| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:06.68 | Mayor Withey | Okay, welcome to the special meeting of the Sausalito City Council. Monday, September 11th, 2017. Lily, would you call the roll, please? |
| 00:00:18.93 | Unknown | Councilmember Burns? |
| 00:00:20.43 | Mayor Withey | Present. |
| 00:00:20.96 | Unknown | Councilmember Hoffman? Present. Mayor Withey? |
| 00:00:23.54 | Mayor Withey | care. |
| 00:00:24.21 | Unknown | . And I am going to announce that Vice Mayor Cox will be participating via teleconference, and we're going to call her when we go into closed session. |
| 00:00:34.42 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. The item to |
| 00:00:45.39 | Mayor Withey | D1 will be heard in closed session, which is existing litigation conference with legal counsel. We will adjourn to closed session to discuss this matter. Thank you. |
| 00:01:19.78 | Mayor Withey | Okay. Good evening. Welcome to the special meeting of the Sausalito City Council. It's Monday, September 11, 2017. Lily, would you call the roll, please? |
| 00:01:37.06 | Unknown | Councilmember Burns. Councilmember Hoffman. you Present. Vice Mayor Cox. Can I hear us? |
| 00:01:49.35 | Mayor Withey | Uh, |
| 00:01:50.55 | Unknown | And Mayor Withy. |
| 00:01:51.84 | Mayor Withey | Here, Joan, we're just gonna increase the volume a little bit Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:02:04.60 | Mayor Withey | I would be honored to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance tonight. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, |
| 00:02:15.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:19.69 | Unknown | which is thin. one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:02:24.75 | Mayor Withey | with liberty and justice. |
| 00:02:26.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:32.04 | Mayor Withey | We met in closed session. There are no closed session announcements tonight. Is there any public comment on the matter that was discussed in closed session pursuant to the agenda? Okay, seeing none, could I have a motion to approve the agenda, please? So moved. |
| 00:02:54.96 | Unknown | Exactly. Exactly. |
| 00:02:55.90 | Mayor Withey | Second. All in favor? All in favor? |
| 00:02:58.10 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:03:00.44 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Item number one, mayor's announcements. Yeah. It's not you can't escape the fact that today is September the 11th. And, uh, Today is the day where we remember the fact that America changed forever on September the 11th, 2001. Now, in thinking about what I should say, I have been greatly aided by the fact that the Marin IJ published an editorial on this subject. And I'm going to freely read for it unapologetically. To the editorial board, you did a great job, guys. This is the first time a Marin IJ editorial brought me to tears. I'm going to just, as I said, shamelessly read a couple of sentences from it. that's a good idea. In all, nearly 3,000 people were killed. Many more were injured on that day. The carnage remains fresh in the minds of most of us who saw it, and not one of us can forget where we were that day. |
| 00:04:45.34 | Mayor Withey | The events of September the 11th, 2001 were different from anything our nation had encountered. We'd been savagely attacked and we didn't know by whom or why at first. As a nation, we were at once stunned, sickened, afraid, and heartbroken. But it didn't take long for that shock and hurt to turn to resolve, and yes, at times, anger. Today is about remembering the 2,977 innocents and heroic first responders. killed at the hands of 19 terrorists. In the years hence, our nation has accomplished much. It's rebuilt the World Trade Center, the Pentagon's been repaired, Our military went after and got Osama bin Laden. But we haven't forgotten Not at all. So the nation stops to remember and grieve for those victims and their families Thank you. Thank you. May they rest in peace. Could we have just a moment of silence, please? |
| 00:06:05.83 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. And we will be closing tonight's meeting in memory of all those who died that day. Thank you. |
| 00:06:19.94 | Mayor Withey | Okay. And again, I freely thank the Marin IJ for their editorial. They just captured it just right. So thank you, guys. Item number two, communications. And this is the time for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on tonight's agenda. So except in very limited situations, state law precludes the council from taking action or engaging substantially in discussions concerning these items of business. So is there any member of the public who'd like to address this council about any matter that is not on the agenda. Steve Fraser. |
| 00:07:07.80 | Steve Frazier | I'm Steve Frazier. I live at 53 Central Avenue, and I've been a resident for more than 50 years. But one thing is bothering me. As I age, my eyesight's not as good as it was. My response time is not as good as it was. And I've increasingly noticed that driving from Napa Street, Thank you. to the downtown area, basically between Napa and Johnson Street, that each intersection is terribly lit. You cannot see people. And in the last two months, both my wife and I, we drive our car, have had to abruptly stop to take care of, to stop, to avoid hitting dark, clothed individuals who chose to cross the street perfectly properly and go from one side to the other because you can't see them. And I would like to ask the council, and I talked to Joan Cox about this as well, I think it is high time that the council consider placing the kind of light that when you walk in front of it, it brights up. |
| 00:08:24.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:33.20 | Steve Frazier | I had one I didn't even know about, one of my kids stuck it on the house, and now it turns on every time I go up the stairs. Great idea, but the city does not have it. And you are, just as I think you are prone to have a fatality, you know, later with some pedestrian on downtown, this is even more likely, because more unexpected. So I would ask the council to think and maybe talk to Mr. Goldman about coming up with a recommendation. I don't think it would be that expected to install, I don't know what they're called, sudden lights so that they illuminate the intersection when it is being crossed in the evening after 6 o'clock there. I think you will save a life eventually. I think that's something that's really been concerning me recently, and I think it should concern you. But take a look at it, drive down to Johnson Street, and you will see what I mean. It's generally dark and poorly lit, and it doesn't have to be. |
| 00:09:42.93 | Mayor Withey | Thank you, Mr. Fraser. Is there any other member of the public who would like to comment on any matter that's not on tonight's agenda? Okay, with that, we'll move on. Action minutes of the previous meeting. Do we have a motion to approve, are there any suggested changes? Yes, Vice Mayor. |
| 00:10:08.31 | Joe Burns | Your mic's not on. |
| 00:10:11.75 | Joan Cox | I recused myself from that discussion. |
| 00:10:17.99 | Mayor Withey | Joan, I'm Jessup. Just in your microphone a second, okay? OK. Do you want? Okay. Thank you. So item, that was item two. |
| 00:10:31.38 | Joan Cox | Item two. under closed session. |
| 00:10:37.11 | Mayor Withey | Oh, yes, of course, yeah. This is minutes of the council meeting. I'm looking at Mary to, yeah. Okay, thank you, Joan, for that. Clarification. |
| 00:10:53.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:55.34 | Mayor Withey | Any other comments? Okay, could we have a motion to approve the minutes with that modification? |
| 00:11:05.12 | Jill Hoffman | some moves |
| 00:11:06.63 | Mayor Withey | Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. |
| 00:11:08.72 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 00:11:11.61 | Mayor Withey | Okay, item four is the consent calendar. These are matters listed are usually routine and non-controversial and should require no discussion. are expected to have unanimous council support, apart from when they don't. So is there, before I poll the council, I do have at least one card from the public, and I, in fact, have now two cards from the public to talk about the consent calendar. So why don't I take the public comment first, and I'll listen to council concerns. Keith Stoneking. |
| 00:12:00.27 | Keith Stoneking | Thank you mayor and thank you council members. I'm going to talk about SB 35 I am glad to see that the council is opposing the SB 35 because it takes away. our ability to handle our real estate matters here in Sausalito and we've given too much to Sacramento so we need to keep and let Sacramento know that we want control we're not going to give up our control for that Now, in regards to related bills SB2 and SB3. I'm against they're approving these two because if you read the bills closely and get into the detail and I've hadn't had a chance to get totally in the detail. but if SB2 passes and SB3 passes, then whether SB35 passes or not it will be brought in under those two bills. So we have to be again we would end up giving away our local control that's number one but number two we're going to end up putting debt on the average homeowner as well as we're going to incur debt that future generations are going to have to pay off that we made the deal because we made this kind of deal so all three bills are not good for ourselves for the community for the state so i urge you very strongly i urge the public here very strongly to write our settlement and tell him vote no on these things thank you |
| 00:13:55.02 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:13:55.60 | Keith Stoneking | Uh, |
| 00:13:56.03 | Mayor Withey | Thank you, Keith. Wendy Richards. |
| 00:14:03.68 | Wendy Richards | Thank you. I concur with Keith's points that he just made. I am a strong advocate of local control. We elect you to represent Sausalito. We are a unique city and we are here to sustain the uniqueness of our city. I'm gonna speak directly to SB two and three. I believe those two letters should be removed from the consent calendar altogether. The staff reports on these two are incomplete. Neither of these two staff reports discusses the impact on the residents, the taxpayers, the homeowners, or any of the costs of who will pay for these bills. Now, if you want to comment on Sacramento work, then we need to have enough time for the staff to present to the public what these taxes will actually mean. Let me give you an example. They're looking to add tax on the death of a spouse. I have first hand experience with that. The average tax would go from $36 to $261. When my husband passed away a few years ago, I didn't even get that much from Social Security. Social Security paid $242 to the widow. So, Taxable income, this bill would add 261 after tax cost. Now that's just a dot, that is just a tiny piece. The other bill is talking about a $4 billion lending package that before Labor Day weekend was $3 billion. This is... Those both bills are unacceptable and I believe these two letters should come off the consent calendar and disappear altogether. If you wish to proceed with them, then we would need to have our staff do complete work and inform the residents of the impact of these. This is essentially taxation without representation if we don't inform the people of the impact of these taxes. So thank you for the positions on local control, and as Keith has said, I oppose your letters on 2 and 3. Thank you very much. |
| 00:16:27.86 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. I have no other cards. Is there any other member of the public who would like to comment on the consent calendar? Okay. See none. Let's bring it back up here. I'd like to make the suggestion that we move items for I and J off of the consent calendar, and we need to make the decision whether we're just going to take no action on them. We're going to move it to either an item first thing Um, this evening before Joan leaves us, or we vote on it. So what do we want to do? |
| 00:17:14.08 | Jill Hoffman | I agree that those two items need to come off the consent calendar, but I'm willing to listen to what to do after that. I'm just... |
| 00:17:22.96 | Joe Burns | Agree to remove. |
| 00:17:23.87 | Mayor Withey | Okay. Vice Mayor Cox, would you be able to, I know, let me explain to everybody in the room. Vice Mayor Cox has to recuse herself from business item number five. And so she will be dropping off the call when we get to the public hearing item. If we remove, Vice Mayor, if we remove items for IJ, do you want to, you sort of took the lead on liaison on the legislative stuff, do you want to bring it up as an immediate matter after consent or should we just drop it? What do you want to do? |
| 00:18:09.03 | Joan Cox | I would be inclined to drop it to afford an opportunity to provide a more complete staff report if it's something that the agenda setting committee wants to continue to pursue. |
| 00:18:22.49 | Mayor Withey | Okay. So sounds like everybody's happy with that. So we're looking for a motion then to approve items 4A through H of the consent calendar. |
| 00:18:35.60 | Jill Hoffman | So moved. Second. |
| 00:18:37.71 | Mayor Withey | All in favor. |
| 00:18:38.79 | Mary Wagner | Aye. Aye. Mr. Mayor, I apologize. |
| 00:18:40.04 | Mayor Withey | Aye. Oh, sorry, I made a mistake. Under the abundance of caution by which we operate, it's necessary to have that vote by roll call. I apologize, sorry, I didn't do that. So this is in connection with the motions that are on the table in connection with items 4A through H. So Lily, would you call the roll please? Thank you. |
| 00:19:09.88 | Unknown | Council member Burns. |
| 00:19:11.48 | Mayor Withey | Yes. |
| 00:19:11.87 | Unknown | Council member Hoffman. Yes, vice mayor Cox. Yes. Mayor with you. |
| 00:19:16.95 | Mayor Withey | Yes. Okay, that motion passes 4-0, and we're taking no action on items 4, I and J. Okay, item number five is a public hearing item and on a procedural matter, Vice Mayor Cox will be recusing herself. Do you want to say anything, Joan, before we? |
| 00:19:40.72 | Joan Cox | No, I heard an earlier version of this application as a planning commissioner and so I am recusing myself from the city council consideration of the later iteration of. that we're going to have to |
| 00:19:56.74 | Mayor Withey | Okay. |
| 00:19:56.77 | Joan Cox | Okay. And thank you very much. Thank you. I'm going to hang up now. |
| 00:19:58.95 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. All right, thanks a lot. |
| 00:20:01.51 | Joan Cox | Bye, gentlemen. |
| 00:20:18.58 | Mayor Withey | Okay, moving on, item number five is a public hearing, which is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a design review permit tree removal permit, parcel map and condominium conversion permit and encroachment agreement. Thank you. relating to 446-448 Sausalito Boulevard and 77 Crescent Avenue. This has been continued from July 11th, 2017. And I hope I haven't just stolen all your thunder, Calvin. Thank you. Chan, our community associate planner with community development. Thank you. |
| 00:21:00.85 | Unknown | Thank you Mayor Withey, members of the council, members of the public. |
| 00:21:03.53 | Mayor Withey | Oh. Thank you. Sorry, Calvin. Sorry, I made the mistake last time. Does anybody have any ex-party communication to disclose on this matter since the last meeting? |
| 00:21:18.43 | Jill Hoffman | No, I don't believe I do. |
| 00:21:19.87 | Mayor Withey | I know. No, I have none either. OK. Sorry, Calvin, please. |
| 00:21:25.38 | Unknown | Thank you, council members. |
| 00:21:30.82 | Unknown | For staff's presentation this evening regarding the HALAB Residence Appeal, I've broken it down into five hopefully easily digestible portions of this presentation. It has been requested of staff to provide a full representation of the project at this hearing this evening. So I will be recapping the history and the design progress from the initial outset of this project. It is my intent to provide this comprehensive review, but if at any moment the council wishes for staff to proceed a little quicker or to even refer back to other items we can discuss in greater detail. So I will begin by providing some background information regarding the timeline and some milestones that this project has experienced. In December of 2016, the Planning Commission denied a design review permit subject to heightened design review for substantial demolition and remodel of the existing two-unit residential dwelling at 446-448 Sausalito Boulevard, as well as the construction of a new single-family residence at 77 Crescent. Three prior hearings were conducted in June, September and November of 2016. Ultimately, the Planning Commission felt that four of the design review permit findings could not be made. These would be findings 1, 3, 6 and 12. |
| 00:22:47.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:53.42 | Unknown | After the Planning Commission's December 15 denial of the project on December 27th, the property owner filed an appeal of this Planning Commission decision. |
| 00:23:04.86 | Unknown | In early January, this is when the City Council first became aware of this project and was brought forward in a public hearing. The January 24th public hearing considered the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of this project. The City Council provided direction both to the appellant and applicant as well as the Planning Commission. The direction provided was for the appellant and the applicant to revise the scale and mass of the new single family residential dwelling at 77 Crescent. And for the planning commission to review the revised design, determine if the requisite design review findings could be made, and to forward that recommendation back to council for further review. |
| 00:23:49.88 | Unknown | In response to the City Council's direction, the project team did prepare a revised project, and this was reviewed on May 31st by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission conducted this public hearing in response to the City Council's direction and reviewed the project with regard to whether or not it still posed issues of excessive scale and mass. The Planning Commission focused on three design review permit findings, 1, 3, and 12, that were part of the basis for the original project denial and found that these findings were unable to be made. At our last hearing with the Council in July 11th of 2017, the City Council conducted a public hearing, considered the appeal, reviewed the Planning Commission's made determination, and continued the hearing for further consideration of all the entitlements requested by this project. Moving into the second part of this presentation, I'll now recap some of the entitlements that are requested by this project. |
| 00:24:57.92 | Unknown | The project requests the following entitlements. A design review permit, which is subject to heightened design review for the substantial demolition and remodel of the existing two-unit residential dwelling. That's 446-448-Sausalito and the construction of a new single-family residence, 77 Crescent. A tree removal permit for the removal of three protected trees and six heritage trees. A parcel map and condo conversion permit to convert the property into a three-unit condominium project, and an encroachment agreement for improvements in the public right-of-ways fronting both Sausalito Boulevard and Crescent Avenue. |
| 00:25:37.26 | Unknown | Moving on into the next section of our presentation, recapping the project, I'll show some slides that have already been shown at our January and July presentations. I'll move through these pretty quickly. If you'd like me to go over something in greater detail, please let me know. |
| 00:25:56.31 | Unknown | Here is the existing site plan. The site is 8,493 square feet. The project site is a rhombus-shaped lot. And Sausalito Boulevard is located to the south. And the parcel slopes steeply down to the north towards Crescent Avenue. |
| 00:26:15.65 | Unknown | In 2014, the zoning administrator approved a lot line adjustment between the two properties at 446-448 Sausalito and 452 Sausalito. The lot line adjustment increased the size of the subject property by approximately 655 square feet, bringing the parcel size to its current 8,493 square feet. Within this R2 2.5 zoning district, the minimum parcel size is 5,000 square feet. So what that means for our project today is that it could not be subdivided any further into two separate parcels. |
| 00:26:51.56 | Unknown | Reviewing the site location, the parcel is developed with a two-unit residential dwelling, which is located towards the southern portion of this parcel. In order of decreasing elevation, the existing four-level structure on Sausalito Boulevard is organized with a carport and parking deck at the street level, 446 unit second level below that, 446 unit first level below that, and at the very bottom, 448 unit main floor level. The living areas for these two dwellings are located below the street grade of Sausalito Boulevard. Four total parking spaces are provided for these two units, two spaces for each dwelling, and this is via existing tandem parking configuration in the carport and the parking deck. Enclosed crawl spaces are provided below this residence. |
| 00:27:49.12 | Unknown | The southeastern corner of this existing residential structure partially encroaches onto the adjacent property at 440 and 442 Sausalu Boulevard. The adjacent property owner is aware of the project and has provided authorization for the project to continue, which would remove these encroachments from their property, subject to the securement of all necessary entitlements. |
| 00:28:15.04 | Unknown | Here is the proposed site plan as was presented in January 2017 to the City Council. You see the substantial demolition and remodel of the existing two unit residence at 446-448 Sausalito and the construction of a new single family residence on 77 Crescent. |
| 00:28:37.60 | Unknown | Here's a rendering of the overall project with view from Crescent Avenue. And keep in mind these are slides from January 2017, which have been subsequently modified. And I'll go through those changes in a few minutes. |
| 00:28:52.99 | Unknown | A Google Earth photo showing the existing conditions of the 446-448 Sausalito Boulevard units as viewed from Crescent Avenue. |
| 00:29:06.24 | Unknown | and the rendering of the proposed 446, 448, also little Boulevard units. The project includes the remodel with a substantial demolition of the existing two-unit residential structure. Overall, the project scope in this area is a reorganization of the interior and exterior living spaces. The total floor area decreases approximately 4.3%. And the building coverage will remain relatively similar, a 52-square-foot decrease. However, the massing for 446 and 448 Sausalito will be modified. |
| 00:29:44.44 | Unknown | Here's a photo showing the existing conditions of 44648 Sausalito as viewed from Sausalito Boulevard. |
| 00:29:55.24 | Unknown | a rendering of the proposed entry on Sausalito Boulevard. The flat roof of the existing carport on Sausalito Boulevard is proposed to be removed and replaced with a new shed roof design, which slants downward north. And the entryway is also proposed to be remodeled with access from the carport and from entry steps leading down from Sausalito Boulevard. |
| 00:30:19.95 | Unknown | or prior renderings of the 77 Crescent new single family residence. At this stage of the project, the project proposed a 2,352 square foot single family residence. The floor area ratio was 0.277, a building coverage of 23.3%, and a building height of 28 feet 7. It was a four-bedroom, four-level residence that was set into the steep hillside along Crescent Avenue. |
| 00:30:50.44 | Unknown | Here's another rendering of the proposed project at 77 Crescent viewing west. |
| 00:31:01.31 | Unknown | Displayed on the screen is the landscaping plan for the proposed project. The applicant is requesting a tree removal permit for the removal of three protected trees, as well as six heritage trees to accommodate the new development and to also comply with Southern Marin Fire Protection Management goals. The overall landscape design and arrangement of the new plantings is Japanese-inspired and drought tolerant for the site. |
| 00:31:31.21 | Unknown | A series of stairs and landings are proposed on the western portion of the property leading downhill from Sausalito Boulevard towards Crescent Avenue. The stairs leading down from Sausalito Boulevard will be used to access 448 Sausalito. The project also proposes a new public parking space parallel to Saussello Boulevard. You'll see in the circle in the purple. And the proposed parking space is located in the public right of way and subject to securement of the encroachment agreement. The subject space is not utilized to satisfy any parking requirements for this project. |
| 00:32:08.93 | Unknown | Staff notes that there was a prior encroachment agreement from 1987, which was approved for stairs, driveway, ramp, adjacent pedestrian access platform, and sidewalk and minor planting at 446-448 Saucedo Boulevard. As part of this current project, with new drawings and survey data that clarify the location of the public right-of-way and proposed structures, a new encroachment agreement is requested. |
| 00:32:36.64 | Unknown | In January of 2017, the project team submitted revised entry stair design to reduce the coverage of the encroachments along South Hill Boulevard. And circled in the purple is what that revised site plan looked like. |
| 00:32:52.57 | Unknown | And I'll speed through some of the project evolution aspects that this project experienced while going through three different Planning Commission hearings. The first hearing on June 22nd of 2016, it was at this hearing that the Planning Commission provided 10 points of direction for the project team to consider. In response to these 10 planning commission directions, the project team submitted a revised project plan, and this was reviewed at the September 21st hearing. The project team responded with 13 different points for revision. |
| 00:33:34.59 | Unknown | At the second Planning Commission public hearing for this project on September 21st, the Planning Commission provided five points of direction. |
| 00:33:46.46 | Unknown | And at the November 16th hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised design. The design changes pertain to the 77 Crescent Avenue development. The floor area was decreased. The building coverage was also decreased, as well as the impervious surface was increased for 77 Crescent. |
| 00:34:09.50 | Unknown | In comparison to the original project plans that were presented in June of 2016, the project plans that were reviewed by the Planning Commission last showed a decrease in building height coverage, floor area and impervious surface in addition to all the other landscaping and design modifications previously presented. |
| 00:34:34.20 | Unknown | You have the original design on the left-hand side of the screen and ultimately denied design reviewed in November and acted on December on the lower right. |
| 00:34:48.95 | Unknown | Here in larger scale is the original design. |
| 00:34:54.81 | Unknown | And the design that was ultimately denied by the Planning Commission. |
| 00:35:04.28 | Unknown | There are 13 different design review permit findings and 7 heightened design review findings that must be made in order to approve the design review permit. In the Planning Commission's denial of the project, they focused on 4 different findings, 1, 3, 6 and 12. The Planning Commission could not make 4 of these 13 required findings and in December of 2016, they adopted a resolution to deny the project. |
| 00:35:33.49 | Unknown | Moving forward into 2017, Thank you. Again, this is when the city council first considered the appeal and provided direction in January of 2017. Thank you. Direction was provided to the appellant applicant and also for the planning commission. |
| 00:35:49.45 | Unknown | Moving ahead, I'll go into some more project evolution, utilizing slides that were presented in July of 17 to this body. |
| 00:36:00.62 | Unknown | In response to the City Council's January 2017 direction, the project team submitted revised project plans that aim to reduce the scale and mass of this project. The revisions of the project are limited to the Crescent Avenue residents. |
| 00:36:17.14 | Unknown | Greater separation between the structures and to allow for more planting area. Those were areas that the project team explored and circled in red are where the changes are shown. |
| 00:36:30.64 | Unknown | The roof access stairs circled in red here were removed as part of the revised project plan. And you can see here on this screen. The main deck and the master suite were reconfigured and now terminate in curved retaining walls and planters. speed through some of these other changes. The height of the overall structure was also reduced, as this resulted in significant ceiling reductions for this residence. |
| 00:37:03.41 | Unknown | a site section photo with a red line indicating the line of the natural grade site section looking south here. |
| 00:37:18.47 | Unknown | Some of the architectural banding on the top of the residence was also decreased. And the garage level was raised by two feet. The color scheme of the home was lightened from a darker brown to a lighter brown. And the metal phasias were also painted in a different color. |
| 00:37:40.30 | Unknown | The table display compares the previous denied project to the current revised project and notes the specific changes. The project does remain subject to heightened design review as it exceeds 80% of the total permitted building coverage as well as floor area. |
| 00:38:00.76 | Unknown | In response to the City Council's direction, the Planning Commission conducted their public hearing in May 31st, a study session, and they found that the revised project still cannot make these particular design review permit findings, 1, 3, and 12. These were part of the basis for the original December 2016 project denial and are included in the draft resolution. |
| 00:38:27.79 | Unknown | Planning Commission, again, they recognized the efforts of the project team made, but ultimately felt that the changes were not significant enough in order to make the requisite design review permit findings. |
| 00:38:41.19 | Unknown | Recapping our last meeting that happened in July 11th of 2017, the Planning Commission conducted this hearing. Consider the appeal, review the Planning Commission's direction, and continue the public hearing to this evening in order to consider all the entitlements requested by this project. Moving into section 4 of our presentation. |
| 00:39:04.63 | Unknown | the motions, the recommended motions and options for action. The City Council may deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the project. The City Council may deny the appeal and deny the project and provide staff specific direction to craft a resolution for denial. The City Council may uphold the appeal and improve the project subject to the revised 77 Crescent Avenue design, or the City Council may continue the public hearing for further consideration. |
| 00:39:34.04 | Unknown | Displayed on the screen is a rendering that you can see an aerial view of the entire site. Here's another view of that. with the project circled in red. |
| 00:39:53.29 | Steve Frazier | The Press is on the right |
| 00:39:55.99 | Mayor Withey | um, let's, |
| 00:40:01.34 | Mayor Withey | Mr. Fraser, you'll have plenty of opportunity to comment. Please, Calvin. |
| 00:40:09.26 | Unknown | So moving on to the findings required by this project. These are the entitlements that we've already discussed, the design review permit, tree removal permit, parcel map condo conversion permit, as well as the encroachment agreement. In total, there are 46 different findings that need to be made in order to approve the project. All findings for each entitlement must be made in order to approve the project. If it is determined that any one of these 46 findings cannot be made, the project cannot be approved. Staff has ready the three design review permit findings that the Planning Commission could not make. The Council can agree to these three denial findings. They can modify or reverse these findings and can also decide upon any of the other 46 findings. |
| 00:41:02.08 | Unknown | In your last city council staff report, staff did provide staff drafted findings for approval of these entitlements, all 46 of the findings. And you can find them in your packet this evening as attachments 2A and 2B. I'll conclude my presentation, again, showing the recommended motions and options for action this evening. That concludes my presentation. And staff is available for any questions you may have. |
| 00:41:27.61 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Excuse me. So let's open this up for questions from the dais, if any. Maybe I'll kick off and... In going through this again, and I wanted to just clarify the nature of the denial for finding number is it 12? The heightened design review? Yeah, 12. Okay. So, How does this finding work, then the individual finding of heightened design review? In the sense that heightened design review only kicks in in a sense, because of the nature of the findings, once you've either approved the, you can make the first 11 findings. Is that right? Can you expand on that a little bit? Because I know in the last hearing, a comment was made that there was no elaboration of the heightened design review findings, and therefore, so explain to me how 12 interacts with then all the subsequent heightened design review findings, if you could. |
| 00:42:46.74 | Unknown | Sure. So the project is subject to heightened design review because it exceeds 80% of the maximum allowed building coverage as well as floor area for the site. You have your 13 design review permit findings. Finding number 12 for design review permit talks about and leads to the specific findings for heightened design review. So if a project meets heightened design review, you have to answer the first 13 design review perm findings as well as the subsequent seven that go along with that. It's heightened, as the name suggests. |
| 00:43:20.86 | Mayor Withey | So there's nothing particularly unusual if a planning commission can't make findings one or two or whatever. that they don't then study in detail the height design review findings, is that correct? |
| 00:43:38.02 | Unknown | I would say if the Planning Commission were unable to make all 13 design review permit findings, they would not be able to make the heightened design review findings either. |
| 00:43:45.90 | Mayor Withey | Okay, thank you. Any other questions? |
| 00:43:52.63 | Mayor Withey | Any questions? Thank you. stuff okay Before we move on, thank you very much, Calvin. That's the end of the staff presentation. Thank you very much. |
| 00:44:04.83 | Unknown | Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:44:07.62 | Mayor Withey | Now before we proceed, could I have the City Attorney, remind us please how much time the applicant has to present. And then after the applicant presents, the council will ask any questions of the applicant. as I understand it, then we will open this up for public comment and then there's presumably some time that the applicant has to respond if they wish to public comment. With that said, how does it work timing wise? |
| 00:44:40.91 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and you're correct. The applicant's entire team has 10 minutes to present the project. You'll then take public comment, which is three minutes per speaker. The applicant then has five minutes to present again, and any time that they spend responding to city council questions doesn't count against their allotted time. |
| 00:45:03.51 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. So with that, I would ask the applicant to please make their presentation. Thank you. Welcome, John. |
| 00:45:22.85 | John McCoy | Hello? OK. All right. Thank you, council members. My name is John McCoy with McCoy Architecture Incorporated. I'm the project architect on this project. I don't have a lot to present tonight at the conclusion of our previous hearing with this body, these three members of this body. It was stated that they would subsequently follow up with staff with a more specific direction to staff as to what they were looking for. We never, and we followed up with staff numerous times, and we never heard any, feedback from that. So it was our assumption that this body was reviewing tentative maps, kind of medium conversions, tree removal, a lot of the development rights and findings that we didn't discuss last time. So we really didn't come with a proposal. We're here to answer questions. I want to jump really quickly to what Mayor Withey brought up as far as finding 12, because I brought it up last time. And finding 12 was a bit of a mystery to us at that time as well, just like you, because they said heightened design review findings could not be made, but they didn't say specifically which ones. So if that is just a relay back to the standard design review findings, we're looking at two findings that couldn't be made because the one regarding landscape, both the Planning Commission and this body all agreed have been addressed already. um, With that said, we were looking at the two design refining, which I think we addressed elaborately at the last hearing. I do have the same presentation with me on a thumb drive if we want to go through the whole thing again, but I'm not sure that we need to, but if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer those. The only thing I want to bring up, I just want to do a quick recap of a couple things, just a few highlights of the history of this project that when it was originally submitted to the planning department, it was part of the state of California and PG&E's microgrid, off-the-grid, environmentally efficient standards for an urban slash suburban development. And they actually, and I stated this last time, told us that it could actually be used as a model for that type of development. Over the course of the project, we've had to remove a lot of that, diminishing of the project we did it for neighbor input as well as planning Commission input we've also reduced before I say that let me back up the majority of the discussion was regarding 77 crescent we've reduced that structure significantly both in height by over 8 feet 8 foot 3 8 foot 2 and 3 quarters to be specific and we've reduced the square footage by 23.47% I believe so almost a quarter of the house has been removed in the volume and over 8 feet in the height so we feel we've gone to great lengths to reduce the mass of this and you can see by these renderings here that is, and the one he showed previously, which I can try to flip back to. THE END OF THE END OF THE The reason we did a bird's eye view is because it's the only time you really see them all together, specifically with the other homes in the neighborhood for a comparison. And we can look at those slides if we need to. |
| 00:48:44.64 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:48:44.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:49.73 | John McCoy | So we went through great lengths to reduce the size and mass of 77 Crescent so that obviously originally we did feel that it was compatible with the neighborhood, but we hope that it made it more compatible and palatable for the surrounding neighborhood. And the one main thing that I want to say that I feel was my error last time that I didn't really discuss in depth was when we look at this site, and this was brought up by members of this body, And they talk about the two buildings and how they relate and how many stories there are when you start from Crescent. This is the only site that is a street to street lot from Sausalito Boulevard down to Crescent. This is the only one. And that's why two structures on this site may at first glance appear, Um... to require heightened review and by code it does and we're not arguing that. But I want to just make that point that it's the only property that is street to street. As you go down Crescent, you will see homes on Crescent. When you look above those homes, you will see homes on properties on Sausalito Boulevard. So it is not out of character for either Crescent or Sausalito Boulevard. in this whole neighborhood up and down Crescent, when you look at homes on Crescent, And you look above them, there are homes on South Sudo Boulevard above them. So this is very similar, if not identical, to much of the development that has already occurred along Crescent and South Sudo Boulevard. Not to mention that our home on Crescent Avenue is smaller than a great many of the new and And even some of the older homes along Crescent Boulevard as well. our home on Salcido Boulevard, we've reduced the square footage, reduced the height minimally, but it's, you know, the design called for it. So we can call it the same, that's fine. We've taken it out of when the existing home was encroaching, not just into the setback, but actually beyond the property line. We've remedied that. And brought it back into our, not just within our property line, but within our setback. So that this project requires no variances and no exceptions. And that was very deliberate on our part, working with our client, and he was very open to doing that, despite some of the construction challenges that it will present when we build this home. I think those are the main points I want to make. We're happy to answer any questions. We can bring up slides from the previous, we haven't made any changes. That's where we're at now. If you've had a chance to go back and review all of the other findings that need to be made and development rights that some of you said you wanted to look into further, we can discuss those if required. But that's our presentation for now. |
| 00:51:32.34 | Mayor Withey | Thank you very much. Do we have any questions of the applicant, the appellate? No, the applicant, sorry, at this point. Both. Before we hear public comment. Nope, yeah, both, that's right. Sorry, John. Okay, so you have four minutes left. Oh, no, please, you've got four minutes. |
| 00:51:42.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:42.94 | Unknown | both. |
| 00:51:43.19 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:07.12 | Steve Frazier | Steve Frazier, I am the attorney for the applicant and I only have a very, very brief comment to make. First of all, this is one lot. I don't know quite why it ended up being bigger than many of the other lots, but as one lot it is entitled to a certain number of structures and units and this is within those parameters. Uh, I would just echo the comments of the architect, that it is no different. Along Crescent are homes equal in size, some larger, few smaller, but mostly larger, right next to each other. The Trestle House and 77. There's no difference except that the Trestle House is more massive. But coming to the end of it, I concluded that what is going on here has been a confusion between the number of structures allowed on the property and the number of living units. Three condominium living units are allowed on the lot. That's the law. But there are only two structures. There's one above, as you can see here, and there's one below that is the identical pattern along all of Crescent Avenue. There's nothing new here. The impression you would get from reading some of the correspondence is that, oh, well, we're going to load it up with three structures. But that is not true. It is only two, the same as everywhere else. And from which I can only draw the conclusion that ultimately, and it's pretty clear from the letters, the neighbors, God bless them, do not want anything built on this area of green space. I understand that. Maybe I would have that point of view if I lived there. But that's not the law. That's the desire. And this project is no different than their own homes, period, if you take Saucedo Boulevard and Crescent. And I would simply, that's the perspective. It's just confusing the number of living units, which is not really debatable, and the number of structures. Thank you. |
| 00:54:32.92 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:54:36.73 | Mayor Withey | Okay, any questions of the applicant before we seek public comment? Okay, so I have, Three cards here. There may be more of you who want to speak. So I'll call you in order and then if anybody else wants to speak, then please do so and we can fill in a card later, okay? So the first person |
| 00:55:07.55 | Mayor Withey | And I'm sorry about reading handwriting, I'm not very good at this, so I apologize. So, Kate Thling, Perrier, sorry, I'm so sorry. |
| 00:55:20.90 | Kathan Pryser | No, it's OK. Caitlin Preiser. |
| 00:55:23.33 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. So sorry. |
| 00:55:24.47 | Kathan Pryser | No, it happens all the time with my name. Even if I had written it clearly, you would have had a hard time with it. So my name's Kathan Pryser. I live at 75 Crescent. And I've written a number of letters on behalf of myself and my neighbors, which I'm sure You've read all of, so I don't want to go over each point, and obviously I don't have time, even if I wanted to, but I think I have two. two main points that I want to make tonight. One is that there seems to have been a suggestion Along the way, IN communications from the applicant and communications from. other neighbors who are supporting this project, that he hasn't gotten a fair shake. throughout this designer view process, and I just find that to be inaccurate and misleading because He's, by my count, and when Calvin was going through it, I counted again to make sure I was right. He's had three chances to submit. a design that's acceptable to the Planning Commission. he's so he's made one design and then he's had two chances to revise and so he's gotten three denials and each time in large part, not all of it, but in large part because of the mass and scale of this building, which is my principal objection to the design. As Commissioner Warner said last time, it looks like an office building and it really does. It just doesn't fit. Doesn't fit our neighborhood. I'm not sure where it would fit residentially, but it certainly doesn't fit on Crescent My second, objection is I THINK EVEN in this presentation tonight, we've been talking about a single family home at 77 Crescent. But this lot doesn't allow for a single family home. And I understand that there's now maybe a suggestion that some of the neighbors are confused about how this works. There's a reason, this lot may have been subdividable at some point, but it is no longer. And I assume, I haven't gone through all the history of everything, but I would presume that there's a reason those zoning laws were changed and that there was a lot of process around it and a lot of hefty consideration. So these structures are still being presented as though this lot is two separate lots. There are no arguments about how they relate to each other, there's just an insistence that that they're condos. But they're not condos. They're basically, to me, it seems that what's happening is a two unit structure. And a single family home and they're trying to slap a label of condo on it. And that it's not, even if there are three condos technically allowed zoning wise, It seems to me an effort to subvert the zoning laws to try to present a single family home and a two unit structure when when those lots can no longer be subdividable. Seems like they're trying to present it as though it still is a subdivided lot. |
| 00:58:23.25 | Mayor Withey | OK, thank you very much. |
| 00:58:23.70 | Kathan Pryser | Thank you. |
| 00:58:30.42 | Mayor Withey | Um, Rion Vasquez? Again, please. Sorry. |
| 00:58:39.73 | Rich Vasquez | Rich Vasquez. |
| 00:58:41.64 | Mayor Withey | Rich. Sorry, Rich. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Sorry. |
| 00:58:43.23 | Rich Vasquez | Okay. My name is Rich Vasquez. I live at 69 Crescent, right down the street from the proposed project. I'm totally against the project because of its size and mass and I support the letters that were submitted to you with my name on them for all the reasons, no use going over them. I'm sure you've heard them a number of times. And I feel that the planning Commission. did their job. And they've done the same job for all the other projects that they're talking about. And I was at these hearings when those were built, and the people that built those basically made them conform to the wishes of the Planning Commission. So again, I'm against the project. for all the same reasons that have been presented to you already. Thank you. |
| 00:59:46.07 | Mayor Withey | Thank you, sir. |
| 00:59:49.68 | Mayor Withey | Robert Bray? |
| 00:59:58.56 | Unknown | My name is Bob Braid. I've been living at 95 Crescent Avenue for the last 12 years. I've sent you some correspondence. I'm just going to kind of go over it for a moment. I would like to point out, however, that if you look left and right of the complex of buildings that are proposed, there's green space on both. It's not similar in any sense to the surrounding properties, including mine, which at 95 has probably the same land area available to it with one structure. And yeah, there are houses on Sausalito Boulevard above mine, but I'm not asking anybody to build another house between my house and the Sausalito Boulevard. I would like to say the planning committee has rejected this project twice after careful consideration. They put a lot of time and effort into it. I've appeared here a couple of times before you and I appreciate it. I urge you not to reject the Planning Commission's findings and their hard work. There are at least 10 neighbors who have gone on record as opposing this project. That includes the folks at 69 Crescent, 75, 76, 79, 81, 93, 95, 103, 105, and 111 Crescent Avenue. They've all objected, and I'm sure you've heard from most of them, if not all, by now on the record. Primarily, the project was denied based on its mass and scale and what it constitutes essentially from street level on up stacking one house on top of the others, you've probably got an eight or nine story complex there being charitable. There's nothing else around like that at all. uh, Taken individually, yeah, I'm sure these buildings individually comply with square footage and height requirements and so forth and so on, but you can't stack them on each other like a wedding cake, and we're just asking you to deny this appeal as it's been denied in the past. Thank you very much. |
| 01:01:56.36 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. OK, I'm out of cards. Any other member of the public? Please, sir, at the back. |
| 01:02:10.27 | Chris Peterson | Hi, my name is Chris Peterson. We walked into the middle of this. We actually moved into 89 Crescent just two months ago. Super excited to be in Sausalito, by the way. Um, And the one thing that, and you can add our address to that list. Yeah, thanks. Just make it complete. The one thing that, you know, it took a while to get up to speed on all this, of course. You know, it had been going on for quite a while before we moved in. And I guess the one thing that struck me, and it really echoes what the other people have said, is that I was really struck by how many chances this project has had, how the Planning Commission has put in an incredible amount of time in reviewing this project and still comes back with the same answer. You know, I guess my only request is to, again, respect the decision of the Planning Commission. It's their job to review this thoroughly. I am a little disheartened as a new resident that something like this can just keep going on and on and on. It almost feels like, you know, well, is the trick to getting a permit just wearing people down? Because, you know, sitting through that presentation, I mean, I cannot believe the time, resources, and efforts put into this. Now, maybe that's typical in other places, but that's really the one thing that struck me as kind of the newcomer here. So that's my only request. Thank you very much. |
| 01:03:30.71 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. And if you could fill in a card at some point, sir, that would be great to hand it in to the staff. Is there any other member of the public who'd like to say anything? Okay. In that case, I'll close public comment and bring it back up here. Oh, that's right. Sorry. After I asked how we operate, I was going to cut you off, John. John, you got five minutes. |
| 01:04:00.82 | John McCoy | People do it all the time. So I just want to jump right in. I'll work backwards from Mr. Peterson's comments at 89. If he thinks he's exasperated at the time and effort that's been put into this, believe me, me and my team and my client are as well. We heard from Kate, Rich, Robert, and Chris. Okay, I'll try. And I'm not sure they all did. And I know two of the three of those both spoke of three chances and three denials, which is complete falsehood. As you know how the Planning Commission works, we did have three hearings. We had a singular denial. We worked with them. We reduced the House. We made adjustments. We met with the neighbors. We addressed privacy issues. We did a number of things through that process, and we can't meet daily with the Planning Commission, and nor yourself, as we met over two months ago, and that's why this kind of takes some time. Kate Preiser suggested that the zoning laws had changed to prohibit properties like this from being subdivided. That's, again, completely inaccurate. This property was missurveyed. It was originally. My client's intent to subdivide, but we actually did the work. paid the correct professionals and found out what the reality of this neighborhood actually was and how the how the properties were actually designated within the county, And, and came to the conclusion that this is the best way to develop this property with all of its rights. being, you know, we can put three units and two structures. And again, I don't want to, overly elaborate, but if you go down up and down Crescent, you will see houses on Crescent. Nobody argues that. you will see houses on Sausalito, nobody argues that. We have a house on Crescent, we have a structure on Sausalito Boulevard. Mr. Vasquez, I was taking very quick notes, I don't remember. Something about twice the size. The house on 77 Crescent is half the size of the structure that Mr. Peterson lives in currently. So... Well, there's two units at your structure, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct? Two units? Okay. Thank you. All right. So the structure we're proposing at 77 Crescent would be less or equal to one of those units. So we're well below or at essentially the standard for Crescent Avenue. Mr. Beard, Mr. Braid, again, he stated we rejected twice, which we actually were rejected once, and that's why we came to this body. And I want to get to that a little bit. You guys are put in a tough place, there's no doubt. We understand that there's a planning commission in place to make these decisions. The reason we're here is that we feel that they got it wrong with those two findings that we've talked about. Four, but we've kind of reduced it to two. And that's why we, I've been working in Sausalito since 99. This is my third time before the city council on appeal on over, I don't know how many projects. We don't bring projects to the planning commission that we feel are unapprovable. We've had a recommendation for approval from city staff at every step of the way from the initial application. And those are people who work full time for the city, reviewing the ordinances, reviewing the projects, working with Public Works, working with the fire department, working with every agency that is required to make sure that we meet the standards of the Sausalito Zoning Ordinance, the Sausalito General Plan, and at some point we'll have to meet the California Building Code. So these are people working 40 hours a week, paid for by the city. And they have. recommended approval every step of the way. So this is not something that's far-fetched or one-off or anything like that. If people felt that it was too big, we've reduced it. We've reduced 77 Crescent by almost 25%. And I would ask everybody in this audience, which one-fourth of your house you could lose and still have the house that you enjoy today? And we've been able to do that, you know, because it's not built, because we do design. You know, we have a little advantage there. It's a little unfair question, but it's kind of poignant in that sense. What one-fourth of your house could you lose? And we've lost a fourth of this house already. So with that, I'm going to close my comments and let Steve Frazier make a couple of them. |
| 01:08:36.72 | Steve Frazier | I just had really just one comment. I noticed that some of the speakers felt that you should you know, bless the planning commission's decision, but because it spent a lot of time on the project, and it did, I don't question that. But if that was the case, that you bless a decision that was made down below, then there would be no reason for it to be above. This is a de novo review of a decision. That's what it is, just like a trial court and the next court up. And I can't tell you how many times there are reversals based on a different take on the facts and so forth. So I think that is a poor argument to make that you must approve it because the lower body did it. Sometimes the lower body doesn't get it right. And the second thing that I want to say to pick up on what you may. If you could finish your thought. Yeah, very quick. The finding number 12, my objection, I was the one who raised that objection the last time, because there are five subcategories. The commission did not reference one. It just blew over them. So that should certainly not count as a category to be considered. |
| 01:09:34.21 | Mayor Withey | If you could finish your thought. |
| 01:09:56.39 | Steve Frazier | Thank you. |
| 01:09:56.44 | Mayor Withey | Thank you, Mr. Fraser. |
| 01:10:01.82 | Mayor Withey | Okay. We've closed public comment and we've heard the response from the applicant. We'll bring it back up here. I have a question for Calvin, if I may. I know we did this last time, but I'd just like us Everybody. To once again, let's have it crystal clear about the overall entitlements to density, the number of dwellings allowed on this lot. There's been suggestions in some of the letters that we've received that this lot is not, you're not able to build a second structure on it. There's other issues that relate. So could you just tell us what the actual zoning ordinance says? What our general plan says? What our zoning ordinance says so that there's no confusion in that matter? |
| 01:11:04.31 | Unknown | Absolutely. me one moment like to pull up the project summary table if you'd like to look for in your packet it is Attachment 9 of your staff report page 1 of 3. |
| 01:11:42.84 | Unknown | So this property is located within the single family, two family residential zoning district R22.5. Let's see if I can point to it with a mouse. The parcel area is 8,493 square feet. The ordinance requires the parcel area to be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. It is currently a two-family residential. The ordinance allows single-family and two-family residential development in the zoning district. The proposal is for single-family and two-family residential in this district. The ordinance requires at least a minimum of 2,500 square feet for each dwelling unit, so at least 7,500 square feet in order to develop three dwelling units, which this project proposes, three dwelling units in 8,492 square feet. It would not be possible to add a fourth unit because then you would need at least 10,000 square feet. |
| 01:12:44.82 | Mayor Withey | And is there any limitation to, so I understand in terms of density in dwelling units, is there any limitation to the number of structures, so long as you don't exceed the number of dwelling units per? |
| 01:12:57.15 | Unknown | No, so long as you don't exceed the number of dwelling units as allowed by our zoning ordinance. |
| 01:13:01.93 | Mayor Withey | Okay, so the fact that there is a lower structure proposed on Crescent is perfectly within the zoning ordinance? Yes. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:13:13.44 | Keith Stoneking | Yeah. |
| 01:13:14.72 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:13:14.75 | Joe Burns | Please. Kelvin, we have staff here and we don't have planning commission to ask questions on, but obviously staff recommends this project. Great. |
| 01:13:26.03 | Unknown | At our very first Planning Commission public hearing in, I think, June of 2016, staff did provide a recommendation for approval of this project. Okay. |
| 01:13:35.75 | Joe Burns | When you go through your recommendation, process, you look at the items that we're looking at here as well as far as the findings and particularly scale and mass of the project. Yes. When you do that, AS ANYBODY WOULD DO THAT. in a character neighborhood. two buildings side by side. You're looking at the scale of those two with, do you consider if one has an ADU or is a duplex, is the number of units in those two buildings considered when you're comparing their scale and mass if they're side by side as far as neighborhood character? |
| 01:14:14.98 | Unknown | I think there's many ways staff could answer this question. I think for me personally as a planner, numbers do mean something. You have to meet your development standards or else the project can't proceed just past that initial phase. That's why we do our completeness review when an application comes in. |
| 01:14:30.32 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:14:30.62 | Unknown | But numbers are numbers. At the end of the day, you have to look at how this project relates to the houses next to it, above it. Not so much below it for this case, but you have to look in every direction. Thank you. |
| 01:14:43.16 | Joe Burns | But in particular, when you're given the aesthetic of the scale, you're considering those numbers as well. |
| 01:14:49.96 | Unknown | Absolutely. Numbers are part of our analysis. In the scale, okay. |
| 01:14:54.60 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:14:54.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:57.81 | Mayor Withey | OK, that answered my question. Is there any other questions of staff? No. OK, thank you, Calvin. Okay. Okay, so. I think... I, let me just, |
| 01:15:16.15 | Mayor Withey | Can you just summarize, give you a perspective? In the last meeting, we suggested that we were not ready to make a decision. I think a number of us were, or at least one of us, two of us perhaps, was not ready to make a decision. The reason for my, I can't speak for my other council members, but the other council members, but the reason why I was grateful for a poll to think about this some more was that In the... The Planning Commission had basically reviewed a proposal by the applicant in response to the City Council having looked at it and said, Focus on 77 Crescent and see what you can do there to reduce the scale in mass. And what was driving me in that was that you weren't changing the footprint of the upper of the Sausalito Boulevard one. And so there was an overall desire to look at The whole lot and the whole development But we asked you to focus on 77 because we thought that's where some movement could be made in terms of the structure. Now I know that there are some of the neighbors on Crescent who believe there should not be a structure there. And why I specifically wanted to ask staff to make sure and to clarify for everybody concerned that THE APPLICANT, You know. It has a right to build a structure there. Um, construction inconveniences, the whole mitigation of that, are all things that the city take care of. Fundamentally, I didn't want the concept that a structure can't be built here to be in the record unchallenged, because it is important that you understand that it can. I must have a lot of time on my hands, because I went back and reviewed all the Planning Commission hearings again, and I listened to our City Council meeting again. And the thing that I ended up that was striking can be actually shown on that picture there and on the one that was the title page. because I realised that what the Planning Commission was saying in, perhaps they could have been a bit more direct, but they were trying to get across that you've got to look at the fact that this is one lot and you've got to look at the overall neighborhood. And Therefore, The nature of your architect absolutely made props a key point. It's the only through property. It's the only property that's a through lot. It's the only one that's a through lot. But it can't be subdivided. And that must mean something. That has a consequence. And to me, the consequence is that you can't look at the Crescent Avenue neighborhood immediately and actually say that this The structure here can be the same size as its neighbors. Because in the overall context of the topology of the hillside, the fact that you've got this very sharp turn, the fact that you're putting a third dwelling unit onto this means that, in fact, in my view, this structure needs to be more modest in size. And therefore, I've actually come around to agreeing with the Planning Commission that with findings, in particular finding number one and number two, I think heightened design review finding is not relevant here because... I can't even make the initial design review findings, so I'm not going to do that. Fundamentally, as I look back and listen to every presentation and listen to every comment, And this is the essence of this, I think, decision. In one of the, I can't remember which date, Planning Commissioner Morgan Peirce basically said He could, there was something bothering him about it. He couldn't quite figure it out. And then it suddenly dawned on him as he was walking through the neighborhood that, It's the top floor of this building. It's the fact that of the number of levels you've put here that makes this, especially if you look at it from the angle that was shown on the introductory slide to the presentation. It does indeed look like an eight layered structure. You know? And that is not what the neighborhood is. And so we have 5,000 square foot lot sizes for a reason. And so if you're trying to add a third structure to the bottom of a substandard lot that in the sense of can't be divided, 8,400 or whatever it is, you can't expect to build anything than something as more of a modest cottage-like or modest structure. So... I've gone round in full circle on this. I looked at every single other finding. I looked at the findings on the condominium. I looked at the tentative parcel map, the encroachment agreement. I focused on a couple of them, especially on the tentative parcel map. But in the end said, you know, it's probably, I probably could make those. In the end, I've come to the conclusion I can't make findings, the initial design review findings, in agreement with the Planning Commission. And so that's where I stand. You know, um, I'm just one vote. But I... I thought it, as I said, I thought about this a lot, and I'm not trying to persuade anybody's minds here. You've got to decide what you think. But after a lot of careful analysis, I've come to this conclusion that it needs to be a smaller structure, and there needs to be a rhythm in the horizontal. that you say, well, why should my structure have to provide that rhythm when the others don't? Why? Well, the reason is because you have a lot that's only 8,400 and odd square feet. That's why. |
| 01:22:52.15 | Jill Hoffman | Well, let me just say, the reason we've had so many hearings, I think, is because we're trying to get you to yes. So, I mean, it could have been a denial outright. But I've gone through the same analysis, I think, that the mayor has, and I'm not inclined to approve it. at this time. If you have some other comments, I'm happy to listen to them. |
| 01:23:18.90 | Joe Burns | I do want to make comments, thank you. I'll say the same thing that the others have. You know, we've gone over this, watched the videos and tried to make sense of it. Some things keep coming back to me, and I mentioned them at the last meeting where I was the first to speak on that one, and I think I showed some of my cards, but I'm still looking at those cards and how they play. We did ask the applicant to bring down the size of 77 to fit a scale and mass aesthetic, or something that we thought looked like it fit in there. And just looking at that picture right there, I think it looks, to me it looks smaller than the one next door. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks smaller. And it looks like smaller than the one across the street. As I go down the street, I think it fits in there nicely. But. I get the point, and I think I brought up at the first meeting, I kind of started the stacking, and I wouldn't say eight or nine. I think I was saying six. The stacking is something to consider. To the mayor's point, which I wrestled with as well, there's two sides of that equation. It's too small to split. There's a lot down the street that is wide and not as deep. It's too small to split. So some of these are, they're just not big enough to split. It's big enough to have the third unit, hence the numbers that you asked to clarify. So it does fit a parameter. It's in between. It's a tweener. It's between, you can't split it, whether you could or not geographically with getting to it. If it was that same size and width, you still couldn't split it. It's not a splitable lot. but it does allow for three units based on the zoning code that we are supposed to go by. So then we look at, well it's three units and every one of these scale and mass comments talked about the living units and not, as we heard again tonight and what I brought up last time, the buildings. |
| 01:25:31.43 | Joe Burns | If there was three units in that lower or two units in that lower and one above, we keep getting caught up in there's three units. And that is going to change the aesthetic somehow. And when somebody drives up, they go, oh, those are two big buildings. Well, apparently there's three units in there. I don't think that will be the case. I think we see two buildings and like we do when you look at the others on the street. It just happens for me that 77 fits into the hillside better than the other ones do. And to me, it blends in better with the natural environment. I liked this project when it was... had the environmental qualities that I wanted, but I thought that it needed to be trimmed down. I did think that the buffer between the two needed to be bigger. I liked the aspects of it when I first saw it, but I thought that won't go because they were too close to each other. We continued to ask the applicant to do things that, to me, has brought 77 into character of the neighborhood. So unlike the other two, I am inclined to support it based on the objectives that we are given as far as zoning code and then applying those to the aesthetic of the scale. |
| 01:26:51.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:26:52.69 | Mayor Withey | Okay, our city attorney, could you clarify us the difference between option one and option two? |
| 01:27:08.09 | Unknown | I can clarify the difference. Option one would be denial of the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the project based on the three design review permit findings that the Planning Commission could not make at their May 31st study session, 1, 3, and 12. Finding two is similar. It's for denial of the appeal and denial of the project, but we request that the City Council provide staff specific direction and language for inclusion in the resolution for denial. |
| 01:27:35.26 | Jill Hoffman | I think what that means is we would find a different basis for denial. |
| 01:27:39.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:39.51 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, okay. Can I jump in on that too, Mr. Mayor? Because even if you're making the decision for the same reasons as the Planning Commission, it's still the City Council's decision and the basis for that decision is laid out in the resolution that's currently in front of you. Staff pulled forward the same reasoning that the Planning Commission issued, but of course the Council can |
| 01:27:39.70 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Please. |
| 01:28:00.17 | Mary Wagner | modify, add to, subtract from those determinations and or add additional reasons why you THE FAMILY IS would want to add to those resolutions. |
| 01:28:12.60 | Jill Hoffman | Can I ask, I'd like to ask another question. question. Um, And this may be where I might ask for input from the applicant as well. Is it possible or would it be advisable for us to approve the Sausalio Boulevard portion of the project? Because I don't believe uh, I mean, I don't think that we have a problem with that project as much as 77 Crescent, although I mean, that's why I would ask for input from the applicant. |
| 01:28:42.57 | Mary Wagner | So, um, Councilmember Hoffman, if I may, and I think your community development staff can respond to this as well, but it's been presented as one project. So in order for it to be bifurcated, it would have to be resubmitted. |
| 01:28:51.37 | Jill Hoffman | So in order for- |
| 01:28:56.48 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:28:56.70 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:28:56.73 | Jill Hoffman | Got it. So if we... If we, and I'm just trying, and I'm just throwing this out there as something the applicant may be interested in. If they're not, that's fine too. Let's say, for instance, deny the appeal, number one of the recommendations. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the project. Council may specify the project is denied without prejudice. I'm looking at the staff report right now. I'm looking at page 17 of 18. The council may specify that the project is denied without prejudice in order to allow the applicant to return within a year with a request for approval of a similar project. And so that would allow the applicant, if they wanted to come back with just the Sausalito Boulevard portion of the project, if they wanted to do that okay thank you. |
| 01:29:45.43 | Mayor Withey | Okay, so here's, and help me out Mary, please. I cannot make findings one and three. I don't see that at this point finding 12. is particularly helpful whether you can find it or not because we're, you know, heightened design review, we can't even make the base findings. So I think, as far as this action is concerned, unless I get disagreement from colleague on my immediate left is to basically restrict the denial to findings one and two. And the second thing is that has the language of the, I'm happy to go with the Planning Commission's language for their reasons for denial for items one and three. Sorry, items one and three. If I said two earlier, I misspoke. Items 1 and 3. In relation to the topography of the site and the fact that the lower structure, 77 Crescent in particular, has just got too many levels. Earlier on, throughout this whole process, I realized the applicant was very frustrated because he heard the Planning Commission at various level stages say, this project is approvable. Well, that may be so, but it was approvable with one less level, like 77 Crescent. And that's what I think was trying to be communicated, and that just wasn't accepted. Okay. So I would like, so unless, if you think the language of items one and three conform, and I was just reading them again, I think they do. I think they cover what at least is bothering is the reason why. you know, There is a consequence for not having a splittable lot, and that is you can't build out. Both sides of it. Fully. and maintain the goals of why we have a 5,000 square foot lot limit, minimum lot size. So help me out. Is the language here cover this? I want to make sure we've got a very clear understanding as to why we're rejecting this and not left with any fuzzy doubt whatsoever. Yeah, please. |
| 01:32:35.87 | Joe Burns | you, Yeah, I don't know if that clarified, what you were stating, if you knock one layer off of it, that doesn't match what you just said that you still can't build on both ends of the law. |
| 01:32:48.56 | Mayor Withey | No, I didn't say that. You could build on both ends of the lot. No, no, I didn't say that. What I'm saying is if you're going to build on the Crescent Avenue side, you can't expect to build a dwelling unit. You can build a single family dwelling unit. But you can't expect to build it as if it was a 5,000 or 6,000 square foot lot only facing Crescent. Because that's not what you got. You got an 8,500 square foot lot that fronts both sides. So therefore, what you build, if you're going to keep the same footprint at Sausalito Boulevard with the same mass, you've got to have a lower mass. And in particular, the lower mass in that very tight turn is required. And so that's what I want to get into the findings. If they're there adequately, in your opinion, I'm happy. |
| 01:33:40.44 | Mary Wagner | So Mr. Mayor, if I'm hearing you correctly, you're suggesting kind of additional information to add to the findings, because I don't think that specificity is necessarily there. And that what I'm hearing is that an additional basis for the denial based on findings one and three is the topography of the site, it's kind of transitional nature neighborhoods that needs to be taken into consideration as you're referring to kind of that the curve is the topography and also the topography of the hillside. I would request that we take a five, ten minute recess if that's the consensus of the Council. and allow me to talk with Danny and Calvin to see if we can add some additional So, information for your consideration. |
| 01:34:33.62 | Mayor Withey | You okay? Thank you. All right, we'll recess for five minutes. |
| 01:34:43.24 | Mayor Withey | Okay, we're back on the record. Okay, so. We are |
| 01:34:56.57 | Mayor Withey | Yeah, David. |
| 01:34:58.85 | Unknown | Mayor, can I just have a moment to speak? |
| 01:35:01.39 | Mayor Withey | It's out of the record, but it's not part of the proceedings, but go ahead. Please be brief. |
| 01:35:10.04 | Unknown | Two quick points. Mayor, I understand your concern about the size of the house. The fact is it's a 1,900 square foot house. It's smaller than half the houses in the immediate area. So I don't understand, frankly. I'd like some more clarification. on what constitutes the house being too large. What specifically, I mean the house is under, it's like 1,913 square feet. Okay. What's too large? That's one point. And I need some clarification on that. In the context of what you're saying, which is it's bigger than the other houses, and it needs to be smaller than the other houses, And it is. My other point is, Sausalito goes to great lengths, and we all work hard. at protecting what we call panoramic views. why do I not get the right to a panoramic view on that property. How is that just arbitrarily denied Because... You think the house is too big. And I'm troubled by that. I mean, the house, I have a property, it has a view, I should have a right to that view. It doesn't block anybody else's view. It's not in anybody else's view corridor. We've gone to extraordinary lengths to dig into the hill and install the house on the hill so it specifically is not in anybody else's view. So why don't I get a view on that property? That's my question. |
| 01:36:39.85 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. OK. So just to make clear at least my position, and so I'm going to make a motion. to I'm not sure. Deny the appeal. and deny thee a project, essentially adopting the design review permit findings for denial. THAT THE Sorcerado Planning Commission found, but I have asked staff to propose some edits that to the findings that could not be made in order to fully clarify the position. So, Mary. That's all right. |
| 01:37:35.72 | Mary Wagner | That's right. |
| 01:37:36.23 | Unknown | It is. |
| 01:37:37.88 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the city council. So hearing the direction from the council about the need to modify or add to the findings one and three that are on page three of five of attachment number one in your staff report. You can just bear with me. I had an opportunity to talk with Danny and Calvin to try and incorporate that language. So what we're suggesting is that you would add language to the finding number one as to why it could not be made to add a sentence that would read that the subject through lot parcel is a transition lot between the general plan medium high density residential designation and the medium low density residential designation to add that clarification of your discussion about it being kind of a transition between two different types of neighborhoods and its need to fit into to both we would also recommend that in design review permit finding number three that the existing third sentence which starts after the parenthetical with the 33% that that third sentence which begins the project's design of three living units actually be taken out because the council's direction was that you're not focused on the number of units but it's the bulk and mass of the structures on this through lot that need to be taken into consideration. THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WAS THAT YOU'RE NOT FOCUSED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS, BUT IT'S THE BULK AND MASS OF THE STRUCTURES ON THIS THROUGH LOT THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, AND THAT YOU WOULD ADD THE FOLLOWING SETTENSE, THAT THE OVERALL BULK AND MASS OF THE PROJECT IN TWO STRUCTURES ON A SINGLE THROUGH LOT PARCEL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL SCALE OF STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE PUT THAT OUT FOR YOUR |
| 01:37:37.98 | Mayor Withey | THANK YOU. |
| 01:37:55.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:55.16 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 01:39:26.61 | Mary Wagner | consideration and then the Council's action if you were to want to do that would be to adopt the resolution that's in your packet as attachment number one with those modifications or any other modifications that the council would want to make. |
| 01:39:49.73 | Mayor Withey | Okay, so With those modifications to the language that you are suggesting that that seems right to me. So I'm making a motion... to deny the appeal and deny the project without prejudice, and my understanding of that is therefore, If the applicant wants to come back within a year, they can do so, right? |
| 01:40:19.48 | Mary Wagner | With the same or substantially similar project. There's a provision in the zoning ordinance that prevents that for a year. Right. But you're making it without prejudice. It allows for it to come back as a new project, but it could be similar or substantially. |
| 01:40:22.40 | Mayor Withey | provision. Right. |
| 01:40:30.50 | Mayor Withey | Do you need anything more for me in terms of the construction of this motion? |
| 01:40:35.07 | Mary Wagner | No, so I understand it's that you're adopting the resolution with the modifications I just read into the record and it's without prejudice. That's the motion. |
| 01:40:41.08 | Mayor Withey | That's correct. Specifically, this is not part of the motion, but specifically and If I believe any future, I believe the planning commission based on its comments, I can't guarantee what they would do, would actually approve a project that had one less level in the 2077 present. That's up to them. So there's my motion. Do I have a second? |
| 01:41:09.66 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:41:09.68 | Unknown | Second. |
| 01:41:10.44 | Mayor Withey | Ms. Lilly, would you take the roll, please? |
| 01:41:13.19 | Unknown | Bye. Council member Burns. |
| 01:41:15.03 | Mayor Withey | No. |
| 01:41:16.26 | Unknown | Councilmember Hoffman. Yes. Mayor with you. |
| 01:41:19.99 | Mayor Withey | Yes, that motion passes 2-1, thank you. Okay, this hearing is over. Thank you for everybody and all the work that's gone into this. It's a lot, I understand. Okay, we have no business items tonight. I don't believe we... |
| 01:41:46.11 | Mayor Withey | Um, And so we move on to city manager reports, et cetera. Is there any member of the public who'd like to comment on item 7A through F? Seeing none. I don't particularly want to discuss any of this, but Adam, I don't know if we've got some pressing issues for your city council manager report. |
| 01:42:18.14 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No, there's no pressing items. Just a reminder that for the public that we will have two special meetings. They're both regularly scheduled meetings, but they'll have really only one item for the agenda, and that's tomorrow night, and the discussion will be reviewing the application from the Gungate Ferry and Bridge District on their proposed ferry landing. That meeting will be held at 7 o'clock at IDES all across the street so for the public obviously they can park on Caledonia Street and here at City Hall then that meeting assuming goes as it's been outlined in the current and at our future agenda items. The item will then be continued and re-discussed and heard. |
| 01:42:22.53 | Mayor Withey | Sorry. |
| 01:43:08.72 | Adam Politzer | with direction on September 26. And then our next regularly scheduled meeting, where we'll be back to the rest of the city's business, would be October 10th. Lily has put out a request to the council looking to schedule a special meeting in October and we focused on Tuesday the 17th so we would be we would have three actually yeah we'd have three meetings in a row in October the 10th 17th and the 24th if we can arrange to have that meeting scheduled for October 17th. We feel that that's necessary because obviously there's a lot of other city business to discuss, including bringing the council up to speed on the general plan. The general plan advisory board has been meeting regularly and has gone through actually a lot of material since you last heard an update from the general plan advisory committee. We also are kicking off the strategic planning process and we gave a brief presentation at the finance committee last week and a lot of work between now and the beginning of 2018 needs to take place and the City Council's participation in the strategic planning process over a series of City Council meetings will be important as we go into the next biannual budget that will kick that off in February of 2018 so there is a bit of activity, including Dumpy Park, Southview Park, and MLK, including the ball fields, tennis courts, and basketball courts. So that's why we're asking the council to consider an extra meeting in October. As we get into November with the election in November, that takes away a Tuesday night. And then Thanksgiving, normally we don't meet the week of Thanksgiving due to family commitment. So you can quickly see how fast the end of the year is upon us. And we'll be swearing in a new council member. |
| 01:43:30.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:30.74 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:43:30.76 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:45:23.35 | Adam Politzer | that first meeting in December, and then we normally take a break. So the way that we look at this is that there's gonna be a need for a special meeting or two based on the amount of business that we have in front of us. i had nothing more to report i just thought that was important to point out the two the two meetings that will be held at the idas all on the 12th and the 26th and then a busy schedule in october to get back up to where we where we need to be that concludes my report happy to answer any questions |
| 01:45:55.17 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Any questions of Adam? |
| 01:45:59.26 | Joe Burns | I'd maybe consider one meeting in August in future years if we have a lot of items, especially special election, all sorts of things happening instead of cramming in five out of six weeks. six out of eight weeks. |
| 01:46:14.95 | Mayor Withey | Right. Okay. Um... Any other... Committee reports, future agenda items, other reports of significance that we wish to communicate. Nope. In that case, With remembering that we are adjourning in memory of the folks who lost their lives on 9-11, this meeting is adjourned. |
Keith Stoneking — Against: Opposed SB 35, SB 2, and SB 3, arguing they remove local control over real estate matters and impose debt on homeowners and future generations. ▶ 📄
Wendy Richards — Against: Urged removal of SB 2 and SB 3 from consent calendar, citing incomplete staff reports and negative financial impacts on residents, including increased taxes and a $4 billion lending package. ▶ 📄