I got a couple minutes of, you know, opening the meeting here. So, you're good. It having reached the hour of 655. I hear by call the June 25th, 2024 Mill Valley Planning Commission meeting to order. I'm Kevin Skiles, serving as chair of the Planning Commission. Fellow commissioners, if you would unmute your microphones, we'll do roll call. Commissioner Yollis is will attend tonight. He's just going to be late. Commissioner MacRis is not an attendance commissioner Hilda Brande. Here. Commissioner Sarenkel. Here. And in the skies is here. So three of us are here. Commissioner Yollis shall be joining shortly. All right. As we open the meeting, we have time for oral communications, which is an opportunity for anybody in the community who's here tonight to come up to the microphone and state your name and speak on subjects that are not on tonight's agenda. So if there's anyone who would like to speak on any topic that is not on tonight's agenda. So if there's anyone who would like to speak on any topic that is not on tonight's agenda, please come to the podium now. Okay, see no one will close oral communications. And if I could get a motion to approve tonight's agenda, please go ahead and make that motion. I'll make a motion to approve tonight's agenda. Second. Okay, Commissioner Hilderbrand has moved and Commissioner Ceringl has seconded. All in favour? Aye. Carries 3-0. And that brings us to, is there any conflicts of interest, expartee communications or declarations that commissioners need to make or any of the projects on the agenda? No. No. I'll just note that I know the representative of the applicants for item number two on the attorney Chris Skelton professionally but it will not impact my ability to make a fair decision on that item. Okay. And that takes us to item number one. make a fair decision on that item. Okay, and that takes us to item number one, which is two Del Casa Drive study session for 10th parcel map and variance application. Do we have a staff report, Miss Allen? Yes, thank you Chair Skiles, commissioners Daisy Allen. I'm a senior planner here. I will be presenting the staff report for the proposed subdivision at to Delcasa Drive and 185 Manor Drive. The subject property is a 16,471 square foot double frontage lot in the Warner Canyon Kite Hill neighborhood. There are frontages on both Delcasa Drive and Manor Drive. The property is developed with a 3,351 square foot single family home that faces Delcasa Drive. The address is to Delcasa. And the property is also developed with a 791 square foot accessory dwelling unit facing facing manner drive. The address is 185 manner. The single family home was constructed in 1947, and the ADU was constructed in 2006. The applicant proposes to subdivide the lot into two parcels with Lot A being 12,189 square feet and Lot B being 4 4282 square feet. And the subdivision would result in a primary dwelling on each of the resulting lots. This slide shows the site plan for the proposed subdivision as well as a vicinity map showing the site in context with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has decided on a study session because the commission would need to approve several exceptions and variances in order to approve a tentative parcel map for this subdivision. And I just wanted to provide a couple of photos of existing conditions. On the left is the street view of To Del Cosa, the single family home, and on the right is the street view of 185 Manor. The existing ADU. Some more existing conditions. On the left here is a photo of the stairs going through the public easement, on the north side of the property. And then there's a view that I took from these steps looking into the property the rear yard that is between the two existing dwellings where the property line would be located. Okay, so two exceptions are requested from the provisions of the subdivision ordinance, which is Title 21 of the city's code. So first, the subdivision ordinance requires larger lot sizes and widths on sloped lots with increasing minimum lot size and width based on the slope of the lot. So in this case, the slope of the existing lot is 31.7%, which requires a minimum lot size of one acre and a minimum lot width of 200 feet. So neither lot B nor lot A meets this criteria, note that these are approximate widths and the applicant that I've shown on the slide here and the applicant would do a detailed calculation of lot slope and width as part of a formal tentative map application. The second exception that's requested relates to buildability on the resulting loss. So the subdivision ordinance requires that each lot needs to have an adequate building site, garage and or carport location that does not require a variance. So in other words, the subdivision cannot create a new non-conforming zoning condition. So in this case the project does not meet this standard because the based on the existing development on the parcel, three new nonconforming zoning conditions would be created as a result of the subdivision requiring variances, which I'll go into on the next slide. So in addition to the exceptions to the subdivision ordinance, there are three variances that are requested from the zoning ordinance. So first on Lot A, the existing home is larger than what would be allowed on a 12,189 square foot lot. So in order to avoid this variance, a lot would have to be over 13,000 square feet. Staff did not recommend the applicant pursue that because a lot B would have to be less than 3,000 square feet, which in staff's opinion is too small for this neighborhood. The second variance that would be required is on lot B. The lot size would be lower than the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, which is usually required in the RS6 zone district. The applicant actually originally proposed lot B to be 6,000 square feet to avoid this variance. However, that would have created the need for rear lot setback variance on lot A. So the commission may want to provide feedback on which of these variances is preferable. The lot size variance on lot B versus a rear rear setback variance on lot A. And then the third variance requested is on lot B regarding on site parking. There is one existing onsite garage parking space, which is sufficient for the ADU. However, with the subdivision, the ADU would be recategorized as a primary dwelling, which requires three parking spaces. So parking variants would be required to allow that. So in order to approve the exceptions, the commission would need to make certain findings. There are three general exception findings as well as three additional findings that are specific to the exception for lot size and width on a sloped lot. And I have listed the findings from the code here on the slide just for our reference as we discuss. Based on staff's initial analysis, the project appears to meet exception finding A as well as the additional findings A, B, and C because a lot is a double frontage lot already developed with a dwelling facing each frontage with existing access from both frontages. The homes are already separated and functioning separately. Moreover, none of the lots in the area have lot sizes or widths approaching the minimum sizes that are required by the subdivision ordinance. The smaller lot sizes and widths proposed would be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Exception finding B is a bit more challenging to meet and I noted that in my staff report, the commission will need to consider whether the subdivision of this lot is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the applicant's property rights. And then regarding exception finding C, potential for impacts to public welfare. There could be impacts to the neighborhood related to future development on the lots. No development is proposed as part of the subdivision. However, on lot A, once the subdivision goes through an ADU and JADU, could be constructed on the lot, accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit. And then on lot B, the existing dwelling could be increased in size from 800 to 1500 square feet and an additional ADU and junior ADU could be built on that property. So there's a lot of new development potential that comes from doing this subdivision. The potential future impact could be somewhat mitigated with a condition of approval requiring additional onsite parking on Lot B when that dwelling is increased by a certain percentage or number of bedrooms or some threshold that the commission may want to consider. And then in addition to those exception findings that I discussed, the commission would also need to make four variance findings for each of the variances that is requested. Most of these findings are very similar to the exception findings, so I won't reiterate my staff analysis there. For variance finding B, three new non-conformities would be created as a result of the project. So in that way, the applicant would be responsible for the hardships. So it may be tough to make the finding that the hardship is not due to any action on the part of the applicant. However, seen another way, the existing floor area, lot size and parking are conforming to the code and the applicant may not have anticipated subdividing the lot when they did previous development on the lot. So it would be useful to get the commission's feedback on that finding as well. And then in terms of environmental review on this project, staff anticipates applying a common sense-sequa exemption. If the commission has questions or concerns with this approach, please let us know. And then as I mentioned in my staff report, I have a few suggested discussion questions to get you started in the study session. The biggest overarching question is whether the subdivision is approval as presented. If it's not approval as presented, it would be useful to provide feedback to the applicant and staff as to whether any changes could be made to the site plan or any conditions of approval might be added to approve of a provability. And that concludes my comments. Great. Thank you very much. Very concise and organized presentation. Any questions for the staff? She actually answered my question as she was making a very thorough presentation. So thank you for that, Daisy. I just am unfamiliar with the term common sense exemption for sequa. Do you mind explaining that for us? Sure. So there are certain statutory and categorical exemptions under sequa, like certain types of projects that don't require further environmental review, just by the type of project that they are. So in general, a two lot subdivision is exempt from CEQA. However, in this case, that exemption would not apply because the variances are required here. So there is another exemption that can be applied called the Common Sense Exemption, which can be made when there is no possibility of an environmental impact as a result of the project. So we would need to be able to make that case. Great. Thank you very much. Any other questions for staff? Okay. I will have the applicant come on up and if you'd like ten minutes to present to us and then we'll likely have questions for you as well. And this is a study session so it's a little less formal than you know sometimes. Sure. Yeah. It's like going to the dentist office without Nova came but I'll try and handle it. I was here 17 years ago. That was painful. Before I start the first thing I'd like to say is I'd like to thank Daisy Allen for her professionalism and her response times to many questions that we've had getting to this stage. I, this is not my area of expertise at all and Daisy has been outstanding. So I just want to pay her a compliment before we get into the details. before we get into the details. I'll go into some details, but bottom line is, our plan is to just split the lot, nothing changes as far as we're concerned, but we'll now have two separate properties to give to our kids when we pass on, so they have the opportunity to live in Mill Valley, raise their family in Mill Valley, go to the public schools in Mill Valley, just like we did when we moved here in 1984. So that's the purpose of asking for a lot split. We have no plans for any construction if the Planning Commission feels they want to put constraints on what we call a manor lot B. On Lot B, that would be fine with us. The reason that we proposed a lot less than 6,000 square feet is that we thought it would curtail the amount of size improvement that could be made once our children inherit the property and if they decide not to live in it, they decide to sell, whoever buys it then is limited in scope on how big that parcel could be. Because we don't think that parcel should be twice the size. We don't think that fits into the neighborhood. The other unusual circumstance I think, which is kind of bizarre to me, is that if we're allowed this lot split what we're proposing the lot size we've actually created an affordable housing unit at 791 square feet. So we think that's a net positive also. As far as parking, we understand the guideline changes because we've gone from an ADU to a main house, but as far as the number of cars we have nothing changes we have a vintage car that we keep in our garage we keep one in the driveway and one on the right next to the driveway in addition there are one two three four five I think eight parking spots available that people use service people use within probably 200 feet of our house. There are also similar lots in the neighborhood or there are lots in the neighborhood that are similar in size to what we're proposing. 55 Alvarado is 4,000 square feet and this is all from staff, these numbers. 238 manner is 4,000 square feet. 234 manner is 4,800 square feet, and 246 manner is 5100 square feet. Another reason we propose the lot line like we have is that it mirrors our lot line, the neighbors lot line to the south of us at 175, Manor 33-L, where we currently have a fence. So we thought it just, it looked like okay, the same as their lots, although their lots are a little bit bigger. On a positive note, we currently, because we get one property tax bill, because we're over the age of 65, we opt out of many of the special assessments, including school bonds. So if this project is approved, we now will get two separate property tax bills. The smaller one will be up on manner, given what your praise value would be, that we can still opt out of some taxes. But the two del casa parcel, we cannot. So that would mean thousands of dollars each year to the school district and other districts. So I think that's in that positive also. I'm happy to go through this MVMC 21.36010, if you'd like me to. If not, let me know, but I have comments on that. I don't want to waste your time. I didn't even, I don't even know if that is. All I know is there's three bullet points under that and three bullet points under 21.08.200. Would you like me to get into my thoughts on that? You can do whatever you want. Absolutely. And we may have questions for you. Maybe about that or other things. So this is an email that I sent to staff. So for 21.36010, the special circumstances are and excuse me for reading. It's easier that way. Are there, we have a unique street-to- to street lot that currently has a house on Delcasa and a house ADU on Manor Drive. The house on Delcasa is access via Delcasa and the ADU on Manor is of course accessed on Manor Drive. In addition, all sewer, PG&E, water, etc. Is separate and each address has their own readers. The property looks like it is two separate properties right now and there's this fence that separates the two houses. The proposed lot split closely mirrors the lot line of the two houses that I mentioned. In addition, neighbors on both to the south and right of us have written emails in support of our project. and right, of us have written emails in support of our project. As far as we're concerned, the lot split is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right for us as it allows us the opportunity to pass on a separate property to each of our children, which we think is very important. Per numerous emails you've received from our neighbors, the Lusplit will not have a detrimental effect to the public welfare nor interest to other property. As far as MVMC21.08.200, reasonable and realistic access to both properties currently exist and no changes are required. There will be no disturbance to anyone as no construction is planned. As nothing changes from 1.185-manor-drive, RADU was built in 2006. There's no impact to the neighborhood, which includes traffic circulation and public safety. We've worked with staff to determine the appropriate size of each lot. Staff was concerned that a large lot for 185 man or drive would allow us to more than double the size of the existing house. We agreed with staff's recommendation to have a lot site which closely mirrors our neighbors to the south. I talked about the other lot size in the neighborhood and regarding parking for the last 12 years since we've lived at 185 man or drive, we've had three cars. I've mentioned where they parked and there's been zero issues with any type of emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, etc. With the proposed lot spit for both lots, we also would have the opportunity to build an ADU, which would assist Mill Valley with new housing units at this time. We have no plans to do any construction whatsoever. So in conclusion, nothing will change after the lot split, other than we now have the opportunity to leave our children and separate piece of property so they can raise our children. So, okay great comments. Thank you very much. Hi commissioners, Steve guys, our guys are architects. We were the architects for the ADU, so we know the property really well. And we've been helping Stacy with showing where a lot of lines would go and all of that. I did want to point out that as regarding the parking Stacey covered it but there is, while it's on the city right of way, one of the cars, there's one in the garage, there's one that is completely off the street and then there's an adjoining space that's off the street also so there's three and as in many cases in Mill Valley encroachment permits are given for parking and all of that so That was looked at when we did the ADU So I have a little bit more probably technical knowledge if you have questions about setbacks or a lot size areas Any that I can answer for you. Great, thank you very much. Okay, so I don't have any questions I'd like to start with. The applicant or their team. Hello, put anybody in the spot, I'll start. I have a question just because I know the ADU laws have changed and I appreciate that you are the architect for the ADU back in 2006. Do you mind explaining whether at that time, the code required it to be deed restricted or were there any restrictions put on it because it was designated as an ADU? No, at the time there weren't any deed restrictions. That's what I thought, yeah, those all came later. And then also I believe the FAR exemption was not in place at the time. So it was not given any beneficial treatment because it was an ADU correct. Okay great. Thank you as well thought any other questions No Of the applicant's main objective of it seems like it's to pass the property onto your children. Could you elaborate a little bit about the need for it to be separate properties? Obviously you could leave it to your children without splitting a lot. So what's your thinking about? What's the impetus? Well, we've raised our children to be very independent. And so this gives them an opportunity to each own a parcel and do what they want. If one wants to live in it, great. One wants to live in it for a while and decides, no, they want to sell it, no, they decide they want to rent it because they want to stay in New York City, that's fine. So it's a pretty simple thought process. Okay, thank you. Well, that, but won't they be fighting over who gets the bigger line? Well, you know what, that's, we work it out in other ways so we're all, we treat all three equal. So there's houses and maybe there's a couple dollars so everybody's treated the same. Yeah, I think my first question before you got up and explained it initially was why. So you explained why. So it's, I think it's just hard to, because I own a lot that's not even 6,000 square feet and it's a real pain in the ass to try to do anything on that. So, you know, here you're going to have something that's just really unusually small to really be able to add onto it or turn it into something else, but then with the ADU laws, you can add an ADU and then the JADU. So you could just completely max out the property. So it's a little odd to be doing it in that small, a little odd, and that's where I'm struggling. And it's also interesting that we actually already have a house on the property. So we're not looking to build a house on a lot less than 6,000 square feet. That house already exists. It is an ADU that actually looks like a regular house. So I think that's unique in itself. Well, but as a property, as Stacey mentioned, is that the minute this is bought by somebody, they could completely max it out and do something that is out of character with the neighborhood. That's where I'm struggling. And if the planning commission feels compelled to say that as a condition of approval, a lot can only be increased by 300 square feet, we'll consider that again. I can't look down the road 25 years. I'm just looking in the next 10 or 15 years right now. Any other questions? We'll definitely have a time to have a really robust discussion about this. Yeah, go ahead. Please. Yeah. If the last split, would the planning commission or the city of Mulvalley have the discretion to limit the development, let's say, let it not be particular, or would the state laws kick in that you're allowed to do a house of X amount of square feet and a junior ADU and an ADU? You would have, do we have any discretion actually on that? I can start answering and maybe Patrick can help, but my understanding is we could add conditions of approval that are related to our local regulations, you know, so we could add a condition of approval related to future development of the primary dwelling. We wouldn't be able to regulate ADUs because in any way that's already overridden by state law. So if this law were split, you'd have to allow an ADU and a junior ADU on lot B with the size limits that are in state law. So an ADU up to 800 square feet and a junior ADU up to 500 square feet. So those become kind of as of right for the owners regardless of what we might say here. Is that right? Yeah, and that's based on the current state law. You know. That's a good point. So that means that Grotch could be turned into a JADU. Yes. And then they get out of 800 square feet. They have a detached ADU. Or attached. Or 800 square feet. The crew. We have a detached ADU or attached. 800s per feet by right. By right. A detached or attached, right? Yeah. Yeah. Plus the garage could go away and then there wouldn't be any parking. Correct. Because the ADU, the state law doesn't require if that took the parking away. Correct. No new parking would be required those scenarios are all ministerial By-right scenarios wouldn't require discretionary review by the planning commission another scenario is that the existing structures are raised in then a rebuild a tear down rebuild so then in that case If it's discretionary assuming it is Not on say an SB 9 And in that case, if it's discretionary, assuming it is, not on say an SB 9 by right development, the underlying, the zoning standards of the underlying zoning district would apply, except backstack at AR and our design guidelines would apply. And then a project of that scope would come before the planning commission. And there would likely, it could be variances involved, given the small lot size to meet all those standards. This is on speaking to primarily a lot B. Since this is a study session, I'm gonna ask, of course, and I asked you earlier. So of course, and I asked you earlier, there's a, my understanding is that there's a state bill, AB 1033, which Mill Valley does not at this point, has not adopted, but it could. And that, if that did come into effect, then ADUs and primary homes can be sold separately without lots of splits. So, that's, I think, something to, again, since this is a study session, to think of what the future might bring to that. Any thoughts about the city's position on that or the logic of that? Well, I can't really speak to the city's position on that, but AB 1033 is a state law that went into effect already, and it allows local jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance that would allow for separate sale of ADUs and primary dwellings. So it's up to each local jurisdiction whether we want to adopt such an ordinance. So Mill Valley has not done that. We do tend to update our ADU ordinance every few years to keep up with state law, but I don't know if that would be part of an update or not. Okay. Is your Hiller-Rin? Question? Do you have a, you were talking to the applicant about if it became 6,000 square feet, where the lot line would be and what that would look like. Do you have a diagram that might show that? I don't have a diagram in this PowerPoint. I do have, I can look through the files if you guys don't mind, give me a minute. I have the old application. Yeah, I would ask the applicant if they considered that. Oh, okay. Yeah, come on up. Mr. Guy, come on up. Yeah, if you got up. Okay. So we did a quick look at that today. Well, Daisy finds the old one because we originally proposed a 6,000 up top. And the problem was that the setback for a lot A, the property line came down where we couldn't quite get it so there would have to be a variance given for the rear yard setback for a lot A. Yeah, here it is. So the property line would be right here. It would be only 8 feet from the existing residents. Oh, that's okay. Got it. And so it's close because we're 16,000. So there's a slight, we'd be off by about two feet. So we did a Calc daisy ass, I think maybe Kevin you would ask about this, that if we reduced Lot A, where's that tipping point where we can get the setback to conform and give the most square footage to Lot B. So it's somewhere around, Lot B would become somewhere around 56 to 5800 square feet, you know, it's sort of a moving scale that we would have to fine tune. But that would mean that lot A would be approximately 10,600, so it's a 10.6. Rear yard setback, we had it about 11 feet and we were coming up with about a 5,800 square foot lot above. So if that helps. So we'd be able to get the rear yard in watt eight to conform. Lot b would then be plus or minus let's say 56, 58, 5,900 square feet. We could do the exact calculation but we were right in that range. That, that however, has a knock on effect of making a lot. A house which exists, be even further over the maximum. Correct. And that's why working with staff, yeah, it was this back and forth. So working with staff should the lot be bigger on lot A because as it's presented right now, we're very close to conforming to floor area. We're within, I think, a hundred square feet. The lot be more than conforms. I'm curious, I think you guys said, if a junior ADU is added into the garage, the parking does not have to be replaced with a single family. Did I understand that correctly? That's my understanding, yeah. Is that true? Daisy, I think it is. Yeah, is that true Daisy? I think it is Can clarify but if at ADU is Consumes the garage garage converted into an ADU. We do know that that is by right without Replacement parking at J adu. I think we would need to research that but unless you you have the answer to that. Yeah, that was my understanding, but we can certainly research that and bring it back if the project is. And this is within a half a mile of transit. There's a stop right up by the tennis courts here. Yeah, yeah, we're with them. So, but just the clarification was my understanding that if you took the parking away, you had to replace the parking in the garage for JD. But so it'd be a good point of clarification. Yeah, we've been far too far about that. For this project, but other projects, they'll be for you. If I could just, my understanding about sort of, it's everything is connected, right? If the existing house becomes, if the existing ADU becomes a primary house, then it requires parking. Which is currently, more parking than it currently has. So you would be at a deficit there. So, and then if you also took the parking space away, it would be zero parking for that house. Again. Yeah, that might be something if you're where you're going is if you wanted to have a condition where at least the existing parking had to be maintained. And that I don't that's a question really I think for staff. Can we prevent the ADU as the right state laws being used if we're saying by granting this designation of this being a dwelling unit now now in the ADU it has to have this parking this parking can't be taken from it And I don't know if that's something we can do We we can't Condition something that would go against a law. Yeah regarding ADS. Yeah, it's tough So good evening planning commissioners. I wasn't expecting to join at this point. I was here for the appeal condition something that would go against the law regarding ADU's. Yeah, that's tough. So a good evening, planning commissioners. I wasn't expecting to join at this point. I was here for the appeal. However, under ADU law, you can require off street, one off street parking spot for an ADU, but you cannot require a garage. So if someone uses their garage for an ADU, they have to demonstrate that they have the off streetstreet parking but they don't have to reconstruct a garage. So hopefully that helps. And as far as the ADU that's already been constructed, transitioning it to a real house doesn't would not trigger any change that would come to planning commission or any basis for requiring more parking at that point. Okay. Thank you for joining by the way. Could I just see if I understand that. So you're saying that if the current ADU becomes a primary house and it has currently one legal parking space in the garage. So it has the, it has the one parking spot that it's required to have under ADU law and that's all it's required to have. The concept behind ADUs was they are to be encouraged to be full residences rental perhaps but nonetheless used as residences but we are limited in our ability to require parking. I think I understand that part but if it gets split, and that house becomes not an ADU, but a primary house, and let's just say for a sake of discussion, they add an ADU and they add a junior. They do that piece of property. What's the parking? Cal. So I defer to Daisy and Patrick, if whether through the subdivision process, you can condition the subdivision process you can condition the subdivision on some off-street parking but were they to come later to add the ADU and JADU we would that would be under state law. So this is the moment with the subdivision that you might have some leeway to condition the project for additional parking. Right, and that's where I started and I was wondering whether it's possible to say that parking always has to stay parking and can't be converted. And it sounds like the answer is no. No, but what we were thinking about potential conditions for this project, that's what one condition we thought of was well if there's some change to the primary dwelling later on, perhaps there could be a condition requiring off-street parking to be provided. Oh, yeah. If they're not using the ADU ordinances, we could just say that any change to the newly formed primary dwelling unit has to come to design review. I mean, that would be the, that's easy. That's an easy condition. It's the people using the ADU laws that are just going to be the challenge. There's probably just not, the answer is there's probably just not much we can do. That's kind of the purpose of those laws is to make it so we don't have a lot of discretionary power. You know? Any other questions for staff because we should hear from the public as well. Go ahead. So, I mean, I've gone on a manner, I walk on a manner quite a bit and I'm just trying to picture there's not a lot you could do to add parking in the future because it slopes down significantly. There's no parking on manner itself and so it's either in that driveway, which is with a steep slope under it would be my understanding from looking at this and in the garage. So I just, if we said oh they'd have to provide parking, I just can't imagine with the topography there that you could do that without completely disrupting the neighborhood and the entrance to the other houses driveway. And any questions? We'll definitely talk about this with the libres. I mean, I'm just trying to, it's that, how is that really feasible and how could we, how could we put that as a condition because I just don't know that we could do that? Well, we'll probably have a good chance to talk about that. I saw that applicant. Okay. No more questions? Okay. Let's hear from our members of the public. Anyone wishing to speak on this item? Come on up and state your name. And we'll have three minutes to give us your feedback. Thank you. My name is Kathleen Food. I'm at 190 man or drive. So I'm not right across from 185. I'm sort of the next one up. I'm one of the various driveways that all kind of converge right there at the curve. It is an awkward situation, but I'm not actually here to talk about that. The issue I hope I can shed a little light on is I was on the City Council when the first affordable housing ordinance was passed and this is one of the houses that was built, creating brand new affordable rental units. There would, you know, great storm and drawing on the part of the city going through all of that. But it certainly achieved its purpose. This unit is a very good example. And there were a number of others at that time. They could be detached units. And there was quite a little flurry of development of ADUs, detached ADUs in a number of places around town. And it was a nice little sort of feather and male valescap when the housing element got done. That, oh, we have all these new legal ADUs. So of course, if it's subdivided then it has the capability of no longer being a rental unit. And although I understand that it's small and there may be whole new definitions now of what constitutes affordable housing, the fact that a, that a, a, a, that you could count on it being a rental unit with rental being such a high priority, certainly for Mill Valley when it comes to affordable housing is a, is a net loss. Maybe the standards are different now so that the net loss is replaced by the gain. But from a kind of historical standpoint, I think there are a fair number of units around town that were particularly these detached units that were built kind of in the wake of that first ordinance, which was 1990-92 somewhere in there. So in a sense, this is a policy issue that may very well govern a number of different situations that you will be facing in the future. My kids and the Bloom's kids went to school and we're all going to die in our houses and we're all going to continue to be good neighbors. But I'm glad that I'm not having to decide these issues. They're very difficult ones for sure. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item? Not see anyone? Okay, a close. very much. Any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item? Not see anyone? Okay, I'll close. And bring it back up here for deliberations. And since it's a study session, a lot of times what we'll do is we'll talk and deliberate and we may in fact have questions for staff or for the applicant as we're kind of nearing a conclusion. Just because the purpose of tonight is really to give you guys the best feedback we can, the best information so that you can successfully move in advance your project as you want to. So, Commissioner Sarengo, would you like to start? Yeah, I guess you might discern your, not so much like that. Thank you. I'm sorry. Oh. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the So, you know, there could still be a junior ADU somewhere on that piece of property. Okay. Great. you know there could still be a junior ADU somewhere on that piece of property. Okay great. Mr. Holbrand. So, now I'm Mr. Geisler, it used to be the commissioner that did not like variances. I'm struggling a little bit here because I remember that. And I'm looking at all the variances required and it for my first reaction was Man, why is it this year it seems like this year Everything we've had has been in a variance when I am in my sixth year and I haven't seen that so I I struggle with that I can appreciate what the applicants turn to do for the kids because In my family property down in the South Bay and it up be with three different kids that we're trying to figure out what to do with it and no one really wanted to live there so it went away. And which was kind of sad, but the fact that this could be, you know, the ability for the kids even though I think one kid's going to get something short here. Unless they do get along really well, I'm trying to figure out how that would work. But I think the concept is good. We need more housing, but the reality is that seems like my first reaction besides the variance issue was, was that seems like too small of a lot. I just can't, with a a good conscience do a parcel map that would be 42 hundred square feet. So that was my first reaction. And when Mr. Geistler mentioned something like 55-58, that seemed a little bit more doable, but then I guess one issue I have is knowing that slope coming down from manner is that how could that be, you know, developed in a way that was meeting our design guidelines since it would be kind of a bit radical to try to add on to that or add an ADU. And so I'm trying to figure out how it could be developed. So that's one of the things maybe we can get some input on if somebody was going to do that, what that would look like. I'm not so concerned, I guess, we see so many things that don't meet some of these guidelines that the larger home would be a little bit over what it should be on that. As long as it had, I think it would, to me, it would have to have the proper setback, especially with the reality if somebody could add a bunch onto here and move it all the way up to four feet and being with this is in a higher, in the fire severity zone. So getting a bunch of development right next to each other, that could become more of a fire hazard. So that's the only thing I can think of to start with. Okay, great. So yeah, I'll give kind of my high level and then maybe we can decide if there's some fine points that Daisy had pointed out that we should get to or if there's some items that each of us have brought up that maybe we should get to as well and I also do want to note that I reached out to Commissioner Eola's because I know he's gonna be late, but he is gonna be at the meeting and Sense the purpose of tonight is to get you guys good feedback. He provided like a kind of some thoughts just in the text message to me after having reviewed the application. So some of those I'm going to be bringing up as well just because I think it benefits you guys to have more commissioners you know talk than less. Okay. So at a high level I mean I completely understand the goal here and I like want to get to a yes on this and that's really the attitude I'm taking towards reviewing this. It is unusual to see a project requiring variances to just accomplish kind of its basic goal, but I also think this is an unusual project and a very unusual lot with the street-to-street configuration. It's like a tweener, it's not a huge lot, like a 20,000 foot lot, but it's not a 6,000 foot lot. It's kind of a tweener which does make and allow for, I believe, a split to happen. And so it's kind of like how best to do it. And the concerns that you, my two fellow commissioners have raised and staff has raised as well about how do we protect from a bad outcome in the future. Understanding that they don't have ambitions to change the shape of the homes now, which we can all agree, okay, that's fine, but someone in the future probably will, and how do we then protect against a bad outcome there? And I think the, my opinion is the right way to do it is to encourage the lot line to move down the hill a little bit so that the the lot B is bigger because I do think that 4,200 feet is too small and except as a variance the fact that the larger home on the lower lot wouldn't meet the FAR requirements but that's okay it's already there and it kind of works and it doesn't feel like it's overwhelming the neighborhood. It's well-parked. It's set back from Delkasa. There's kind of a larger green space between the curb and the property line that normally would be. So the lot feels like it's bigger than it legally is. And so I feel like that kind of works. And then I think it gives the upper lot the size that it needs to be a reasonable lot, you know, a 5,500 foot lot or 5,400 foot lot or something like that. And then if we were to craft conditions where really the only square foot that could be added on that upper lot is through an ADU, which I think is kind of unlikely given the steepness of that lot anyway that someone ever will do that. But if someone did get kind of unlikely given the steepness of that lot anyway that someone ever will do that. But if someone did get kind of very ambitious and want to add square footage to that home, the only way they'd be able to do it is with an ADU. And that to me is a condition that could basically say, so the future potential is 800 square feet, that's all you're ever going to get, you know, and the lot's going to be 5,500 feet or thereabouts. We feel comfortable with that. If you add up the lower lot being over its FAR, and the upper lot, we'd be restricting to basically be under its FAR. You average them together and they kind of equal out. That to me seems like the zone of possible reasonable achievement here. So, and then with regards to the parking, I don't think we can, I try to find if there's a way that we can just say you have to keep that a garage, but it sounds like we probably can't. But I kind of feel like again, in the reasonable predictable future, I doubt someone's going to convert that garage to dwelling unit. I just think it's going to stay as a parking and practically you can definitely get two cars up there, maybe a third, which seems like it's kind of working for a small home. So that's kind of my big picture of thoughts. We can decide if we want to talk about, if it sounds like there is some agreement that a lot split is possible, like what the size and shape of that would be, or if there's concerns that really we're not going to get there at all, then I think we should be clear about that. So does anyone have any comments they want to bring up? Or Daisy, do you mind bringing up your, what you had that you wanted us to suggest in discussions? Thank you. So, we can start by going through some of this. We can start by responding to what each of us has said. Ernest, take it away. question is taking your premise for a second here that we could theoretically restrict the development on Lot B to only be additions of ADU or ADUs actually could be to, can we do that? So we did. We did. We mentioned we would not be in a position to restrict anything that's overwritten by understate law. So whatever is, you know, under by right under state law, we would not be able to restrict. Right, so I'm sorry, just a quick question. It doesn't that site already max out its FAR, so currently no. Only a lot A has not. So a viable condition might limit FAR. That's what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that we artificially lower the FAR on lot B, knowing that they can put an ADU without any discretion. And my reasoning for it is we're allowing lot A to be over its FAR. So it's kind of like a tug and pull. And if you take them together, it's kind of like balancing out. So, I mean, I understand the logic of that, but again, it seems unlikely to me that we'd be able to, if this becomes a loss bit, and that's a separate lot, by a separate owner, would they not have the right to build the maximum FAR house, which I think you said was about 1,400 square feet, so almost double, well, 80% more, it would get significantly bigger house, and be able to do to a whether or not that's physically rational thing to do, that would be the, my understanding is that would be the rights of ownership of that piece of property. And that, or is there something that we can say, no, you can't build, you can only keep the house to be 791 square feet, but you could add ADUs. Could we do that? You could condition the map, the two-lot-parts of map, to limit the floor here. Otherwise, the zoning regulations under the RS zone would apply. It's a pretty common thing and like when you're not usually with a two lot subject, but if you're doing like a 20 lot subdivision, that you assign an area to each lot. Right. So, this is another question. So then as soon as that house becomes, as soon as that ADU becomes a house, it no longer complies with parking because it has one parking space. It would need two plus an on-street on its adjacent piece of frontage, which it does not have. That's one of the variances. I mean I think the theory, I kind of, I had a conversation with director Kelly and I kind of like, I finally got the theory and all of this. It's basically like, we're essentially, like absorbing existing non-conformances by having a slot split. You know, these things exist, but they exist in a different like metaphysical state than once they become like two lots and two dwelling units. The metaphysical state changes, but the physical state doesn't, and we're kind of accepting it as a legal conformance. That's where I kind of wrap my head around it. Yes and no, because you're changing the designation, so you're changing the rules. So I mean, I get the metaphysical part, but. Yeah, me, if I may just take the opportunity during this phase of the study session to explain and Daisy can clarify that she spent quite a bit of time with the applicant several months actually on a SB9 proposal. So the initial proposal that the applicant facilitated and initiated was an SB 9 lot split, which is a by-ride under the state law, no discretionary review, and the one stumbling block was the FBR for the home on let A. And that was a stumbling block, because to me, the SB9 criteria under state law, all standards shall be met. And that was the one standard that they were not able to meet. But they were that close from a by-ride SB9 lot split. So staff encouraged the applicant, your alternative is a two lot parcel map. But that comes with a host of variances that you've deliberated over today or you discussed. So I just wanted to provide context where this project has been, it's been almost a year back and forth with staff and working with staff to get to this point. But they were very close to getting a SB 9 law split approved, but it was the FAR that was the issue that led to this alternative. It was the FAR on the larger house. Being just the 130 some square feet over. Yeah, the lot split under SB 9 would have been different because you're required to do a 40, 60 lot split. So it would have been different because you're required to do a 40-60 lot split. So it would have looked a little different. But they were able to meet all objectives standards aside from that FAR. SB 9 has slightly different objectives. Standards that you need to meet different rear setbacks, for instance, different parking regulations. So all of the variances required today wouldn't have been required aside from the FAR. As you do mind putting up the discussion topic, thank you. Maybe just give a little context. That's just a reflection on what we've received from state law and what continues to come from state law and what continues to come from state law is just less discretion and relaxing the rules and with the overall intent of achieving more housing. Yep, understood. Greg, do you? Yeah. So with that said, it seems very silly to force a 4,200 square foot lot to me. It ought to be something buildable so it could be done right and while I'm not a huge fan of the American way seems to be everything has to get bigger because if you look at any project I mean I'm helping on a project right now that looks like there was three remodels and additions in this place in the county starting in like the 30s or whatever and each time it got bigger and then and it wasn't always done by permit so it's like suddenly you're faced with oh how do we do something so it works here but everybody is always trying to get everything maxed to FAR. That's why I struggle a little bit because we've been just seeing way too many things that are maxed FAR. But to me, I think if we could get the setback to where it was a proper setback and we could have a lot size, that is reasonable for the future without being excessive, like 54, 55, whatever 58 somewhere where there's not an unsafe setback from the larger residents and knowing that they could put in an ADU right up four feet against the back fence, it just seems like we needed to have it a little farther away. and knowing that they could put in an ADU right up four feet against the back fence, it just seems like we needed to have it a little farther away. And if we could achieve that then I think I would be okay with it. Okay, so it sounds like you're thinking the target range is 54 or 5,800 kind of in that mid-5,000 square foot for a lot B. And then accepting as a variance, the FAR being over on Lot A, because the existing home, okay. Would you want the idea I brought up of restricting the size of the primary dwelling unit on Lot B? In the mix, or do you think it's just gonna be whatever the zoning allows is what the law is? I think somebody's just gonna come in and ask for a variance in the future. I mean, I don't know. I think that that- But I won't be on the conversation then. But I won't be on the conversation then. No, neither will I. But that just seems, everything we see, to try to force that to rationalize doing something that maybe isn't our first choice. I just think we ought to make it a lot that actually is more usable and gives you more options, right? A more more flexibility for good site strategies. It's a very fun point. It's a very fun point. And then force the whole thing and then somebody says, well, then we need to go up another 10 feet, and ask for a variance, whatever, I don, whatever. I would make it a lot that isn't too small. And if 6,000 is the minimum, I wouldn't force it to six because we see enough things that are in the 5,000 something to 6,000 range, but get it to where we have a decent setback that doesn't exception and allow the FAR on the other house which is existing non-conforming anyway. Okay. I just wonder if you could have those two things happen simultaneously. Have a decent setback and have it to be in the range of 55 hundred square feet because I think the graph is so earlier to get to that number, you have to be four feet away from the house. And that's what? No, it was 10 and a half. He showed it, he showed it, he could achieve it. With what? With a conforming setback. Because the lock gets smaller. So the lock becomes, we're talking a lot a becomes like 10,500 feet so then the setbacks to 10 and a half feet. You might set up a mic because we're on record. I think we ran it between 11 and 12 and it became 56 to 5800 square feet. 11 foot setback from the rear yeah Yeah. Yeah. That's acceptable. Yeah. OK. Ernest, we think. I'm glad to show you. I'm glad to show. I don't have a strong comment. I just am concerned about the inevitable development of a lot, even another thousand square feet of a lot, it just seems very difficult to restrict and then allow what we will have no, you know, no purview over. Well, I'll put two scenarios in front. The two most likely scenarios, I think, for a lot be in the future. And obviously, I'm just kind of wildly speculating as somebody takes the home that's there and adds an ADU. Okay, that's a potential, right? The second most likely potential is somebody just scrapes what's there and they build ADU. That's a potential, right? The second most likely potential is somebody just scrapes what's there, and they build a completely something new to the maximum FAR on that site, in which case they would have to park it per the code. They would have to do all the things, following the code, setbacks, et cetera. That's a good outcome too. So that is what Greg, I think, was talking about with like with like, let's make this a workable lot where someone could have a good site strategy. It's like okay, they can put a 2,200 foot home or something like that, but they'll have to provide the parking and all those things and it'll come to the designer view. So those two scenarios, does that give you any comfort? So those are the two likely scenarios. What would the maximum house be for, let's say, 57 or 58 hundred square foot lot? 15 hundred 35 35% So Okay, if it's a 50 seven hundred square foot lot that would be 58 58 okay about About 2000 square feet. Okay. I need to add to park. Okay. It seems like there's some head nodding. So it seems like there's a solution that we, the three of us agree? Maybe. Not convinced. You're in his, okay. I wanted to add one more thing just to clarify from a staff perspective regarding the junior ADU potential on these lots. Just to clarify, a junior ADU has to be created from within the walls of an existing dwelling or attached garage. So you wouldn't be able to build like another detached structure. That was a junior ADU on these lots. Thank you. That's helpful. Okay, so I'll invite the applicant if you'd like to come back up. Did you have some comments from Commissioner Eolisage? You know, I think we kind of covered him. He definitely was focused primarily on future development potential. And I think we kind of walked through that. And he wanted to ask the question which they answered about whether they had a development plan that they were going to advance at this time, which they said no. And then he, he mentioned that having additional housing units is kind of the goal. So it seems like that's kind of the direction things are heading, the greater context. And his initial philosophy was that he was concerned about the amount of variances. And that, you know, it kind of puzzled him that why do you need somebody variances to accomplish something like this? So what, when I heard the discussion about the SB9 and the whole reason for that and the state law and the spirit of what we're trying to do. And yes, I think it's unfortunate that a really nice rental, potential rental unit is getting taken off the market. But in the long run, I think having a lot that you could actually add more housing to. And I just don't think it's realistic to say, well, it's 800 square feet now. They can add 800 square feet. And then, you know, it's all good because on 4,200 square feet, adding another 800 square feet is really going to, on this topography, is not going to be easy to do well. So I think the fact that they spent a year trying to see if they could do a lot, but based on the state laws, with the interest in helping with the family, I think to me, I feel better about that, and I think as long as it's not having a bad setback and also being someone that has a 5,800 square foot lot and is really kind of frustrated by that, I would think that having a 4,200 square foot lot just makes absolutely no sense at all. Yeah, your name's John, welcome, thank you. And we're just kind of wrapping up our deliberations on this one. I did, you've been listening, okay, great. I did have an opportunity to kind of relay some of the things you said. If there's anything that you would like to say, I'll just to summarize. Greg and I are kind of coalescing on around the idea of pushing the lot line further down the hill so that the lot B is a more typical lot, 54 to 5800 feet instead of an undersized lot, accepting the FAR bust on Lot A that comes with that, but then there was discussion as to whether there should be any restrictions on the size of future development, a lot B, and Commissioner Hilderbrand, I think made a great point, which is we want this lot to be functioning and if somebody ever was to redevelop it to have a good opportunity for a good site strategy to park it correctly, to do all those things, which I kind of have come around to. And Commissioner Sarengol's still pretty concerned about the parking and the difficulty of the steepness of that lot, I think, and the opportunity for somebody to kind of add an ADU without any discretionary review. So if you don't have to, I'm kind of putting you on the spot. You don't have to comment, because you weren't here for the rest of the discussion, but you're welcome to chime in if you want. Otherwise, I'll probably bring the applicant up to see if there are any questions for us. So I hear two supportive, and I have been listening. M1 who's got some remaining concerns. By the way, apologies for not being here earlier. I had to be with a family member who needed a medical procedure kind of on short notice. In any case, I mean, I think if the premises and the intent is to optimize these lots for buildability in the future that the way you two are talking about I think is the way to go to try to give a lot be some more size. But what I hear is the intent is more some financial engineering. And I heard the community members concern about the loss of a rental unit, a more affordable unit, and what's being talked about here isn't more housing units, which is a community benefit that I think would warrant some exceptions of variances, or at least their consideration potentially. But instead some other needs that I don't think do create units or have other real benefits. So I think I'm kind of more on the fence, can't frankly. If this was a proposal that was coming forward at this time with some additional housing units, some aid use or something, I would have said let's see a map along with it, but that doesn't sound like what's happening and certainly that could happen in the future. That said, the steepness of the site does make it difficult, I think, to kind of cost effectively add some additional housing units on it. So if the intent was to help them optimize property value and finances, I think the direction you're talking about going is make sense. But otherwise, and again, I'm not really, I don't think that's what we're talking about here. I think that is the intent of the planning code. I think that's a consideration certainly. But to make the findings necessary for the exceptions and the variances, I was also struggling to make those in a couple of cases and I also was concerned that on appeal to City Council we would have a very difficult time defending this item. So that's where I stand. OK, great. Does anyone else want to chime in? Or I'll bring the applicant up. And do you have any questions you'd like to ask us about anything we've said? Or because this is a study session. You know, we want to ask a long question. Yeah. Where do we stand? I'm confused. So I heard a potential pro, a potential pro, and on the fence and on the fence. So when I leave any, every meeting, I always like to say, so what's next steps, what am I supposed to do? Is this gonna happen? Is it not gonna happen? Because the next steps is to spend thousands of dollars on a survey. And I certainly don't want to do that if we don't think we're going to get approval. The one thing I can assure you is I'm not going to turn our garage on manner into a junior ADU. My vintage car is more important than a Junior ADU. However, I will, sorry about that. I have no problem in putting together a plan to put an ADU down on Del Cosa, although we have no plans to build it. We have a beautiful site at some time if somebody wants to build it off to the side of the garage. I think it would work well there. But I just need some clarity as to where we're going, knowing it looks like it's, and we're missing one person. So what do I do when I leave here? Yeah, let me, I will give you the best guidance I can. And I think it's a shame and bad luck that we have four instead of five. That's, I'm sorry that that's the case. Because yes, that is easier to get to three two or whatever, you know, when there's five instead of four. What I am hearing is it does seem like there's kind of two in support and two kind of on the fence or not in support. And so I don't want to speak for my fellow commissioners, but what I heard was that persuading them that there is some benefit to allowing this would move them. So as an example, we are interested in creating more housing units in Mill Valley. Your lot split does unlock the ability for the lot A to have an ADU because it now doesn't already have an ADU, right? With a lot of what happens now you can have an ADU down there. So that might be something that would be viewed favorably if it creates housing units. It sounds like and I won't speak for you in that, but like that that seems like that. That's what I'm hearing. And then I don't know or earnest you want to say Yes, so if I heard you correctly if I propose to build an A.D.U Down on Delcasa that it would be looked at more favorably Is that what I just want to clarify what I'm hearing? That's correct so if the in by the way By the way, just to clarify, not proposed, but if you do build, and I would suggest there be some link between the actual building of that year. If I commit to building an ADU down in Del Costs, and let's say it's 700 square feet, how much would that cost to build? 1,000 bucks a square foot? You can build a 400 square foot, one which would by the way you know be even more affordable by design but go ahead. So in other words so it's going to cost me four to five hundred thousand dollars to get approval for a lot split is what I'm hearing. You can think of it that way if you want. I'm not sure how else to think of it actually. That's what that's what you're that's what you're telling me that if if I spend $400,000 to $500,000 in commit to doing that, that the commission is more apt to agree to a lot split. I just want to clarify that that's what I'm hearing. So I think there's other ways of looking at it too. I mean, I don't know the layout of that home, but I mean sometimes people turn parts of their homes and did junior ADUs or ADUs. I don't know whether that's a possibility. It is not. OK. So I mean, because some people do that. Or garages, sometimes people do it. Tringer-arages and ADUs or things like that. So I don't know your exact circumstance with that home. And where I was starting that is, that's what I heard is that it sounded like if there was a community benefit like more housing, that that would make the variances have justification that currently I heard at least one commissioner say they didn't felt like they had at this time. But I'm kind of putting words John's mouth. I mean what John just said, the trigger my thought is that basically what you're saying is that you want the ADU that's going away being replaced. Because that ADU is not ADU anymore, it's a single family home. That's another way to say it. I mean, I think the downside to what would happen if we approved this is the loss of a more affordable home in Mill Valley. A rental unit, it now becomes a for sale housing unit or potentially for sale. It's a private unit, you know, single family, some that could continue to be rented or it can always be sold and there goes something that is, it was intended to be more affordable. The converse of that argument or debate is if it gets lot split, there could be two houses, two ADUs and two January, there could be six units on that. So it's almost, you go from not enough to too much, almost in a way of thinking about, at least with the existing buildings in place. So I don't know how you would react to that. I reacted that is too much of a good thing. If six units on that property. Well, I think that's the extreme, but they could do that. And I don't have an issue with, but I mean, sorry. It's likely, this is why I wanted to make both lots kind of a buildable lot. So you could have, they'll probably most likely, no one is going to probably put a JADU in these because it would make this unusable in some ways. Well, yes, they could do it on the bigger house, but it's more likely that you'd have two lots that you could reasonably add an ADU and you could have two affordable and two single family homes. Now, it's strategy-wise for the long term, that doesn't seem like a bad idea. The cost of construction right now, I wouldn't want to suggest anybody at an ADU right now. I mean, I think the cost per square foot for an ADU is not affordable to get affordable housing. So how do you make that? I don't know, that's a tough one. I think if somebody is going to buy the property at some point and add an ADU, then that's a different story, but. I mean, listen, ADUs aren't cheap to build either, but they're being built all over the place right now. So people are getting them built and you know, I think you can do them more affordably than perhaps and suggest it. But you never build. You wouldn't really very reasonably be able to add one. Somebody could just pack it in there on 4200 square feet. And nobody in the neighborhood, including the people that are in there, would probably be happy with it. I think it's probably unlikely on the upper lawn, yeah. Okay. Ernest, did you want to comment at all on anything that John said or the discussion about this? Okay. And did you want to respond directly to the applicant's kind of conversation about like, what would move you or persuade you that this is a that the lot split is an acceptable approach. I think requiring the construction of an ADU seems a bit of a stretch of our role here, although I think it would be a good thing. I keep coming back to the concern about the existing aid you becoming a primary house and therefore being so underpart. That's a fairly significant variance to bite off. The setbacks don't worry me quite as much. Is there some way to make that requirement of becoming a more complying primary house is part of our agreement? Well, if they were going to expand it, they would have to, right? I mean, if they were going to do something that required designer view, then the parking becomes- Other than an issue. Correct. But, you know, it's within a half a mile of transit. So I mean, that is fully consistent with a non-parked ADU. I mean, that's the purpose of that. There is three functioning parking spaces up there. They're not code compliant because they're two of them are off of not on the property. But I think for Mill Valley, that's a pretty typical thing. I don't know. That to me, I'm not trying to argue or persuade, but that one doesn't seem like on a small house, you know, on a lot that's under 6,000 feet, that's that big of a stretch. Yeah, I do think that making a lot be more usable is a good direction. And I don't think it impacts the existing lot of significantly at the setbacks that are being suggested. So I think that's a step in the right direction. John, what if there was a, rather than, I don't know if we can require as a condition of approval of construction of an ADU, but if we require demonstration that an ADU is feasible to be built on a by doing the survey work and the setbacks and everything and showing what the footprint would look like, does that kind of move the needle for you at all? No, and just to be clear, I'm not trying to say this is what you need to do, but I am concerned about the loss of a rental unit, which is the ADU was permitted so that there could be an additional unit on site and there could be an additional rental unit on site. That home now is probably a, for you know one point something million dollars To somebody you know the land in a 800 square foot home rather than be a you know home that could be rented at $2,500 or $3,000 a month It was I do want to point out you probably did you hear when we talked about the different areas of the 80 you rules This is not a deed restricted unit. This was put in 2006 before any of the 80U rules about like deed restrictions and things like that. I did miss like the first 10 minutes of the staff. Yeah, because we have three areas of 80U's. We have the current one. We had the one before the state law, which was, you get an FAR bonus, but you can't do short term rentals and you can't sell it independently. And then there was the old-old school, which was where this was built, where there was no FAR bonus. And so they didn't kind of get a benefit when they made the ADU. It was just basically, they had to fall under their main FAR. And it was really them doing kind of the right thing instead of just making their house bigger. So you're saying it wasn't deed restricted, IE required to be a rental, remain a rental unit? Correct, like there was no ban on short-term rent in 80 years back then because it was really, it was included in the FAR restriction of the lot rather than the way it was between say 2014 and 19 where you got a bonus for doing an ADU. So they didn't get a bonus for doing this ADU. Right, but just to be clear, but they couldn't, they couldn't sell it. They couldn't sell it. That's correct. Okay. Yes. Go ahead, please come up. Yes. Can you come to the mics? We're on record. Yeah. There was no condition that it be a rental unit. That's correct. Right. I just want to clarify that. Yes. That's totally correct. There was there, but it could not be sold or transferred separately. That's correct. Okay. I don't know if there's anything more to say on this. I don't think we're giving them a super clear direction, which always as a chair really kind of, I'm not a fan of, I really want to give them good direction here and I don't know if they have good direction. So Greg, go ahead. So like I say earlier, my initial reaction was the number of variances. I being involved in affordable housing and housing advisory committee for a long time, I'm not happy with losing a housing unit. But I think back about there was a parcel split, was it in West Plateau Canyon or on Throck Morton out there and it was a parcel split. Was it in West Plight, the Okanian or on Throckmoreton out there and it was it was a huge lot and there were lots of redwoods involved but it was it was pretty much getting split down the middle and a lot split to me this is just way off as a lot split. It just doesn't make any sense. I think that's why we can get into the minutia about, you know, what could happen here and what could happen there. But to have a lot that big and do a lot split and only have a 4,200 square foot lot, it just seems like some day down the road, somebody's going to go, what the heck were they thinking? That is not a lot split that is I don't know that's just It just does not seem like a constructive a lot and I just feel pretty strongly about that and I kind of changed my tune about if you could get the proper setback and you could make this a Properly sized piece of property because how many times do you see residential where people are, we've seen people come in here and they have these smaller lots and they're supposed to be 6,000 but none of them are and they're trying to put something over that and everybody is struggling. It just seems like no one is going to remember why we did it. We're just going to have created a lot size that's too small and makes absolutely no sense to me. So I just think that it's just way too out of balance. And I think we ought to come up with something that we zoom out and we think about the future and what's going to make the most sense and what's going to get the most housing units in the future and have two buildable lots. Is that different? Just a second. Is that different than saying that you would want to see the lot be larger or you are? No, that's the same thing. Just kind of one of the things. Just a different way. Yeah, in closing, I just wanted to say, I just thought about other lots, but we've seen. OK, and there's been nothing that we've seen. It's this kind of where someone is just cutting off the tip of the carrot. I got it totally. OK, so that's kind of reinforcing what you can're coming with. I just kind of wanted to close on that. I get it. OK. Can I say something? Yes, let me say something. So I appreciate your comments. So just to clarify, over a year ago, we started this with a 6,000 square foot lot. Then after numerous discussions, the concern about Lot lot being too large because then people could really enlarge it, that was an issue. So, you know, as a team, we came up with this almost 4,300 square feet. We have no problem whatsoever in going back with our architect and looking at 54 to 5,800 to see how that works. That's fine. We're just guided towards the other size. So we're not fighting against you on that. We've been looking for direction for quite some time. And so that's... We have no problem, Ziggin and Zagin, and it takes a while sometimes to get to a place where everybody's comfortable and we're good with that. So we're more than happy to go look at that. We don't want to do anything that's wacky and doesn't fit in the neighborhood and it's not the right thing to do. So what you're saying, 54 to 5,800, we're more than happy to look at that and go for something. Well, that's my personal opinion out of the commission here and I just again, what we saw in that one of the variances where there wasn't enough setback in that bigger one, but I think that's where I think there's a compromise and that's where I'm more comfortable with it once it gets to 11 feet. Okay. Thank you very much. So what do I do next? Well, I think you'll, I do next. Your architects and you will probably get together, I would imagine, and staff. And if you're feeling that like this is not the clearest deliberations you've ever heard from the planning commission, I make complete agreement with you. I mean, I've been sitting up here for seven years. This is probably one of three times where I feel like I'm leaving an applicant without really a super clear, instead of instructions. Part of that is because this is a very unusual application. We don't get a lot of these. The second is because there's four of us instead of five of us. And that's, and I'm sad to say that. There's nothing I can do about that. But I think it's you'll be able to watch the tape, you'll be able to see what we've all said. I think we have made, each of us have made clear points, even if that if watching it you say, wow, it looks like I'm at a 2-2, what do I do? I'm in agreement with you. I mean, I don't know what to do. So, maybe I could ask a question if we would help summarize. So, you know, typically our next step would be to go to formal application and go before you, but that's going to require a tentative map, which is as Stacey pointed out, is expensive. Would you recommend that we adjust these lot lines and come back to you as a study session item? That sounds like a good plan and I would also say that- And then we have a fifth by the way. Yeah, you'd have a fifth and I think also that maybe there would be an opportunity for you to think about what the Big picture benefits would be for the city's goals of providing more housing and how you could demonstrate that maybe with a diagram or something like that. Where we could put these all together? Yeah, for both lots. Yeah, agreed. That sounds like a good plan, Steve. I concur. I think that's a good strategy. You know, because having the complexities of this and the pros and cons of this sink in a little bit for everybody, particularly you. I think it's important. I'm still on the fence, but I definitely can see the benefit of this strategy of increasing a lot B. And what might come of that. So I think another round, particularly just five, people that always help, because you can't have a split. And if and when it comes to a real vote, the gravity of the situation on all parts becomes more serious, because we're allowing or not allowing a property under to do something or not do something. So we, you know, the study session, I definition has a little bit more of this back and forth and to and fro and what ifs. So we don't usually come together with a complete split down the middle, but it is not unusual for it to be a little more conversational. Is that help? Yeah, very much so. Thank you for- Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Okay. All right. Do we need to take one or two minute break? I guess one is the power through. Power through. Okay. Ent. I can't see you. All right. That brings us to our next item on the agenda, which is 110 Sunnyside Avenue. Appeal of a denial of a tree removal permit application. Great. We'll wait for this. Patrick, are you doing the staff report? Yes. Well, all right, then. Mr. Kelly, do we have a staff report? All right. Oh, thank you, Chair Skiles, members of the Plenty Commission. I'm presenting the item before you, which is an appeal of the zoning administrators denial of a tree removal permit of a heritage coast redwood tree located at 110 sunny side. This is the property. Again, the appeal is of the zoning administrator decision to deny a tree removal permit to remove a 60 inch diameter coast redwood tree located at 110 sunny side. The property is located on the south side of sunny side. East of East Blightdale. The property is developed with a single family residential home and is outside the woolly the wildland urban interface zone. Some pictures of the tree. To left is a tree, the tree in the center of the photo generally taken from the neighboring property to the east, looking, let's see here, it's basically looking east taken from the neighboring property at 106 sunny side. The center photo is looking straight at 106 sunny side. It's just a neighboring property to the right of the tree. You can see the arrow directed to the tree. It's immediately adjacent to the neighbor's driveway. And then the pick on the right is at 110 sunny side looking west from the subject property. And as I mentioned the diameter the tree at the base is about 60 inches and the tree is about 100 beaten height according to the Arborist report. The tree is considered a heritage tree per the city's tree ordinance just by way of definition per the tree for the city's tree ordinance. Just by way of definition, for the tree ordinance, a coast rib would tree having a trunk diameter of a minimum of 30 inches meets the criteria for heritage status. The tree under consideration, again, measures 60 inches and it's approximately 100 feet in height as per the Arbor's report from Urban Forestry and Associates. The tree removal permit is required to remove a coast heritage tree. The purpose of the tree regulations is to prevent uncontrolled removal of designated trees and impacts to the community. And coastribot trees are a defining feature of Mill Valley. The tree removal permit was initially filed in March of 2023. That application was denied by the zoning administrator on June 20, 2023. The applicant subsequently filed a new treaty removal permit application on March 7, 2024. And so the basis of that application, the reason stated, and that's included in the record, and included in the packet materials before you, that the removal will enhance public health and safety, that the tree is unreasonably close to the adjacent utility pole and supporting power lines. Removal will permanently prevent interference with such utility facilities, and there is objective evidence readily available that the tree's roots are compromising the site improvements in foundation at 110 and 106 sunny site Avenue. So the tree removal permit was denied based on testimony and evidence in the record and that findings and exhibit A to the April 16, 2024 zoning administrator report which I will explain in the following slides. But that's in the context of the claims that are before you on the appeal. So the appeal raises two claims. Claim one, the findings do not accurately reflect the requirements outlined in the Mio Valley Municipal Code, specifically Section 2067-090 requires a finding of only one or more of the listed objectives for a tree removal permit. Both the staff report and the denial letter fail to articulate this lower threshold and unreasonably attempt to increase the burden on an applicant to affirm all objectives listed in the code. So what staff did is staff's response to the appellance claims are outlined in the staff report and the appeal before you. Permit may be granted upon finding that the tree removal is necessary to accomplish any one or more of the five objectives under 2067-09O. The ordinance regulating the trees on private property. So finding the claim and the staff response begin on page two of the staff report before you. So with respect to finding number one and all outlined in each of the five findings. And finding one is to protect the public health and safety by reducing or eliminating fire danger or other potential hazards to persons or property. So our staff you sponsor it again, this is outlined in your report. The property is not located in the wildlife and urban interface and is not a fire danger. And that's through evidence and documentation in the record. Staff does, there are records from correspondence from PG&E indicating that at this time there's no necessity to limit up the tree any further. The tree is not listed for any work by PG&E and the tree can remain outside utility line zone with pruning, the proximity and that's according to the Arborist reports and proximity to utility lines is not a justification for removing viable heritage tree and The removal of tree would be contrary to city policy Finding number two to prevent the obstruction or again, these are objectives for Supporting a tree removal permit to prevent the obstruction or interference with Public utility facilities sanitary sewer facilities, storm drains, water supply facilities, and water courses. So according to field evaluations by cities, consultant, arborists, and city staff did not find potential for obstruction or interference with public utilities to be significant enough to warrant removal of a heritage tree. Finding number three to ensure reasonable preservation of views and sunlight. The heritage tree does not significantly affect views or the amount of sunlight to the property or neighboring property such as to warrant its removal. And then finding number four to enhance the health of the subject tree or adjacent tree. The subject tree is typical in a urban setting. The tree is within the front yard of the subject property with pervious surface. The tree is in good health and not a threat to adjacent trees. And the tree removal can be avoided by reasonable alternatives. And I just wanted to add that Ray Moretz with urban forestry is here this evening. He did conduct a secondary report with extensive analysis and staff responses are on the basis of the professional judgment of the arborist. And if you have any questions, Mr. Morch is here to help answer questions in regards to his findings. Finding number five to allow the owner to reasonably develop or use the subject property oftentimes you'll encounter design review applications that involve tree tree removal permits. In this case the subject property is developed with a single family home. The subject tree is not immediately adjacent to the house or other structures and there's no new development proposed. Furthermore, there's no evidence of any damage to the structure according to the R-WIS report. So with that, the tree ordinance, the tree-regulating trees and private property includes three findings to deny a tree removal. So what I just explained were five objectives to approve a happy-me-a to one at least to approve a tree removal permit. In this case, these are findings to deny. And so staff did in the findings make each one of these findings for denial. And one is removal of a healthy heritage tree or multiple trees could be avoided by reasonable alternatives such as trimming, pruning, thinning, or other reasonable treatment. The tree trimming, pruning, and thin, or other reasonable treatment. The tree trimming, pruning, and thinning is a reasonable treatment to save a viable heritage tree. And this tree has been trimmed under the guidance of an arborist. The property owner is actually hired treemasters to evaluate and also conduct tree trimming. So they are an arborist, but they also conduct the tree trimming. So number two is to revisions to a proposed project would allow an owner to reasonably develop and use the subject property without requiring removal of a healthy heritage tree or multiple trees. Our response was that the property is already developed with a single family residence and the tree application is not in connection with a development project. And lastly, finding number three adequate provisions for drainage erosion control, land stability, avoiding adverse impacts in wind screening, have not been made in situations where problems are anticipated as a result of tree removal. And our response was that tree is located within the front yard to a flat property where drainage erosion control, land stability, and wind screening do not apply. So lastly, this subject tree is a normal redwood tree in an urban environment and is a typical condition throughout Mill Valley. And in a moment I'll share with you a few slides of conditions that are very very similar to 110 sunny side and conclusion with respect to claim one the zoning administrator denied the tree removal permit on the basis that the application did not meet any of the objectives for approval under Mill Valley Minus Bacode 20 67090 and on the basis that all three findings for denial were made under 2067 110. As reflected in the record and the findings in exhibit A to the April 16th zoning administrator staff report, which is attachment three to the staff report before you. So the appellant second claim is that facts do not support the findings. To the contrary, the facts are incompatible with the findings articulated in the denial letter. This failure to link a nexus between facts and findings results in a disowning minors' straighter decision being abuse of discretion that should be overturned by the Planning Commission on appeal. that should be overturned by the Planning Commission on appeal. So with respect to the response to claim two, the zoning administrator report addressed the five criteria required for issuance of a tree removal permit, which I just outlined. The zoning administrator report outlined the criteria for denial of a tree removal permit, which I just outlined, responses to the criteria for issuance of a tree removal permit provided a direct nexus between the findings for two, the findings for denial. The facts in the staff report are compatible with the findings for denial and the letter of determination is advisory. So findings for denial were attached to the letter of determination. So just these are a few slides of some similar conditions to that of 110 sunny slide. The Heritage Coast Redwood Tree that exists in site conditions at 110 sunny site are not unique. Redwood trees are not limited to hillside conditions as we all know. The following slides do explain just a few the many trees with side conditions that are similar to one-ten sunny side. So this is 73 Hill Street, not too far from the subject site and is at the corner of one of this in Hill Street and you can see this appears to be a heritage, it looks to be a redwood tree. I'm sure Rainmoree's would readily identify this tree, but you can see that's immediately adjacent to the sidewalk and the photo to the right. You can see power lines and where it has been limbed up. This is five olive street and this is a similar condition where you have a mature, what appears to be redwood tree and there's power lines adjacent. This is 254th Rock Morton Avenue with what's to be, I don't know if this is characterized as a grow, but there's multiple redwoods close to the sidewalk with power lines running through. This is 130 Watts Blightdale. This is a condition that's very prevalent along what's Blightdale just down the road here with Redwoods very close to the street. In this case, I don't see power lines, but there are some behind in the back. This is the condition at 62 Ocdale Avenue with power lines running close to the tree. This tree in this case is not immediately adjacent to the sidewalk or street but it's near power lines. And this is right on sunny side, 121 sunny side. A tree that's about the same height as the subject tree. This is 110 sunny side, the subject tree. And you can see that the tree is close proximity to the sidewalk and fairly mature cedar tree, I believe. Got that right. So again, Mr. Ray Moreads with urban forestry, he did conduct an inspection of the site and the tree on May 15, 2024. And his conclusion and his report is included as attachment to the staff report to this item. There is no justification for removal of this tree for reason of health, stability or nuisance impacts. So with that, there are two recommended actions. Conduct the public hearing, you'll need to open the hearing. Consider any evidence presented before you this evening. And then if the opponent has not produced sufficient evidence to support a change in staff's recommendation to deny the tree removal permit application, the Planning Commission must deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrators denial of the application as outlined in the attached resolution. So, I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you very much. I just didn't know how many questions were addressed to Kelly. John? I just want to ask a question of Mr. Moritz or Moritz. Is this the appropriate time? Yes. Great. As you come up, thank you very much for your peer review report. I'm actually looking at the applicants report and on page 15 it says that the arborist and I believe this other arborist Ben, can you clarify who bend is by the way? Ann Anderson. Yeah. He's a arborist, he's a certified arborist, consulting arborist, and is a degree in for sciences. Okay. So they use the term that removal of the tree is reasonable for protection of public health and safety. If you were recommending removal of a tree for public health and safety, would you say you recommend or advise removing a tree's potential to be unsafe to the public would require a tree risk assessment. And a tree risk assessment is what I did on the tree. And tree risk assessment since 2011 in the northwestern US has required that the Arbis B is certified and subsequently a qualified tree risk assessor. Tree risk assessment looks equally at the condition of the tree as well as potential targets and ways those together. But as an arborist, first you start with the tree to determine whether the species or the condition of the particular tree have structural defects that indicate that it is a threat to failure. I also happen to be, my graduate work was in fire ecology as well as silviculture. So the suggestion that it might be a fire hazard and therefore a threat to public safety, either an ignition risk threat or a fire behavior threat is completely unfounded. In terms to be an ignition risk threat, it would have to have a bed of available fuels under the tree that might be ignited if the tree were to knock down the power line and cause an ignition. And that's just not the case here. Also, redwoods are highly fire resistant for a cornifer, especially. It's amazing that they are. Secondly, I found no structural defects. Redwood as a species is the most wind firm of all its associate species. So, whole tree failure, unless there was some condition, like some moment, or run a trench near the tree and cut the structural roots, there would have to be some condition that would completely alter its root structure. Then in terms of threats of failure of limbs, the tree has about an 80% live crown ratio because it's open-grown, it retains its lower branches. They are all green and healthy. They even have been pruned back so that there is less lever force on their attachment. So I see no condition in the tree itself that is a significant risk. Okay, great. Thank you for answering my question. We may have some more for you, but I appreciate that. Okay, thank you. Does anyone have any questions for staff? No. Okay. Great. I don't either. Let's give the applicant a moment to come on up and I had a request to have a few more minutes than just 10 so I'm going to set 15 on the timer. You don't have to use all 15 but take it away. Take it away. Second. There were only one second. We'll pull up the PowerPoint here. Okay. Good evening commissioners. My name is Chris Skelton and it's my pleasure to appear this evening on behalf of the appellants Diane Peterson and her husband and I'm also joined by Patrick Shrendt of Treemasters. So we're asking the commission to uphold the appeal and overturn the zoning commissioners' decision to deny the heritage tree removal permit. Although frankly, it shouldn't be relevant for this proceeding. I do want to inform you that Ms. Pearson's family has owned the property for over half a century. She, as a young girl, I'll care for this tree. And, you know, this application was not made with callous intent. I know that there is often suspicion about underlying intent in any development application. There is no pending redevelopments, grape rebuild, or anything like that. And I think if you have questions for Patrick, he can certainly speak to the care and treatment that he and true masters has done during their tenure, which is over a decade. And certainly it's been cared for quite thoughtfully as documented in Ray Merritt's report as well. I also want to thank all of the public comments that offered their support for the true removal. I know it's never easy for a community to lose an asset like this, but clearly there was, I think, a vocal majority of neighbors that share the same sentiment as the Peterson's do. So unfortunately, this appeal sets up a uniquely awkward dynamic since staff is responsible for guiding the commission in its deliberative process and providing staff reports and corresponding information and recommendations. Perhaps the chuckle at the introduction of staff is even more reflective that Patrick Kelly as the zoning administrator was giving the presentation. And listen, there's a inherent sort of natural tendency to want to defend your actions. And so this somewhat awkwardness is compounded by the fact that I have to be critical of those decisions and I want you to know that I'm offering my comments to provide a full and holistic picture of this application and certainly not any personal attacks or anything like that. I also appreciate that this is a unique period in time because last month the City Council adopted its climate action plan which was an update to the general plan. Makes the removal of, it makes this tree removal appeal that much more dynamic from a land use and planning perspective. And in this vein, I want to reiterate that the appellants continue to offer to donate the wood from this tree back to the city to incorporate into any municipal projects that may be coming, such as Boyle Park Restoration or other needs around the city. And that was previously offered as well. So as you may be aware, ZA hearings are not recorded and the public records like staff reports, meeting minutes and written public comments, they're tough to find and minimal at best. Lines 40 through 48 in this staff report, it summarily describes the 2013 ZA application process. What's lost in this summary is the unjustifiable denial of the 2023 permit, as well as staff's ability to provide notice of the appeal which ultimately forced the applicant to reapply, go through an extensive process which delayed it, cost significant amount of money as well, and then ultimately created perhaps an overly complicated public record. I expect that the 2023, pardon me, the 2023 staff report was omitted because it was crafted as a recommendation of approval for the removal of this tree, which was supported by the city's consulting arborist at that time, Ben Anderson, who is a colleague of Mr. Moritz. Ben had no problem describing the facts and making the findings required for the tree removal permit. Here is the staff analysis from that 2023 ZA report. It says specifically city consulting arborist Ben Anderson with urban forestry associates visited the tree and spoke with the applicant and adjacent property owner and supports removal of the redwood tree to protect the public health and safety by reducing or eliminating potential hazards to persons or property. See attachment to. Further in the staff report says Ben Anderson, excuse me, the city is consulting the arborist, recommends that two replacement trees be placed on site. If the trees are to be placed off site the city has in lieu fees. Again, the recommendation in this staff report, which was omitted from your packet, is a recommendation that the tree permit be approved, subject to the findings in exhibit A and conditions in exhibit B. So unfortunately the petitions were not able to attend the hearing, but they're consulting Arborist, Patrick Shand of Tree Masters, was in attendance, and frankly he was So unfortunately the Peterson's were not able to attend the hearing but they're consulting our Arborist Patrick Shand of true masters wasn't attendance and frankly he was blindsided when the ZA Decided to deny the permit without any new evidence or substantive discussion on the merits I'm sure as a decision-making deliberative body you can appreciate when there's a staff recommendation of approval when there's no public comments that are shared and there's no advanced notice that getting a denial without justification can be rather startling. So at 440 on that day, June 20, the ZA emailed Miss Peterson to confirm his rationale for denying the tree permit. And those were the tree conditions and peteding sidewalks and driveways have existed for many years. This condition is prevalent throughout Mill Valley. And approving the tree removal permit would set a precedent absent evidence to support the tree removal. Well, those are not findings that you will recall from the municipal code or the sections that were previously described. And frankly, they're inconsistent because then Anderson, the city's consulting arborist, did provide a recommendation based on his investigation and it was to remove the tree. So, furthermore, there was only evidence in the record to support the removal. And I shared this in the appeal, there was no evidence in the record to support the removal. And really, if you want to get into the policy in the precedent setting, I think that denying this application and upholding and denying the appeal is actually rather precedent setting which I will get into in a minute. But here I want to share the underlying email which was Exhibit 2 to the staff report to the 2023 ZA staff report which has been Anderson's email. And I want to skip through to the highlight of portion. And this is going to get into that negative finding under 110, which is the finding for denial. And he says, if someone really loves this tree, and believe me, the applicant really loves this tree, and has lived with it for over half a century and wants to keep it at all costs, cutting back the bulging base would be a reasonable option. But to require someone to do it is unreasonable in my opinion, and we just heard from Mr. Merritt about his colleagues' qualifications. I support this removal to protect public health and safety by reducing or eliminating potential hazards to persons or property. And then he goes on to list what those hazards are. So I want to get back to this hearing now that you have a little bit more of the history there. And I'm sorry that you were not given a copy of that 2023 staff report, so you could have read through it more completely. We are asking you to uphold the appeal. We do believe that the facts support the findings under O90 for the removal. We do not believe that the facts support the findings under 1110 for rejecting it. Okay. I share with you that rejecting this appeal could set a dangerous precedent. And here is the fundamental reason that this tree presents a liability. And I will describe that in just a moment based on correspondence with DPW and other staff. But essentially, the applicant is seeking to abate imposition of liability that is created on under the municipal code. This tree and its corresponding conditions create the liability. Doing it in a reasonable way. If the commission denies that reasonable right, they are forcing and imposing liability on a resident. And so my ultimate conclusion in this presentation and what I hope that you will take with you is, if you are inclined to deny this application, then be prepared for either you or urban forestry to step up and assume the liability. And I think that is an acceptable outcome, although certainly unlikely and probably a terrible precedent-setting decision in and of itself. And then finally, I encourage you to consider the context of this application, okay? One-ten sunny side, the urban core of Mill Valley. We're not talking about Blightdale Canyon. We're not talking about any of the perhaps more suburban forested areas within the Mill Valley city limits, where groves of redwood trees are thriving and should be protected and do have all of the effects that go hand in glove with the climate action plan about, you know, carbon sequestering or, you know, reducing the heat effect or all of the benefits of natural habitat. Like this is a uniquely isolated tree that has outgrown its space and has been cared for thoughtfully over decades. So I want to talk a little bit about Ben Anderson's report doing a side by side comparison because something happened between 2023 and 2024. We were forced to reapply in 2024 and so all of a sudden his staff report or his report, his consulting report, flipped. I do not find adequate justification for the true removal. Well, it's weird because in his prior report, he blindly and blanket conclusion is, I support the removal to protect public health and safety. He talks about that the application had already been denied at this point and true master's retired to shave back the root flare, but the timing of this is incompatible. He gave his recommendations three weeks prior to the ZA approval. So to suggest that somehow this was a revisionist history and he wasn't actually approving it, just is incompatible with the facts. And then he went on to say that the report references cracking, lifting the foundation. I did not see this when I was on the site. His own words and his own email to staff, which was a basis for the recommendation, identifies driveway sidewalk and foundation. So I see that I'm already starting to run low on time. So I want to break into this element of really, what is wrong here, okay? Ben Anderson's report and Ray's report echoes this as well. I'm unfamiliar with the sidewalk clearance required for current clearance dimensions. DPW could review this for further input. Driveways are required 15 feet. Neighbors driveway at 106 is legal nonconforming. That in and of itself doesn't justify exacerbating a legal nonconforming condition by allowing this tree to further encroach over the property line and create a private nuisance which in and of itself establishes some level of potential liability for the applicant. What is, I think, most telling, and this is a fact that I hope you will truly listen to and resonate. DPW threatened to impose code enforcement action against the applicant for failure to provide the 48-inch free and clear space on the sidewalk despite getting denied for the tree removal permit. And then finally, I do not see that this tree poses any greater threat to persons or property than most other redwoods. Everyone keeps coming back to most other redwoods and most other conditions in the city. This is not like most other conditions in the city. I will give examples of some other conditions in the city. But really, it's this fact that DPW, the city's own department, established that this is a problem. This is a health and safety issue, and they were on the brink of leveeing either fines or enforcement action against the applicant for not curing a condition that she is being prohibited to cure. So, let's talk about a couple other sites in Mill Valley, because everyone keeps saying it's not like most others. Well, it is like most others. And Urban Forestry ironically has had a hand in some of those. So they offered a report for a 2020 tree removal, which was to abate the risk of targeting high voltage lines and two nearby homes. Okay? There's a note in that application, and I looked at the public records on this, PG&E was not interested in taking action, which is why there was an application by a private property owner to have the tree removal performed. That was approved without any hitch. performed. That was approved without any hitch. Twelve Bay View, removal was authorized by urban forestry. There was a damage to a retaining wall and proximity to other improvements. The tree was otherwise healthy. We're talking about a retaining wall. We weren't even talking about a home. Here we have a home that although certainly raise observations say that the foundation is not compromised, so it's vulnerable to being compromised by the roots. We have no plans to remodel or do anything to home, so there isn't a structured engineer that's going to give you a report for it. But there is sidewalk damage, there is private walkway damage, there is the neighbors driveway damage. And so if we're going to respect a retaining wall in this property, why are we going to diminish these other improvements? 25 point of vista, urban forestry, and this is I think perhaps from a factual standpoint with this arborist report or competing reports and these facts, probably the most influential I think, that urban forestry report notes that co-dominant stems are a common structural defect that elevates the likelihood of failure that is not easily corrected. Mr. Meritz previously stated this evening, I found no structural defects. Here is a co-dominant stem at the top of this tree. Okay? Granted, you have to zoom in to see it. You're not going to see it from the profile photos. It's there. I took this photo myself. I know that it's there because treemasters has been called out historically, I believe in 2017, to attach a cabling device as an attempt to mitigate this impact. All right? Another example of the property owner taking every reasonable precaution to try to mitigate liability and future failures. But that has been a justification for removing redwood trees in the past. 164 Florence, two redwood trees were authorized removal because of potential for foundation and structural damage to the home. Here again, we also have potential for foundation and structural damage because of the vulnerability and age. And just for, I guess, statistics purposes that you guys can appreciate that this is in precedent setting, there have been 31 heritage redwood trees removed, permits approved in the last nine years. Most, excuse me, were not provided to me as part of a public records request. I did get my eyes on half a dozen. But most as I can tell, have a singular benefit, singular purpose only to the owner, only to probably greater development, things of that nature. This is distinguishable from that perspective. It truly is thinking broadly beyond just the property and looking at the public health and welfare. So findings they absolutely can be made and the existing condition is a hazard regarding the sidewalk condition, regarding the sidewalk. I don't think you need to get any further than that. I've provided ample evidence of various other hazards, whether we're talking about the PG&E power lines, proximity to the house, uplift to the neighbor's driveway. There are so many features that justify the finding and words matter, and it's reducing or eliminating potential hazards to persons or property. And I have to believe based on the Miller Avenue streetscape and all of the other public improvements that City of Mill Valley has done over the past seven to ten years about increasing accessibility, circulation and public improvements like that, they must care about ADA accessibility, which is probably why DPW was directed, can you please draft a notice of violation and repair for this condition? This was August 9, 2023. But for Patrick Kelly stepping in and saying, please don't impose this on her. We're trying to work through this. I probably would have gotten a notice of violation and I don't know how you cure the condition without getting the permit to cure the condition. What the answer was was Ben Anderson saying, yeah, max, max, you can shave off that root ball as six inches. We now have another arborist that says, if you need to, you can take another 10 out. Okay? Not, you can't keep shifting the goalposts. So, again, it's rather unfair. But he said, there are no guidelines for performing this kind of work on a tree. I was only imagining removing a max of six inches measured horizontally, all right? And then, it's gotta regrow, because trees want to protect themselves. They don't want to be vulnerable to disease pests rot that kind of stuff and so it's going to regrow becomes an ongoing maintenance obligation Ray comes back and says if you can kind of come to conclusion every Absolutely, I have two more points. I just want to hammer home and then I will get off the mic We already talked about this. It's not wide enough. And you said you can dial it back 10 more inches. Let me skip through this. So getting back to the findings for denying it, we're talking about reasonfulness. And here, Ben Anderson's email, requiring someone to shave the base is unreasonable in my opinion. And he goes on to say, no alternatives to removal that conform to tree industry standards or best management practices. Here's the exact language from his report. So when we get into the finding of what is, that the finding is could be avoided by reasonable alternatives. The city's own consulting arborist has identified that these are not reasonable. They're not governed by any standard, they're not governed by any guideline. So even if you wanted to say sure, go ahead and shave another 10 inches off, that's not something that treemasters can or should do or the homeowner should accept, because if that tree fails because of that shaving, again, that's liability because it's not regulated by any professional standard. Lastly, this is the precedent setting. Your hand cuffing the owner if you do deny the appeal and deny the opportunity to remove this tree. I encourage the commission to please approve, uphold the appeal, approve the true removal, and hopefully recognize that this is a long standing resident of Mill Valley that has done everything possible to do the right thing and reach this final conclusion. Very, very difficult circumstances. Thank you very much. Go ahead and hang out there because we have questions for you. Do you have questions for the applicant or you also have an arborist here? Yep. Okay. Any questions for their team? Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller-Ren. So this is a little bit off track but maybe not because you've mentioned a couple things but do you believe we're in a climate crisis right now? Oh, I think personally I believe in climate change, yes. And what are the benefits of a healthy mature tree? Could you answer that question? I think there are many benefits that all trees provide. I think that the benefits of this particular tree can certainly be reproduced over time. Not going to get instant relief. No argument from me on that. But that's not what the code requires. The code does not say engage in a balancing act. I just wanted to see if you could answer that. So do you think a tree of that maturity on the amount of carbon that sequesters can be replaced by two 15 gallon redwood trees? Zero chance. I mean, maybe not even over the course of 150 years. If you put them on a parallel track, it wouldn't even be close. Okay, I mean, those are three things that come to mind. And also does this mean that if someone gets upset about their kids in Boyle Park being at risk of mature redwood trees coming down on the little leagars that those should be removed as well? You're probably asking the wrong guy. I used to work for the county. I had to defend a dangerous condition of public property cases and McNair Beach actually had a number of trees that were claimed to be in that situation 15 years ago. So I'm familiar with those claims and unfortunately you got to look at the facts of every situation. And so I guess here what I'm saying is that there is public health and welfare associated with ADA compliance. And that's something that really is the obligation of the city to maintain. DPW made it clear in their communications that they take that seriously. Probably the same way planning takes FAR and setback seriously. To the point where they were getting ready to levy, a fine or violation or notice of abatement to an owner. And so what does an owner do? And they have demonstrated year after year, time and time again. I mean, Ramaritsa's report even said the cuts that have been historically done have been done quite well to the point where the tree is doing as well as it can. But I cannot believe that the city of Movali is going to be not only a no-varian jurisdiction but a no tree removal for jurisdiction as well. And so hopefully there is a balance, right? But in this case, I mean this this property owner has really I think gone way beyond the call of duty in trying to maintain this in a reasonable way. And listen, I said at the beginning of the presentation, if this commission feels compelled, as I appreciate you do, and I know that you served on the Climate Action Subcommittee, and I've read through a majority of that document, and I laud the city in its efforts to get in front of this from a climate action perspective. If you feel like you cannot make the findings and that the benefits of this particular tree far out way, the competing public welfare benefits that I've articulated, then I think you guys can say we accept responsibility for this tree, we accept responsibility for the sidewalk, we accept responsibility if the neighbor wants to raise a nuisance claim, right? Take that on, right? Because otherwise the owner is under the municipal code under an ordinance that was adopted 115 years ago is obligated to do that. Maybe not 115, I don't think it was a municipality. Any other questions for the applicant or their team? Okay, thanks. Thank you very much. So what we'll do now is have members of the public. If anyone would like to speak, you're welcome to come up. State your name, you'll have three minutes. And give us your dots on this item. A mess. Oh, come on up. Don't be shy. Come on up. If you're going to speak. Come on up, man. I'm sorry. If you're going to speak. So my name is Michael Vollen. I live next door at one on six any side. My wife and I live there. And we have a number of concerns about the tree. But really the big issue is one of safety. I spoke with Mr. Moritz when he came to examine the tree. He told me about his work in the Redwood Forests and how stable the Redwood trees are. And after we spoke, I've been doing some reading. And I learned that Redwood trees have very shallow roots. But the roots extend a long way in all directions. And what they do is they intertwine in a forest with the roots of the other redwood trees, so that they are all kind of mutually supportive, which makes them very strong and unlikely to fall. But sunny side avenue is no longer a redwood forest. And what we have here instead is a solitary, very large redwood tree that is hemmed in on all sides by concrete with no room to grow further. And that's really quite a different situation. I also learned on reading that if someone wants the plant to redwood at their home, they're always advised to plant more than one tree so that the trees will mutually support each other and will not fall down. Unfortunately, none of what seems to me a very important distinction was made in the report on the tree. In fact, just four years ago, at 98 sunny side, a couple of houses down for me, a redwood tree came down without warning in the storm. It was a similar situation. The tree was growing in front of the house in a very cramped location. And fortunately, it was a much smaller tree. It fell across sunny side Avenue and did no real damage. If something like that were to happen this tree, it would of course, it would be a catastrophe. And if nothing is done, that tree is just going to be there. Eventually, that's going to happen. Depending which direction the tree fell, I count probably nine or ten or more homes that could potentially be destroyed. People would die. When the wind blows hard in the winter, I always look up at that tree towering high above the homes, and I think about that. And so do all of the other nine or 10 homeowners who live in these houses, think about that. And that's why all of them are in favor of having this tree removed. I would very much like to see that happen. I suspect if any of you lived in one of those homes, you would probably feel the same way. I understand that the city has a heritage tree policy and I'm all in favor of that. That's a good thing. Nobody wants to see a redwood cut down. But it needs to be applied with some common sense. The purpose of a policy like this seems to me to prevent some individual from deciding to just do something on their own, cut down a tree and negatively impact the interests of their neighbors. But here we have a situation where this is something that all of the nearby neighbors are entirely in favor of. I don't see why the city would insist on trying to prevent that. If you don't mind maybe wrapping up now, it's been three minutes. Okay, that's it. That was my final. If you have a final thing to say as well. I don't see a good reason for that, and I hope very much you will approve this appeal. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you very much. Is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? All right, come on up and now state your name. Hello, my name is Patrick Chan. I'm a certified arborist with tree masters. I'm also track qualified. Ray, I hold you in the of most respects. You and your team are great. You're usually who I come to when I have a question. So, and I generally follow your advice to the T. There's just a couple of things here that both were stated in the report and the shaving of the root ball, which I'll get to in a minute. In a report you said, the structure of the tree is typical for open-grown redwoods. In a forest setting, redwood is naturally deciduous of its lower branches. Consequently, forest redwoods may have only 30 to 40% live growth ratio and still be healthy and vigorous. The 75% to 80% live growth ratio of this open is more than adequate to sustain a robust root system. My only issue with that is this is not a forest setting. So generally in a forest setting you would have other trees there protecting it from the wind. Also other root systems that it could bind to, providing additional structure. So that was my one issue with that. And as for the shaving of the root ball, again, that's not standard. So if this is denied and we would need to sit together and come up with a plan for that because as we shaved it now we did it just enough to make clearance for both the driveway and the sidewalk there. So in order to maintain that we need to shave it off every time it grows back leaving an open wound on that main stem for life. Your recommendation to go back farther, I would be open to having a discussion with, but again, it's not standard, so I would need some clarification on that. I've also been working on this tree since 2018, a year after we started doing this. I've been in the tree, I've looked at the tree almost yearly, and my blood, sweat, and tears are in that tree. So, and this is not a decision that I or or my client, the owner of the tree are making lightly. So, that's about all I have. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Any other members of the public that would like to speak come on up and if everyone wants to speak you guys can just line up and then go faster I'm Shelley Richardson. I'm at 102 sunny side. Yeah, you can see my house just behind that tree in that picture. And I'm just reiterating what Michael Volen was saying of great concerns about it based on what I read and heard at the last hearing and others about the split trunk, the not having a neighbor to bind with. And also just the ferocity of the storms we're having now and the winds that are much worse than we've had before, that it does worry me. And we're writing, we're, you know, it's gonna go right down through two floors and a good friend of mine saw a house in Napa where a single tree went to go right down through two floors and a good friend of mine saw a house in Napa where a single tree went down and cut straight through two floors of a house all the way to the ground. And this makes me very nervous with this tree. I love redwoods, but this one is, I'm not, I don't feel confident. Thank you. Thank you. I am Diane Peterson and this is my redwood tree. I just want to let you know that I would never want to take this tree down except that every single neighbor in the fall radius of this tree has approached me and come to me and said that they're really scared that it's going to fall in their house. And I selfishly am scared it's going to fall in my house too. And I heard what you said about climate change, but I think that part of the reason that I'm worried is because of climate change, that this tree did go through years of drought. It does, it's not as healthy as it used to be because there's not as much water and I don't want to be responsible for this tree killing somebody and that's my reason for wanting to do what I think is the ethical moral thing to do and that's why I went into appeal because not to be harsh, but my conscience is clean now. If this tree falls and kills somebody, it's not on me. And I hate to say that and I'm worried it's going to, but I wouldn't want you to be on you, honestly. Thanks. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience wanting to speak on this items? Seeing no one, I'm gonna close the public hearing, bring it back up here, I can't wait a second. I'm trying to do two things at once for deliberations. And so just, this is a little bit unusual of an application for us what we are being tasked with is to approve or deny an appeal to a zoning administrators denial of a tree removal permit. So if we approve the appeal we are effectively approving the tree removal permit and if we deny the appeal we are uphold approving the tree removal permit. And if we deny the appeal, we are upholding the zoning administrators denial of the permit. So just a famous our discussion. Kushner Yollis, would you like to start the discussions? I don't know if this is appropriate, but there were some countering points made that I think might be helpful for Mr. Moritz to respond to. I mean I think there's some very technical issues here and I think we should hear from one of the people. Oh okay good because some other people speaking in public open time we're also talking members and donor. Pardon me? Yeah because some of the people speaking in public open time. Yeah I think the applicant should have spoken during their applicants time rather than as a member of the public But but I think that I'd like to hear from the Arbor is again, okay, let me reopen to the public then and then mr. Mortz Do you have anything you'd like to say in response to any of those? He's staff though, right is he not? He is staff, but I have to reopen the hearing if we're going to hear from anyone other than us. Okay. Yeah, so I'm reopening the hearing. Yeah. Mr. March, did you want to respond to any of the comments or points that were made there. Okay, first of all, I'd like to address the fact that there's one basic technical misunderstanding that has been repeated, even by Benjamin Anderson, who I mentored for many years. That is that you're shaving the root ball. We are not touching the root ball. Well, first of all, our brist don't even use the term root ball anymore. It's no longer an approved term. But if we were shaving, cutting into the root ball, I would be the first one to say, oh no, this tree would have to go to make to provide access. The fact is we are shaving a burl and a burl is different than a root ball. And it's different than a root crown. A root crown of a tree is where the roots attach to the base of the tree. A burl is almost like a scar tissue, it's called response wood, that is grown due to an irritant. In this case, the irritant is adjacent concrete. The tree then grows this twisted swirl grain. If you've ever seen a bird's eye table, that's made from a root ball. It does not attach to the roots. Well, of course, that's perfectly obvious here because between the burrow and the ground is concrete, so it couldn't possibly be attached to the roots. So if it was cutting into a root ball, I would say we need to think long and hard about it, although Redwood is extremely tolerant of root disturbance. extremely tolerant of root disturbance. Redwoods, because they grow along rivers and in canyons where there are unstable slopes and river cutting, they can lose as much, well for example, the Rockefeller Grove where I have worked. They have lost as much as 40% of their root ball by river cutting and yet trees over twice the height of this tree remain standing. They don't remain standing because of their roots connecting with other trees, although that does provide some benefit. They remain standing because they have massive structural roots. So all the talk about root ball is a technical error. This assessment of the tree, which I stand behind, is that the tree has a low potential for failure. The codominant leaders in the canopy, codominancy, and whether it's codominant stem, or codominant leaders, codominant stems are two stems going from the ground up. Codominancy is considered a structural defect, but it doesn't mean the tree is a danger. It depends on the species. If you walk through Mill Park and through the canyon, you'll notice many, many redbirds with codominant stems and codominant leaders. It doesn't mean it's a hazard. You have to look at the structure and make a determination as to whether it arises to a hazardous condition. I appreciate that the good doctor who I admire for his medical work, but he's mistaken about a number of things. He's not an arborist or a forester. And he's obviously done his homework as has the attorney, has done a lot of homework. But still, I do not feel the homeowner has been negligent. Still, I do not feel the homeowner has been negligent. I do not feel that the tree is elevated risk because of its condition. And my mention of the fact that it has large live crown ratio, the foliated portion of tree relative to the overhaul height is the live ground ratio. That shows that the tree is very healthy. It doesn't show that in a forest stand, the reason they're naturally deciduous so their lower branches is because the dense shade causes the foliage to die on the lower branches and the dead branches eventually fall. It doesn't mean that an open grown tree is having lower branches and having a large life crown ratio is a defect or a cause for failure. Redwood, first growth, redwood is the most wind firm species of all the associate species. Caught growing species, that is. It is the most wind firm and it's not because it's intertwining roots necessarily. It is because of the types of roots that it grows and the sinker roots that it sends down from its structural roots. So I just wanted to make a few corrections. It's unfortunately that there hasn't been- Can we do it kind of quickly? Because I had to reopen the hearing. Are you all done? Okay, great. If there's any members of the public, not the applicants team, the public, who would like to come up and speak, please come on up. I'm Ingrid Wolland and I live in 1616. It's the next house to the tree. And how I understand it, I heard from you and I had that a redwood is really solid and is not falling. It needs to be a really big storm we don't have. It would not fall. But what I heard and what I know, I studied biology and got a master in that. But it's not that I know, but that's what I heard is. In the woods, the redwoods are very solid because the roots go out, not deep, but they go out and they're intertwined with the others and are very stable, but when a redwood is alone and that magic, that giant of a redwood and cannot intertwine because they support each other with the roots and he cannot do it. Then it's more vulnerable to just fall and I saw red roots falling and they cut the, they snapped the roots around it and then just fall very strong. And so that's why I'm afraid of it. Okay, thank you very much. That this kind of one solid, I mean isolated tree without having other trees around it is not stable. Okay, thank you. Are there any other members of the public? Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and we'll bring up the commission for deliberations. Commissioner Yoll, I'd like to start. I guess I want to start by saying I appreciate the concerns that the applicant has brought forward. And I think they're legitimate and I think we've all heard stories of there being incidents with trees that probably could have been prevented. And maybe would have been if they hadn't received as much attention as this tree. But this tree does seem like it has received a lot of attention. It seems like it's kind of been modified to be safe to address a number of the surrounding conditions that are of concern such as the utility wires near them, it seems like it's been limbed, it isn't a big, heavy crown that is susceptible to wind as is off in the case. And I really appreciate the pure review by Mr. Moritz, which I thought was incredibly thorough and articulate and gives me a lot of peace of mind and I hope that by being here tonight everybody who does have concerns Does gain some peace of mind from Hearing what has been said and hopefully having read his document as well I want to acknowledge that you know it does seem like there was some You know A snafu with regard to the original staff report. But I just want to say that, you know, as a commissioner myself, sometimes we come in here with a recommendation and we don't support it. Sometimes tonight, like with the study session, there actually isn't a clear recommendation and staff itself doesn't know in the case of a study session how that's going to end up. There sometimes is new information that comes to light at the very last moment. And so I just want to recognize on behalf of staff that I do understand how something like that would have happened. There may have been some late input or recognition of other precedents perhaps. You know, one of the things that's really special about Mill Valley to me is the fact that there are so many kind of quirky situations, whether it's its structures, trees that are kind of burled and overgrowing on the sidewalks all over town. Some of our political thinking thoughts, people were quirky in a lot of ways and it's what makes us such a unique, wonderful town. And this particular condition I think was shown in the images, I think it's fairly common that we have some unusual conditions with trees around town. And it's one of the things that makes this special. My daughters both went through park school and they ate lunch every day under a redwood tree about this height. There are hundreds of kids who sat underneath that redwood tree. And again, every tree is different. It needs to be monitored and maintained and assessed. But it doesn't mean that every tree is going to fall down. And I have a lot of confidence that this one is going to remain for, you know, I looked at, I searched how long a coast live redwood tree lasts and it said between 2000 and 5000 years. So I'm hopeful this tree was going to last an awful lot longer, especially if it continues to be well maintained. But I really do think it gives this, you know, trees like this give no value. A lot of charm. It is the dominant tree in the neighborhood. And I think it's a wonderful thing. It has so many positive benefits to it. You know, we've talked about the carbon sequestration mitigation mitigation of heat island effect, shade as aesthetics, charm, a little bit of privacy for some people, other public health benefits. And I think it's important that we allow this tree to continue to thrive. And again, I do feel for the applicant, but I do hope that you'll share this information with some of your neighbors and hopefully make them feel a little bit better. And I don't know how this vote is going to end up, but if we do end up denying the appeal, you'll have some reasons to go back to them with and you will have done your obligation, your duty in bringing it forward tonight. So I therefore am in support of denying the appeal and I agree with staff's recommendation to do so. Okay, thank you very much. Commissioner Hilderbrand, your deliberations, please. Thank you, John, for that thorough evaluation. And also the Zoning of the Minister of Administrator and staff, I think that we see, I've been here almost six years and we see a lot of requests to take down trees for certain reasons, health, development, a lot of things. And I don't think I've ever seen a report that was as thorough in the findings where there really was no significant reason and there's no development being proposed. And our job as planning commissioners, one of the main things we've been asked to do as we sit up here is to maintain a small town character of Mill Valley. And I've been here for 34 years. I've walked by that tree for 34 years. And as an architect, I see a lot of trees, you know, that have gone to, you know, use those resources. I think are the redwoods, the cedars, there's just too much of that. We're losing way to many of those. They're going defenses. They're going to decks. They're going to siding. And we can't lose any more trees, especially healthy ones like that. And it just is heartbreaking because I do a lot of hiking around here. I'm in these forests at night and there are owls in all these trees at night and the top of the canopy is talking to each other. And, you know, I can appreciate their concern. I mean, it's fear though, it's fear. And I think we need to be probably more fearful of climate change than a tree coming down and because this tree has a potential to outlast all of us in this room. And so I think, you know, if there was a clear reason that this tree was providing a risk, then, you know, there's potential for things to happen in the future, but I Like I said, I just think we need to be more we need to be more thoughtful about how we use our resources and You know there are my kids went to park school as well and they sat under that tree Their entire time that they were there and no one ever brought up the risk of that tree coming down on all those kids I mean lunch so I think this is a similar thing and we get I think and maybe is this if we were kids would we worry about this tree coming down on us. I think it's just one of those things we've had so many disasters and so many things happening. And part of that is from climate change and so we're worried that this tree is going to come down and take somebody out but you know the Arbor's reports this is pretty clear to me that this tree is healthy and I can't in a good conscience take down another rib with tree so I want to deny the appeal. Okay thank you Commissioner Ceregal, your deliberations. Since the applicants may concern by yourself and her council revolved around viability. I wonder if you could shed some light or some thoughts about that either real or perceived viability for the property owner versus the city. Can you give us some thoughts about that or educate us about that a little bit? So this is a tree that's on private property. So it is the responsibility of the private property owner to maintain it. That's the standard throughout the city. And that's the standard for trees that can't be removed without a tree removal permit throughout the city as well. So Mill Valley does put the owners on private property owners to maintain the trees that are on their property. And the sidewalk is that? The responsibility to keep the sidewalk clear of encroachments caused in this case by the private tree does remain with the property owner. That might be something we can talk to our public works department about assisting with, at least, consulting with the property owner on how best to address this issue while retaining the tree. Thank you. So I think it's helpful to sort of understand because there's obviously a concern from the owner regarding that. But I do agree with my, so, to, you know, to the previous commissioners about the, you know, the balance of the, you know, the fact that the tree has been evaluated extensively to be in a safe, healthy condition. I would also agree that in balance, we should deny the appeal. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, I don't have much to add to it. I will say I appreciate Commissioner Saringle bringing up the liability concern and there does seem to be a little bit of an unfairness, kind of recursive loop with the tree has to stay, but the tree also can't encroach in the sidewalk. And, you know, it's the owner's, the private landowner's responsibility to kind of take care of both. So if there's something that you can work out with public works, Patrick, to either modify the requirements around this condition or participate in the maintenance of that sidewalk area so that the burden is not entirely falling on the private landowner. I think that would be a reasonable outcome, but I agree with my other three commissioners in with my other three commissioners in the effort tonight, deny the appeal and uphold the action that the zoning minister took. So with that, if anyone would like to make a motion, I think we're ready for it. What I have one thing, which is, I do want to point out that it does appear that there's no accessibility issue. There's a measurement in the Arbor's report showing that it meets the, I believe, 48 inch requirement. And it seems like the surface is pretty smooth there too. So that's all I want to point out. Okay. Nothing. And with that, I'd be glad to make an emotion to deny the appeal in connection with one 10 sunny side avenue. Deny the appeal of the tree permit. Sure. So again, yeah, making a motion to deny the appeal. Great. Is there a second? A second. Okay. Commissioner Yollis has made a motion and Commissioner Hilderbrand has seconded. We'll do roll call. Commissioner Yollis. Aye. Commissioner Hilderbrand. Aye. Commissioner Saringle. Aye. Commissioner Scowls. Aye. 4-0 carries. Hang on a second. We got to read something. Any decision made by the Planning Commission on the above items may be appealed to the City Council by filing a letter with the planning and building department within 10 calendar days following the date of the decision describing the basis for the appeal and accompanied by the $1,057 appeal fee. Sorry, I've got some feedback going. That's all I had to say on that though. Okay, and then we have minutes from May 28th. Was this our lightning fast meeting that only took five minutes? I just wanna make a special note that I know the last one. That is my favorite planning commission meeting. All right, this is the three minutes. It will. It would anyone like to consent item? Right. Yeah, would anyone like to make continued? Emotion to approve these minutes. All right. Emotion to approve the minutes from May 28th. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Yolos. And a second by Commissioner Sarengo. We can just speak. Unm mute your mics and all in favor I for zero carries and Planning and building directors report and no report this month Okay with that we're adjourned