:12] » and the window
>> and the window uh and the windows are
[1:52:15] redesigned as per the discussion.
to include that. So,
[1:52:20] » okay.
>> As a motion and then we will also modify
[1:52:25] the findings in the resolution about
those
[1:52:28] » impacts, right? Accordingly, is that
included in your motion?
[1:52:32] » Yes.
>> Okay. And that will include that in the
[1:52:34] motion as well.
>> Okay. And this is there something in the
[1:52:38] in the plans about they're keeping those
three trees that was raised by one of
[1:52:42] the neighbors.
>> No, no, no. They're they're
[1:52:44] » they're keeping it. They will they'll
preserve those three
[1:52:47] » not affected.
>> Okay. Not okay.
[1:52:49] » We have an arbitr that's all.
>> Okay.
[1:52:52] » It's not part.
>> So and and to improve approve the F
[1:52:56] exception as again as as written.
>> Okay. Would you like us to repeat that
[1:53:00] those two conditions that you added?
>> No.
[1:53:03] » I think we got it.
[1:53:08] » All right. Thank you. Carry on.
>> Uh a second. Right.
[1:53:13] » Let's have a roll call.
Commissioners apart.
[1:53:19] » Do you mind if I go last? Is that a
thing I can say or no? It's okay to say
[1:53:22] no. But
>> you can say no.
[1:53:24] » Staying is the other one.
>> Discretion chair to
[1:53:27] » Sure. You can whatever you can. You can
>> come back to skip. Okay. So, let's go to
[1:53:31] the other side.
>> Okay. I'm going to start with
[1:53:33] Commissioner Chalmer's.
>> Oh. Oh, yes.
[1:53:35] » Commissioner Kingdale.
>> Yes.
[1:53:37] » Chair Swiss.
>> Yes.
[1:53:38] » And Commissioner Zuck.
>> Um, yes.
[1:53:43] So, your motion passes with four yeses,
zero nos, and one absence. Your decision
[1:53:48] is subject to a 10-day appeal period.
Interested parties can appeal your
[1:53:52] decision by filing the required form and
fee with the city clerk prior to 5:00
[1:53:56] p.m. on the 10th day.
>> Thank you. And I would like to make a
[1:53:59] note to the individual, I forget, I'm
sorry, your your name. Um Emily, yeah,
[1:54:03] about the um issue of the affair. If you
do have a question from a legal
[1:54:06] standpoint, please bring it up with
that.
[1:54:10] » Yeah. then then the city council or the
city attorney would be the person to
[1:54:13] bring that up with if you do have a you
know question on that.
[1:54:17] Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you all.
[1:54:23] » Use my gavvel. All right.
Tough one.
[1:54:26] » Hey.
>> All right. Andrew may interrupt the
[1:54:30] meeting for one second.
>> You may interrupt the meeting for one
[1:54:32] second.
>> Andrew. So I my phone has died. I my
[1:54:36] kids are at home with another kid. So, I
got to find a way to get my phone. I
[1:54:41] think is there charging everywhere? Did
>> you feel something?
[1:54:44] » Yeah, they're right behind you.
>> Yeah, but it just didn't work.
[1:54:47] » I'm sorry.
>> What about
[1:54:51] use my phone to call your phone?
>> No, I just just have another cable
[1:54:55] somewhere.
>> I'm sorry for interrupting.
[1:54:58] » Let's do the cere here.
>> I did not plug it into the wall though.
[1:55:03] I only plugged it into this set.
>> Yeah, I know. I tried it.
[1:55:06] » You want save?
>> No, I didn't do it. Okay. All right.
[1:55:10] Well, I'll just continue here while
we're figuring out the phone issue. Uh,
[1:55:14] all right. Next item on the agenda is
[1:55:19] uh item D, two Palm Avenue,
APN021-102-06.
[1:55:25] Uh, city of Barksburg applicant Mark
Bartendor Mitch owner R1 residential
[1:55:30] general plan conformity finding adopt a
resolution finding the vacation of a
[1:55:34] 3,47
foot portion of Palm Avenue of rightway
[1:55:37] is in conformance with the Larksburg
general plan. We have a report on that.
[1:55:41] » Okay, this is just a really brief item
so I'll try to make it quick. So, as you
[1:55:46] know, from time to time, the planning
commission votes on uh or makes um
[1:55:52] findings of conformity with the general
plan on various items. Most recently,
[1:55:56] you did this for the annual capital
improvement programming. Um I think it
[1:56:02] was two meetings ago when you voted on
that uh to make uh conformity findings.
[1:56:07] In this instance, we had a fire at two
Palm Avenue. Um, since that time, the
[1:56:13] home was reconstructed. But while they
were obtaining building permits to
[1:56:16] rebuild their home, uh, a survey
revealed that their freestanding garage
[1:56:21] and driveway, which survived the fire,
were located within the public rideway.
[1:56:25] Um, it was sort of a surprise to
everyone. Um, this portion of Palm
[1:56:30] Avenue is a one-way street. It is a very
windy part of town, a very hilly, steep
[1:56:34] part of town. Um the applicant or this
the property owner has exhausted other
[1:56:40] potential avenues for resolution. Um and
uh they are pursuing a quiet title
[1:56:46] action with the city to acquire the land
under the existing garage and driveway.
[1:56:51] It is a um 3,47
square foot uh crescentshaped portion of
[1:56:57] property along the side of Palm Avenue.
Um, you can see the images up there on
[1:57:02] the screen of the uh existing garage and
the the driveway approach. It's
[1:57:07] obviously been there for a very very
long time. It's probably constructed
[1:57:11] many years ago. Um, the concrete looks
quite old. There's an old retaining
[1:57:16] wall. So, um, this part of town along
Madrron Canyon has a lot of these
[1:57:20] situations where the there's no standard
rightway width. We have lots of streets
[1:57:25] of varying widths. Um lots of uh public
rights of way that are of varying widths
[1:57:30] and sizes. Um none of them are uniform.
And uh we also, as you probably know,
[1:57:35] have properties where there are garages
in the public right away right now that
[1:57:39] were built many many years ago um before
we had uh regulations for this sort of
[1:57:45] thing. So these are very old. Many of
these are very old legacy structures. Um
[1:57:50] and so in this instance after exhausting
all avenues um public works and the city
[1:57:55] agreed to initiate the vacation process.
Um this is uh sort of a a first initial
[1:58:01] step of that process is to make findings
um that it is in conformance with the
[1:58:06] general plan. There is a general plan
policy and action item for these various
[1:58:10] circumstances in in the in the general
plan. Um so it does consider these types
[1:58:16] of situations. We already have that in
there. We're just asking the planning
[1:58:20] commission to uh uphold that and make
that finding as identified in the
[1:58:24] attached resolution to the staff report.
Um after this step, the um the item
[1:58:30] would be scheduled at a future meeting
for city council uh consideration. Um
[1:58:36] that requires two separate meetings of
the city council to discuss the item
[1:58:40] where they would discuss the merits such
as you know um do we want to do this? Uh
[1:58:46] do we want to attach a value to it?
those kinds of questions. In this
[1:58:49] instance, the planning commission's
purview is limited to just does it
[1:58:52] conform with the uh general plan, the
vacation of the rightway. And we have
[1:58:57] found that it does. There are general
plan policies to this effect. And so um
[1:59:01] we're here because of state law. It does
require this step in the process. Um
[1:59:05] anytime you lease property or sell
property that is publicly owned or have
[1:59:10] a capital improvement program, you have
the planning commission has to come up
[1:59:14] with findings uh that it conforms the
general plan. And this is just one of
[1:59:17] those items that we see from time to
time. So, um I will leave it with that.
[1:59:22] The staff report kind of describes all
of the details. It is exempt from uh
[1:59:26] SQUA. There are two sections that apply
in this instance, including uh surplus
[1:59:32] government property sales.
And so, um we recommend the commission
[1:59:36] hold the hearing, consider any
testimony, and adopt the uh resolution
[1:59:41] finding that the vacation uh is in
conformity with the general plan.
[1:59:47] Okay.
Any discussion with that? I didn't see
[1:59:50] that anything that would indicate that
it was not a conformity with the gyro
[1:59:54] plan. Just in my reading of it,
>> there's no presentation by the owners or
[1:59:58] anything. It's just you guys.
>> They're not even here because I do
[2:00:01] remember this one when it burnt down and
we approved the the building of that
[2:00:05] house. Um
>> there'll be two hearings like I said at
[2:00:08] city council on the vacation. But um
>> you know I had little I had more tr I
[2:00:13] always have trouble with these when they
come in because I just feel like it's
[2:00:17] the land is so valuable and expensive
and
[2:00:22] » people are just getting land and giving
the city is just giving it up.
[2:00:27] » Um I know I've agreed to it in the past
because I can see that there's the city
[2:00:32] can't really do very much with it. In
this case,
[2:00:37] it I know it says here that this serves
no public benefit. This is a really
[2:00:41] really narrow road and it's in um and
that house burnt down. So should, God
[2:00:49] forbid, it should happen again and you
need to get a fire engine up there or
[2:00:52] something. I mean I it just seems at
some point in the future, you may need
[2:00:58] to widen that road. And
why are we just handing over like fee
[2:01:05] title? Why are we why are we just
gifting it over whereas or even if they
[2:01:08] there's a value charge to it? I don't
know what's going to happen with what
[2:01:11] the city council decides as opposed to
just having some kind of short-term
[2:01:18] encroachment
um or something which at some point
[2:01:21] could be reversed.
If this was in a different part of the
[2:01:26] city, I think it would be less of a
concern. But given it's such a narrow
[2:01:29] road in a really fireprone part of the
city, given that's why we're here
[2:01:33] because of fire, that was my thought. So
where it said it serves no public
[2:01:37] benefit, I sort of that's where I had I
I struggled with
[2:01:44] um and I know we we don't comment on any
value on this. That's a city council
[2:01:49] thing, right? But it seems like 3,000
square feet. not even about
[2:01:53] » that, you know, because it's not really
within the purview tonight. And that's
[2:01:57] something that the council would discuss
when they go through that uh vacation
[2:02:01] process
>> and um there's a very specific process
[2:02:05] under state law and what that involves.
So I'm I'm sure they'll have that
[2:02:09] discussion when the time comes.
>> But um you know you are certainly within
[2:02:14] your purview to to make a finding
differently but
[2:02:20] » or make a comment on this
>> criminality. This is not something
[2:02:23] that's
>> but it's a difference between giving up
[2:02:26] the actual ownership to just doing an
encroachment.
[2:02:29] » Is there any reason why there's not
something
[2:02:31] » there there is a reason why they're
doing this process? Um and it it's my
[2:02:36] understanding that they've exhausted all
avenues and that was not one of the
[2:02:39] available options. Um to have a private
property in the public rightway is has
[2:02:45] its own set of problems. So
>> do you know what what were the other
[2:02:49] avenues? I mean I I won't go there but
let me just ask this. We're we're not
[2:02:54] really throwing that in here because
it's not really
[2:02:57] » we when we say um make a finding that
that this is a private property on
[2:03:06] public land that is
um
[2:03:11] sorry the exact language here um
is has has been maintained by these
[2:03:18] adjacent owners by the adjacent
property. I don't think that would
[2:03:22] change in the the the abatement process
or the findings or the council's
[2:03:26] decision-making path. It we're just
simply looking at the general plan as it
[2:03:31] applies to the vacation of a right
>> portion of the public right away.
[2:03:35] » We have to make a finding that this
property, this piece of parcel has
[2:03:39] served no public benefit.
>> Uh no, that would be the city council's
[2:03:44] position
process. This is the finding that it's
[2:03:49] in conformance with the large per
general plan.
[2:03:52] » Yeah. But says that such areas serve no
public benefit.
[2:03:56] » Um what the general plan says.
>> Yes, it does say that. Yes. And you
[2:04:00] could I mean if you disagree with that,
you could make that statement and say
[2:04:04] that you feel it provides a public
benefit. Um but in its current situation
[2:04:09] having the path that you just described
would uh present a liability to the city
[2:04:15] and that is why they can't just create
an easement for a private structure.
[2:04:21] » So if they if if we say like no
perview you could certainly
[2:04:27] » the next step would be tear down the
garage and rebuild it on their own
[2:04:29] property or
>> um possibly. I mean again public works
[2:04:35] has agreed to go to bring this to
council and go down that path but it is
[2:04:39] within the purview of the the planning
commission to find otherwise if they
[2:04:43] feel that if you feel that this does
serve uh this portion of rightway does
[2:04:48] serve a public benefit as you said you
know concerns about fire access and
[2:04:52] width um you know that is certainly
within your purview tonight.
[2:04:58] Uh
>> I mean you talked about an easement. I
[2:05:00] was talking about encroachment. That's
the way I've seen it.
[2:05:02] » I'm sorry. Well, encroachment or it
would require an easement as well. I
[2:05:06] mean if you wanted to allow someone to
have private structures in public
[2:05:11] property as an encroachment, it does
necessitate creation.
[2:05:14] » I feel like I see that a lot in marine
because bits of houses and bits of like
[2:05:20] front yards and fences always on flights
away and then you just get an
[2:05:24] encroachment. It it's my understanding
that because it's a a you know a garage
[2:05:31] and it's a private garage it would
present um some some degree of
[2:05:35] liability. There was a reasoning behind
this process
[2:05:38] » liability.
>> You know it's a three-part finding.
[2:05:41] There's there's the no public benefit.
There's also presents a liability to the
[2:05:46] city and is better maintained by the
adjacent property owners. Do we have
[2:05:50] anything? Do we have know anything about
like how they are they going to are they
[2:05:55] maintaining this garage? How are they
maintaining it? Is it a fire hazard?
[2:05:58] » They've assumed that this was their p
their own garage for you know longer
[2:06:02] than we we didn't know about.
>> So it was probably built the same time
[2:06:05] at the house burn the house that burned
down was built.
[2:06:08] » Yeah. I mean we the city really this
wasn't even on our radar. We just
[2:06:11] assumed that this was private property
until we looked at the house fire hazard
[2:06:15] as the house was.
>> It could what? just as much of a fire
[2:06:18] hazard.
>> Well, it did survive. It didn't It was
[2:06:21] not affected by the fire, obviously. So,
>> yeah. No, the house is way up the hill.
[2:06:25] I saw that.
>> Yeah. But again, this wasn't on our
[2:06:28] radar. We did not know that this
condition existed and it only came to
[2:06:31] light when they came in for building
permits and had a um a survey done that
[2:06:35] showed otherwise. And so, um that's how
this process was kicked off.
[2:06:43] » Right. Well,
>> at at a certain point was will the fire
[2:06:46] department be consulted on this?
>> Yes.
[2:06:48] » When what stage does that happen?
>> Um, if they have not already, they they
[2:06:53] absolutely will very soon. I cannot say
whether or not they have yet already,
[2:06:59] but yes, that is also required as a part
of the the formal vacation process.
[2:07:04] » Okay.
>> Which we have not begun yet. So,
[2:07:09] » can we make a motion?
>> Sure. Make a motion.
[2:07:11] » No, I'm not going to make it. Oh, you
have to take public comments.
[2:07:15] » Oh, public comments. Public comments on
this issue. No, not on Zoom.
[2:07:19] » What about on Zoom?
>> No,
[2:07:20] » I'm kidding.
>> Would somebody like
[2:07:23] you want to make a motion?
>> Go ahead.
[2:07:27] » I'm
[2:07:34] Oh, I don't want to make a because I'm
going to
[2:07:39] Can I make a motion and then not agree
to it?
[2:07:42] I don't
>> Maybe you can't.
[2:07:44] » No, you cannot.
>> No, I'm not going to make the motion.
[2:07:47] » Anyone ask? I'm sorry.
>> I make a motion. I don't know.
[2:07:51] » Trying to be helpful.
>> All right. Well,
[2:07:53] » you could you can make a motion to not
adopt the resolution, though, right?
[2:07:57] » I make a motion that we not adopt the
resolution.
[2:07:59] » Certainly make a motion to not adopt the
resolution or to deny a resolution
[2:08:04] » or the find that the findings cannot be
made.
[2:08:06] » Yeah. Or you can make a motion that
differs from what the resolution states.
[2:08:10] » That is the thing. We don't know what
the I don't without I don't know what
[2:08:14] the alternative is. Like I don't know
what the impact now you're saying
[2:08:17] there's a liability on the city if
>> that's what that's my understanding. I
[2:08:21] mean obviously because there's a private
garage being used in city rightway that
[2:08:25] is that is inherently liability but
>> but it's like it I you know
[2:08:32] in the last case this happened it was
like a water a path of water remember
[2:08:36] that one and actually was some liability
there and I could see things going wrong
[2:08:40] and I could see why we didn't want to
maintain that and keep it clear.
[2:08:43] » This one I'm I'm
struggling with more. I mean, if there's
[2:08:48] more information that you see, you can
certainly come back with that.
[2:08:51] » Yes. So, here's then what I would say
is, is it possible, please, to see if we
[2:08:56] could get an encroachment instead? And
if there's a reason, well, let us know
[2:09:00] if if the encroachment path is a is a
feasibility.
[2:09:04] » We certainly can have I mean, this is a
this is an item that we're doing on
[2:09:07] behalf of public works. We can certainly
follow up with them and uh come back at
[2:09:11] a future meeting.
>> Okay.
[2:09:13] » And if you could let us know if the fire
department has weighed in.
[2:09:15] » Yes. Absolutely. Yeah, what they've
come.
[2:09:17] » So, if you wanted that sounds like it,
from what I'm hearing a potential motion
[2:09:21] for a continuation.
>> Yes, let's do that. I'm going to make as
[2:09:25] chairman. Can I make a motion? Yes. I I
I would like to make a motion to
[2:09:28] continue this item uh pending further
reports from the fire department and and
[2:09:34] potentially the attorney. Um what's
that?
[2:09:36] » Public works.
>> Public works regarding u safety issues
[2:09:40] uh and rightway issues
>> and altered. Yeah. Whether we can do it
[2:09:44] in Okay. Second
>> roll call.
[2:09:51] » Sure.
>> Uh, Commissioner Zapar,
[2:09:53] » yes.
>> Commissioner Kingdale,
[2:09:55] » yes.
>> Commissioner Chalmer's,
[2:09:56] » yes.
>> And Chair Swisser,
[2:09:58] » yes.
>> Okay. Motion, four yeses, zero nos, and
[2:10:01] one.
>> That's good.
[2:10:05] » Well, I understand why they I understand
why they want to, but yeah, you're
[2:10:08] right. It's it's it's a safety issue
that needs to be. Okay. Next item five,
[2:10:12] business items. uh to approve the August
11th, 2026 planning commission meeting
[2:10:17] minutes. Uh this was the meeting in
which we did discuss the one larks per
[2:10:22] plaza. Is that correct?
>> If it's helpful at all, there was a um
[2:10:27] an individual that spoke that I saw you
didn't have a last name and I have the
[2:10:31] last name for you.
If you want, it's Jill Marte. M A R T A
[2:10:36] Y.
The second one down.
[2:10:43] I know that one, but I didn't know the
others.
[2:10:46] » Okay.
[2:10:49] » Otherwise, I can make a motion to
approve the minutes from August 11,
[2:10:54] 2026.
>> Okay. Second.
[2:10:58] » Yes. Oh, sorry. I jumped it.
>> Sure.
[2:11:01] » Let's just do by acclamation.
>> I
[2:11:04] » I
>> I
[2:11:06] » Okay. All right. Uh are there any
planning commissioner reports? I I need
[2:11:10] to add one item that I received um in
the middle of the hearing from our
[2:11:15] public works director.
>> You want to throw that up there?
[2:11:21] » Um
>> you're adding it to the agenda.
[2:11:23] » No, I was going to I was going to
provide this during the um community
[2:11:28] development director's report, but I
wasn't able to until and I just received
[2:11:32] this um from our public works director
in the middle of the hearing. So, uh, I
[2:11:37] just want to announce that there we, you
know, one of the items, remember the
[2:11:41] last time we voted on a general plan
conformity for the capital improvement
[2:11:45] projects, um, one of those capital
improvement projects was the Magnolia
[2:11:49] Avenue corridor study. Um, and the, uh,
Magn and I would just want to announce
[2:11:54] that the Magnolia Avenue corridor study
uh, will be having a community input
[2:11:59] workshop on Tuesday, October 6 from 6:00
p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the library. I just
[2:12:04] wanted to let you all know and make that
add that to my u list of announcements.
[2:12:08] You're certainly welcome to attend that
if you wish.
[2:12:10] » Great.
>> Where would the southern city limit?
[2:12:13] » Um that would be the stretch of Magnolia
going down to the southern city limits
[2:12:17] which would be court of Madera's uh
bound the boundary of Madara.
[2:12:21] » Yes, Magnolia does
>> extend.
[2:12:25] » So I just wanted to add that. I'm sorry
to interrupt your your item.
[2:12:28] » Great. Thank you for adding that. All
right. Uh the next item on the agenda is
[2:12:33] adjournment.
>> We had no commissioner reports.
[2:12:36] » No, there was no commission.
>> And when the next meeting is
[2:12:40] » be October 13th
>> October 13.
[2:12:43] » Uh yeah. So the so this this uh the
agenda is incorrect. It says the next
[2:12:47] regular committee is on September.
>> No, this is Yeah.
[2:12:50] » No, this that's that's wrong.
>> Rise double header.
[2:12:54] » And now the next one starts.
>> This is Groundhog Day. The next
[2:12:59] commission. It's It's not going to be
September. It's gonna be October what
[2:13:02] now?
>> October 13th.
[2:13:03] » 13th. Okay.
>> And there's no planned interlude
[2:13:06] meeting, right? No. No. Okay. Great.
>> And reminder uh of the city council
[2:13:11] meeting regarding one larks plaza is the
16th.
[2:13:13] » It would be Yes. It' be this coming
Wednesday the 16th.
[2:13:17] » Next Wednesday the 16th.
>> Yes. Not tomorrow. Sorry. A week from
[2:13:20] tomorrow.
>> A week from tomorrow is the 16th at the
[2:13:23] conference conference center
>> 395.
[2:13:26] » Very good. So motion for adjournment.
I'll make a motion to adjurnn.
[2:13:31] » All right. By acclamation, I
>> I
[2:13:34] » All right. Excellent. Thank you
everybody.