| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:07.88 | Mayor Withey | Good evening and welcome to the special meeting of the Sausalito City Council Monday December 4th, 2017. Lily would you take the roll please. |
| 00:00:22.52 | Joan Cox | Councilmember Burns? Present. Councilmember Hoffman? Present. Mayor Withey? |
| 00:00:23.49 | Mayor Withey | THE END OF |
| 00:00:27.05 | Mayor Withey | Up here. And Vice Mayor Cox has recused herself from this proceeding because she heard this matter as a Planning Commissioner. Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't I lead us tonight? |
| 00:00:49.42 | Unknown | 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, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:01:13.71 | Mayor Withey | We will approve the agenda shortly. There is a couple of procedural matters that You can ask the city attorney. to brief Hassan. before we proceed please |
| 00:01:31.93 | Mary Wagner | Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the council, while Calvin's pulling up that slide that talks about the process issue. Just to summarize, the council has adopted Rosenberg's rules of order as its rules in conducting its public hearings. Rosenberg's rules with respect to a motion to reconsider indicates that that motion is to be considered from a timing perspective at the meeting in which the action occurred or the next immediately following city council meeting. THE CITY IS GOING TO BE And that that motion must be made by someone voting in the majority and it requires a simple majority vote on the motion to reconsider. Staff is recommending that the council consider making What is called a motion to suspend the rules. It's set forth in Rosenberg's rules that that is an option for the council. So we suggest that you first start with a motion to suspend Rosenberg's rules on the timing to bring a motion to reconsider. That requires a two-thirds vote. If that motion passes, you could then take a motion to reconsider the appeal and the whole title's listed there for you. And that motion requires a simple majority to pass. And again to reiterate that either Mr. Mayor, you yourself or council member Hoffman would have to make that motion to reconsider being in the majority on the prior action. And I'm happy to answer any questions on the process issue. |
| 00:02:58.99 | Mayor Withey | Thank you, understood. Any questions of our city attorney? Okay, I do think that it is proper to take public comment on this matter, this matter, rather than the substance, the issue before us. So is there any member of the public who'd like to comment on these two motions that have been proposed by staff? |
| 00:03:33.70 | Mayor Withey | Yeah, yeah, no, I mean, please, any member of the public is well in. You have three minutes. This is not part of your applicant presentation on the matter. This is a three-minute thing on this, okay? |
| 00:03:44.71 | John | Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. As you know, this staff report was only available to us Friday after working hours, my working hours anyway. It may have been available, and I'm sure Calvin and Danny could clarify this earlier in the day. I didn't see it until this morning. I didn't see this piece in the staff report. I'm not saying it's not there, more than likely it is. So we're just a little bit surprised with this hearing and with these rules being brought up and then discarded all kind of all at the same time. It's just it's one more piece within a hearing that's been you know kind of extremely fast-tracked that caught us off guard. So I just wanted to put that on the record from from my opinion and I guess I guess that's really kind of all I have to say at this moment and we'll get into things more sure |
| 00:04:44.14 | Mayor Withey | Okay, thank you. Any, Steve. |
| 00:04:52.61 | Mayor Withey | Sorry, I should be a bit more foreign, Mr Fraser. |
| 00:04:58.33 | Steve Frazier | Steve Frazier, the attorney for Mr. Holub. My comments are going to be also brief. One, as far as I'm concerned, this is a star chamber proceeding. You have provided myself, my client, and his architect representative with insufficient time and information and ability to make a recent presentation on anything coming up. It's just an unfair, bad faith, effort. I haven't seen this, for example, before. In fact, I was wondering as I got it, what was the authority that Ms. Wagner indicated that you wanted to hold the hearing? I mean, that's the proper question. Of course, I would have expected her to respond. It was this or it was that or this law. I didn't hear anything, perhaps she did not have time. I don't really matter because even if she had had time and had sent it to me, this is a substantive matter that requires much more time. You have, I'll just cite one example and I will sit down. You reference In your notice of this hearing, such as it was, that you're going to include in the package of information the Housing Availability Act. Now, that's not my specialty. That's why Mr. Holup has different counsel. But once you do that and thereby signal that that's going to be some element of your discussion or consideration of the discussion, a proper attorney says, okay, let me look into it. Let me review it. Let me review the legislative analysis. Let me review the congressional, the legislative review indicating the justification for this act. That does take time. No time is there. You can't do this on an agenda that's published as late as this one was and try to jam it down the applicant's throat. And that is exactly what the council is doing, and you will visit this matter, no doubt on appeal, perhaps in federal court, under the due process statute if they apply. And I don't think there's a judge in the United States that would allow you to hold a hearing of this sort and this import. this quickly without the improper and insufficient notice that you have provided the applicant. Thank you for your consideration. |
| 00:07:39.18 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:07:45.56 | Mayor Withey | Sir. |
| 00:07:45.92 | Ryan Patterson | Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Honorable Councilmembers. Ryan Patterson. I represent the San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, Sonia Trouse and Robert Tillman, all members of the public and petitioners in the related litigation. This is news to me, this motion to reconsider. We do enthusiastically support a rehearing and reconsideration of the previous denial, which we've obviously taken the position was unlawful. However, this being raised at the beginning of the hearing does not allow enough time to actually consider it and look into the propriety of this procedural motion. So my objection is simply that this entire process is being rushed through probably due process violation. And I would like to be able to consider this and have an actual position on it, aside from stating that we don't have time to consider it. Thank you. |
| 00:08:46.95 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Uh, sir. Good evening, Mr. Tillman. |
| 00:08:54.61 | Bob Tillman | My name is Bob Tillman, and I've been a Sausalito resident since 1988. And I'm also a developer, and I just got my own 75 unit, eight story project approved in San Francisco last week. Although I'm a plaintiff in this case, the first time I heard about this hearing was when I read Sausalito Currents on Friday morning. And I was the one who actually had to inform everybody on our team about this hearing. And I sent them an email about five minutes after I'd read it in Sausalito Currents. So I just want to put on the record that that is all the notice that I or my team actually received. Thanks. |
| 00:09:39.05 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Any other member of the public like to please? |
| 00:09:49.71 | David Holub | Thank you for a moment, I just would like to ask for a continuance. I mean, I've gotten so many continuances. I'm not. This is the only time I've ever wanted one. And I'd like to specifically ask for a continuance in this matter. |
| 00:10:05.00 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Any other member of the public like to comment on this particular matter? No. Okay. Thank you. We'll close public comment on this. And bringing up here, does anybody? any of my colleagues have any comments on this, or shall we move ahead as a |
| 00:10:30.65 | Joan Cox | I do. Um, |
| 00:10:35.53 | Joan Cox | I have a follow-up question probably with the attorney for the plaintiffs, Mr. Patterson. |
| 00:10:45.55 | Ryan Patterson | Yes, ma'am. Yeah. |
| 00:10:47.03 | Joan Cox | Thank you. The, uh, I believe the only If we were to entertain a continuance, I believe it would have to be to next week. Are we from today? No, are we from tomorrow? Which is our next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Would that be a sufficient amount of time? |
| 00:11:01.29 | Ryan Patterson | Thank you. |
| 00:11:04.45 | Ryan Patterson | Let me check my calendar briefly, if you don't mind. I mean, I'm just... |
| 00:11:07.18 | Joan Cox | I mean, I'm just and I have not discussed this with any of anybody else. the question. |
| 00:11:13.87 | Ryan Patterson | That would be December 12th. I am available, but to be clear, I do not represent Mr. Holub, so probably want to check with his counsel and Mr. Holub as well. Thanks. Thank you very much. |
| 00:11:26.02 | Joan Cox | Okay. Sure. THE FAMILY. |
| 00:11:36.83 | David Holub | My calendar is unavailable to me right now. I can't tell you. Do you have it in your pocket? |
| 00:11:40.45 | Joan Cox | Is it in your pocket on your phone? Because my calendar is on my phone. Do you have an ability to find out what your calendar is? In the next five minutes? No. Okay, thank you. Can anybody, Mr. Frazier? Okay, thanks. |
| 00:11:59.56 | John | Again, I'm John McCoy, project architect for this. I know my calendar is unavailable for that. I do have hearings within the Planning Commission, City of Sausalito. I have two hearings coming up, one is on December 20th. They take quite, an amount of preparation. |
| 00:12:16.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:12:16.86 | John | Thank you. |
| 00:12:16.88 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:12:16.93 | John | which I hope you appreciate from all the hearings that we've had with you so far. |
| 00:12:19.44 | Unknown | THANK YOU. Okay. |
| 00:12:20.89 | John | So it would be, Week to week is... It's very tough and it's extremely unusual. as I know that all three of you are aware. When we have projects come through, particularly I would always appreciate more time. My clients don't appreciate more time. I always advocate to try and get hearings as quickly as possible. continually delayed one or two or three months a week is extremely unusual with with my schedule my project schedule that I've already committed to with the city of Sausalito I just I don't believe that we can prepare an appropriate presentation for yourselves and for the public to go over again and describe the approvability of this project so I just I can't be available in one week. it may seem far-fetched. I would appreciate a February hearing 2018 but yeah it's it's obviously not up to me staff has their own schedule typically when we request a date certain for the next hearing staff has scheduling issues as well so you might want to consider their input as well but that's my input for now okay |
| 00:13:40.90 | Joan Cox | Thank you. you Thank you. |
| 00:13:45.73 | Joan Cox | Sure. |
| 00:13:45.98 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:13:46.97 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:13:46.99 | Mayor Withey | Sure. please. |
| 00:13:57.65 | Steve Frazier | I have two things to say with regard to that question. Well, maybe three. Number one, I'm Mr. Holub's attorney. I was here for the last hearing or last several hearings on his project and In fact, I'm here because Mr. Halib was told by his attorney that he could not appear and speak for him. So I was asked to come down. I have a hearing in Bakersfield on the 14th of December. You're welcome to go down for me and appear, counsel. And it's a very important issue. I have a demurre hearing on the 18th in Bakersfield. I will have to go down and appear for that. Now, conceivably, I could be here if it were necessary between the, I come back on the 18th, so probably on the 19th or 20th I could maybe show up if I had enough time to prepare for it, given I've got to prepare for those matters and file two lawsuits in an unrelated subject and deal with a number of other fires but so the answer is that I may be able to make a hearing if my client were able to between roughly the 20th and the But the reality is, come on, you get Christmas holidays turning up at that time, and that just does not allow. That's why I wrote the letter. to your honorable counsel telling her that I really wanted this matter put over until this January or February. I don't know the reason why all of a sudden the city has developed its urgency, although I would speculate that it would have to do with Senate Bill 167 and the different standard of review that applies after that date. I don't know that. Maybe I'm wrong. But it's not typical Sausalito process in 40 years that I have been there for this city to ever rush to hold a hearing short of a shooting on Bridgeway, which hasn't happened. So the answer is maybe I can do it before then, but it depends my client's schedule he's off to England doing whatever he's doing on various subjects it does take, I really urge you to re-read if you have not my letter to counsel in which I laid out the reasons why I really can't do a proper professional job. I can do my best job, but I'm very picky about appearing on time and having the, you know, I want to be prepared, and I want to be fully prepared because this is a $5 million, $2 million subject matter. It't be glossed over as as a jaywalking violation but that's how you're really treating it no offense I don't mean to offend you but maybe I have that's exactly how I see it I would ask that this matter be put over unless you can really tell me exactly why it had what is the urgency since you never had it before. That this could not be put over until January sometime. Then I can make it. Mr. Hollib can make it. Mary can make it. We all can make it and without pressure. |
| 00:17:28.41 | Unknown | time. |
| 00:17:38.92 | Steve Frazier | So again, that's why I refer to this as a star chamber procedure. That's what it is. |
| 00:17:44.10 | Mayor Withey | It is. Thank you, Mr. Frazier. We were sort of trying to decide what to do here, right? We've already received public comment. We've already received public comment. urgency. |
| 00:18:04.81 | Mayor Withey | We have not in the last 40 years, Mr Fraser, been sued under the Housing Accountability Act. We were told under that filing, to immediately vacate our previous decision. That's why we're here. |
| 00:18:24.37 | Mayor Withey | the suit, the filing of the lawsuit that we have received on this project, which you're very aware of. as I have read your letter. Okay, so what are we doing here? Do we have a motion to do this or do you want to continue? |
| 00:18:44.51 | Joan Cox | No, I don't think there's a need to continue. We talked about, we offered December 11th and 12th, and that's not acceptable to the parties, so. Go ahead, yes, Mary. |
| 00:18:53.22 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, and if I may, Mr. Mayor, just to clarify for purposes of the record, notice was properly given for this project in accordance with the statutes and the city zoning code. Mr. Patterson was informed, I have an email to him on November 22nd, that the hearing, which was originally scheduled for November 28th, was rescheduled to tonight at the request of the appellant. That it be rescheduled, he did not ask for this date, just to clarify that. So I thought it was important that you have that information. |
| 00:18:54.76 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:19:26.55 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Okay, could we have a motion to... |
| 00:19:31.48 | Joan Cox | I'll move to suspend Rosenberg's rules on timing to bring a motion to reconsider. |
| 00:19:39.83 | Mayor Withey | I'll second that. Do we need to do this in separate motions? Okay, all in favor. Aye. Any opposed. That car is 3-0. |
| 00:19:46.34 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 00:19:50.29 | Joan Cox | And I'll bring the motion to reconsider the appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a design review permit, tree removal permit, parcel map, and condominium conversion permit. and encroachment agreement. 4446, 448 Saucelio Boulevard, and 77 Crescent Avenue. |
| 00:20:07.44 | Mayor Withey | I second that. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries 3-0. Forgive me for a second. |
| 00:20:09.90 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 00:20:09.98 | Joan Cox | Hi. |
| 00:20:24.03 | Mayor Withey | Okay, we actually still therefore need to approve the agenda. Now following these procedural matters, do I have a motion to approve the agenda? |
| 00:20:33.51 | Joan Cox | some of you. |
| 00:20:33.86 | Mayor Withey | Second. All in favor? Aye. That carries 3-0. Okay, there is no special presentations. We'll move on then to this public hearing item, which is the reconsideration of the appeal of the Planning Commission. I won't read it all out, you know, the subject matter. I'm going to hand this over to, oh, Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications. |
| 00:20:35.67 | Joan Cox | Bye. |
| 00:21:01.93 | Mayor Withey | Um, I have had no communications with The part is on this matter since the last hearing. |
| 00:21:13.84 | Joan Cox | I have had communications with members of the public on this. since the last hearing in September. |
| 00:21:25.35 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:21:25.37 | Joe Burns | Okay. I've had no communications with the parties on this subject since last meeting. |
| 00:21:32.89 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. OK, moving on to then staff presentation. |
| 00:21:39.58 | Mayor Withey | Good evening, Calvin. |
| 00:21:40.25 | Calvin | Good evening. Thank you, Mayor Withey, members of the council, members of the public. |
| 00:21:47.49 | Calvin | I'll begin with an outline of this evening's presentation. I've broken it down into six different parts. This mirrors the organization of your staff report. We'll begin with the project description, talk a little bit about the background, talk about the council's concerns, explore some consideration of project modifications, touch very briefly on findings for project approval, and then end with the recommended motion. |
| 00:22:14.15 | Calvin | with the project description. |
| 00:22:18.61 | Calvin | An application was filed in January of 2016. McCoy Architecture is the applicant. David Hullab is the property owner. The project revolves around a duplex remodel at 446-448 Sausalito Boulevard, which you can see in the top picture. And I'll show this more detailed in some other photographs. And a new single family residence at 77 Crescent on the lower portion here. The entitlements requested by this project are a design review permit subject to heightened design review, a tree removal permit, a parcel map and condo conversion permit, as well as an encroachment agreement. |
| 00:23:00.83 | Calvin | Here is the existing site plan. There was a lot line adjustment that was done in the mid-90s, or I'm sorry, not mid-90s, in 2014, where the zoning administrator approved a lot line adjustment to increase by approximately 655 square feet the subject parcel, bringing it to its current parcel size of just over 8,400 square feet. Here's the proposed site plan. You have 77 Crescent on the downhill. portion and 446 and 448 on the uphill. |
| 00:23:39.44 | Calvin | Here is another view of the overall project as viewed from Crescent Avenue. Two units front on Sausalito Boulevard, which is at the top of your screen, and one new unit fronting on Crescent Avenue at the lower portion of your screen. 446-448-Auscelia Boulevard at the top, and 77 Crescent at the bottom. |
| 00:24:02.29 | Calvin | Here's a Google Earth photo showing existing conditions of the duplex at 446-448 Sausalito Boulevard. It's viewed from below along Crescent Avenue. Here's an elevation of the proposed duplex remodel. Essentially, this project proposes a remodel with substantial demolition of the 446-448 Oslo duplex. It's basically a comprehensive update of the building's exterior as well as a reorganization of some of the interior spaces. Overall, the floor area slightly decreases and the building coverage stays the same. |
| 00:24:39.04 | Calvin | Here's a rendering of 446-448-Sausalito. |
| 00:24:47.46 | Calvin | Here's a view of the parking deck and its existing conditions along Sausalito Boulevard. and the proposed condition. The flat roof of the carport is proposed to be improved and replaced with a new shed roof design, which has a downward slant north, and the entryway leading to the remodeled unit is also from this area. |
| 00:25:14.07 | Calvin | The project proposes a new 19, 1,917 square foot single family residence at the northern portion of the parcel. This is 77 Crescent Avenue. The proposed residence has a floor area ratio or FAR of.226, a building coverage of 20% and a building height of 24 feet, 9 inches. It's a three bedroom residence. There are two bedrooms on the first level above the garage and the master suite is at the topmost level. Here's a rendering of the proposed 77 Crescent Avenue residence. |
| 00:25:54.15 | Calvin | Moving on to the background of this application. In December of 2016, the Planning Commission denied the project and found the project exempt from CEQA. There were four prior public hearings for this application. The Planning Commission denied the project as they found that the findings for a design review permit could not be made. On December 27th of 2016, an appeal was filed by the property owner. This matter was first brought to the City Council in January of 2017. The City Council reviewed the denied project. They considered the appeal and provided direction to the appellant and the applicant to revise the scale and mass of the new single family residence at 77 Crescent Avenue and for the Planning Commission to review the revised design, determine if the required design review permit findings could be made, and then to forward a recommendation back to the City Council. |
| 00:26:55.00 | Calvin | In May of 2017, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised project. They ultimately determined that the design review permit findings remain unable to be made. The findings that could not be made are finding one, which talks about the consistency with the city's general plan. Finding three, which talks about the consistency with scale structures in the surrounding neighborhood. And finding 12, which is concerned with heightened design review findings. |
| 00:27:25.29 | Calvin | In July of 2017, the city council reviewed the revised project and the planning commission's determination. They continued the hearing for further consideration of the entitlements. At the last hearing on September 11th, the city council denied the project. And as they found that the design review findings remain unable to be made. |
| 00:27:54.84 | Calvin | on November 2nd of this year. A petition for rid of administrative mandate was filed with the Marin County Superior Court. The petitioners and real parties of interest are listed on your screen. The petition alleges that the city violated the Housing Accountability Act, or HAA, by failing to make the required Housing Accountability Act findings. |
| 00:28:22.82 | Calvin | Although most of the Housing Accountability Acts, most well-known provisions are regarding affordable housing. The HAA does include all housing development projects, whether it's affordable or market rate. If a housing development project meets all objective general plan, zoning, and design review standards, it says that a city cannot deny the project or reduce the density, the number of units, unless it finds that the project would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health and safety and that there is no method for feasible impact mitigation. Specific adverse impact is defined as a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact based on objective identified written public health or safety standards. The burden of proof for the Housing Accountability Act is placed onto the city. |
| 00:29:17.70 | Calvin | I'll now go over some of the concerns that were relayed by the city council. |
| 00:29:27.60 | Calvin | The City Council's concerns are related entirely to the scale and mass of the new single family residents at 77 Crescent. Throughout the project's entire city review, no issues were raised with the project's density or the number of units. The city has maintained that the project is approvable with three units on the parcel. The project floor area ratio in total for the entire site is.579 FAR. The floor area ratio, the average floor area ratio for this neighborhood is 0.35. One of the concerns that was relayed by council in their project denial is that the three living levels above the street level garage is inconsistent with the general scale of the structures in the surrounding neighborhood. |
| 00:30:14.46 | Calvin | staff did do an analysis of the surrounding neighborhood. There were a total of 49 properties that were analyzed. As you can see displayed in this pie chart, only three levels, only three structures were found to have three levels above a parking structure, about 6%. The other majority is that either has two levels at maximum above a parking structure or one level or none at all. |
| 00:30:47.00 | Calvin | As the City Council considers the proposed project again, the following project modifications that I'll go through can be considered. And the aim of these is to address the deficiencies of the project in achieving compliance with design review permit findings 1, 3, and 12, which focus on the scale and mass of the project. The project modifications are centered around 77 Crescent because essentially 446-448 Sausalito is a remodel of an existing mass at that site and overall is a reorganization and aesthetic upgrade. So the new scale mass concerns are related solely to 77 Crescent. |
| 00:31:35.58 | Calvin | And this I just went over. Modification 1, if you want to follow along, it's on page 6 of 22 in your staff report. Project modification number 1 is for removal of the third floor at 77 Crescent Avenue. The third floor removal would result in a decrease in unit floor area of 436 square feet. This would decrease the unit floor area from 1,917 square feet or an FAR of.226. to 1,481 square feet or.174 FAR. This would also result in the project having two bedrooms at this location on this site. The denied project had an overall floor error ratio of 0.579. With the removal of the third floor under project modification one, the modified project would have a 0.527 FAR, and this would increase the consistency with scale of neighborhood structures. In the zoning for the neighborhood, in this area it allows between.40 floor area ratio or.65 floor area ratio, with the built average floor area ratio in this area as.35. With the removal of the third floor at 77 Crescent, this would also result in a 10-foot decrease in the overall height of the structure when viewed from the street. And this would aim to increase the consistency with the scale of neighborhood structures, which generally have only two levels over the parking area. |
| 00:33:16.11 | Calvin | Here's another view in a section form showing the removal of the third floor. |
| 00:33:23.06 | Calvin | Moving on to project modification number two, is for revision of the guardrails and handrails. The proposed guardrails and stair handrails for 77 Crescent are proposed to be a stainless steel post with cable infill and a dark finished wood top. Staff proposes a modified design of glass guardrails and handrails. The suggestion of a modified design to the guardrails and handrails would reduce the appearance of bulk and the transparent materials would appear to increase the stepping back of the project massing. |
| 00:33:59.53 | Calvin | Project modification three is for the reduction of the floor-to-ceiling height at 77 Crescent Avenue. Currently, the proposed floor-to-ceiling height for each of the floors at 77 Crescent is 10 feet. The modification is for reduction by one foot to bring the modified floor-to-ceiling height to nine feet. With the third floor removal and the modified floor-to-ceiling height, 13-foot overall height reduction would be experienced when viewing this structure from Crescent Avenue. The modified design would reduce the appearance of bulk and mass and also increase consistency with the scale of surrounding neighborhood structures. One other modification that I'd like to touch on briefly, it's not written in your staff report, but it's something that staff explored today, is the approval of the plans presented to the Planning Commission with the third floor removal. The project plans reviewed by the Planning Commission are dated October 14 of 2016. They were reviewed and denied in December 2017. The 77 Crescent Avenue structure at that time had 2,352 square feet of floor area, and this included the three living levels above the garage. With the removal of the third floor, which was approximately 440 square feet, this would result in 1,912 square feet of floor area for the unit at 77 Crescent while maintaining three bedrooms. this in comparison to |
| 00:35:33.08 | Mayor Withey | Calvin, as a courtesy to Mr. Holub and Mr. Frazier, they were out of the room when you presented this slide. Could I ask you to repeat it, because please? |
| 00:35:34.53 | Calvin | Yes. |
| 00:35:51.10 | Calvin | Sure, absolutely. So I went through the three different modifications, removal of the third floor, revision of the guardrails and handrails, and then reduction of floor to ceiling heights at 77 Crescent Avenue. Another project modification that staff has explored today, it's not detailed in your staff report, but we'd like to bring it to the Council's consideration, is for the approval of the plans which were presented to the planning commission with the third floor removed. The project plans that we're talking about are from October of 2016 and they were reviewed by the planning commission and denied in December 2017. 77 Crescent, as reflected in those plans, showed a floor area of 2,352 square feet with three living levels above the garage. With a removal of the third floor, which is approximately 440 square feet, this would result in 1,912 square feet of floor area for 77 Crescent Avenue while maintaining the overall three bedrooms versus in comparison to project modification one, which I'll flip back to. Under this modification, it would decrease the unit floor area from 1917 square feet to 1,481 square feet, but would result in only two bedrooms. |
| 00:37:12.44 | Mayor Withey | Thank you for repeating that. |
| 00:37:16.10 | Joan Cox | I have a follow-up. Can I ask a question? Please. Yes. So the project plans that you're talking about with an issue date of October 14, 2016, these were plans of the applicant. the applicant presented to the planning commission |
| 00:37:29.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:29.69 | Mayor Withey | Yes. |
| 00:37:31.81 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:37:32.52 | Mayor Withey | And just for clarification again, the actual project that the planning commission denied and that was then the subject of the appeal was this one. Correct. Thank you. With the third floor. Yes. Yes. Thank you. |
| 00:37:57.72 | Calvin | Moving on, I'll touch very briefly on the findings for project approval. In total, there are 46 different findings for approval that must be made in order to approve this application. The entitlements you have displayed on your screen, we've already reviewed these. If you'd like to review the draft findings that staff has prepared, please refer to staff report page 8 of 22. It's identical in attachment 1A. I'm happy to answer any questions at the conclusion of this presentation. The draft findings that you have in your staff report and draft motion are revised with respect to the project modifications 1, 2, and 3 that have been explained this evening. I'll conclude with our recommended motion. Staff recommends for the City Council to vacate the resolution for project denial and to approve the project with three units subject to the conditions including project modifications. The City Council may approve a motion to approve the project subject to conditions to incorporate the project modifications 1, 2, and 3 that we have discussed. The City Council may also approve a motion to approve the project subject to conditions to incorporate project modification 4, which as you all remember is the Planning Commission denied project, but with the removal of the third floor and still remaining still retaining three bedrooms overall and to also approve lastly a resolution to approve the requested encroachment agreement for the improvements in the public right-of-way that concludes my presentation we're available for any questions |
| 00:39:37.94 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Do we have any questions of staff at this point before we open it up for public comment? Thank you. |
| 00:39:48.15 | Joe Burns | I just have to kind of clarity both for the record and for anybody who hasn't kind of gone over this. I know the mayor asked something similar to this. On the project modification one, Kelvin, and great job tonight presenting this. Thank you. Just to be clear, the floor ratio that we're talking about in the unit floor area, |
| 00:40:11.03 | Unknown | Differs from the total project. What is the unit floor? The unit floor area for a |
| 00:40:16.03 | Calvin | 377 Crescent, prior to any modification, is 1,917 square feet or.226 FAR. Because it's in... |
| 00:40:24.88 | Unknown | Oh, yeah. |
| 00:40:26.96 | Calvin | because it's in the two-family residential R2 2.5 zoning district, there are maximums that are allowed per unit as well as for the project parcel overall. |
| 00:40:37.51 | Joe Burns | Okay, is there any comparison with that number to surrounding properties? |
| 00:40:41.59 | Calvin | So the surrounding properties have a built floor air ratio, according to the county assessor, of 0.35. In this neighborhood, there's actually three different zoning districts within 300 feet of the project site, and the neighborhood zoning allows between 0.40 FAR and 0.65 FAR. |
| 00:41:01.00 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:41:01.08 | Calvin | Okay. |
| 00:41:02.45 | Joe Burns | And then on the square footage also to be clear, and I know this was asked before, The square footage we have up here includes a credit for the square footage that is |
| 00:41:13.97 | Unknown | below grade or sub grade. . |
| 00:41:16.27 | Joe Burns | design. |
| 00:41:16.30 | Unknown | design. |
| 00:41:16.76 | Calvin | So the numbers that you have displayed here for the floor area take into account a garage exemption up to 500 square feet, as well as a subterranean discount of up to 250 square feet. |
| 00:41:31.00 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 00:41:31.19 | Calvin | Thank you. |
| 00:41:31.30 | Joe Burns | So we could possibly be looking at a finished structure say if it was on the market as we represented some numbers based on market information and build information we're looking at 1481 |
| 00:41:43.03 | Unknown | plus potentially 250 on. Plus 250 plus 500. |
| 00:41:48.03 | Calvin | 1481 plus 750. |
| 00:41:56.65 | Mayor Withey | Any other questions? |
| 00:42:02.02 | Joe Burns | No, for me, sorry. |
| 00:42:03.06 | Mayor Withey | No. Okay. So thank you, Calvin. We may have more questions for you. So at this point, we're going to take public comment. Oh, sorry, we're not going to take public comment. We're going to have the applicant's presentation. Sorry. |
| 00:42:27.31 | Mayor Withey | So— Who's going to go first? John, are you? Okay. Okay. Who is your team? |
| 00:42:41.69 | John | My team this evening is myself as the applicant, David Holland as the property owner, and Steve Fraser as his counsel. |
| 00:42:47.95 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. And, um, You know, I'm trying to be. |
| 00:42:51.01 | John | to be. Nobody else is engaged by Mr. Holland. |
| 00:42:52.78 | Mayor Withey | I understood, understood. Within reason, I'm you know, going to be somewhat relaxed on time. |
| 00:43:04.78 | John | I very much appreciate that. But I will be within... |
| 00:43:08.03 | Mayor Withey | As long as it's not taken advantage of. All right, so don't stress John about this, but okay. |
| 00:43:08.86 | John | Yes. of. but okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. I much appreciate that. I don't have a formal, in quotes, presentation as I typically do at these hearings. I think we've been through it a number of times, and I could certainly, I do have it on thumb drive if you want to see our presentation from the last one. We can review that, but I don't think it's necessary. I looked at it. |
| 00:43:34.78 | Mayor Withey | I looked at it this morning. |
| 00:43:35.77 | John | to see. for. Thank you. Thank you. It's really nice. Yes. I want to talk about a few things that staff touched on and things that we've been talking about. First is that this is an anomaly. This is the first time I've ever heard of either this body or the planning commission having a resolution before them before a as far as removing the third floor I've had projects over the years and I've been practicing in Sausalito since 1999 every project I've ever brought this body or any other body the Planning Commission staff administrative has been approved and 100%. So I understand what an approval project is. And I've been in some, I don't want to say contentious, but we'll say contentious projects in the past. And when I've made recommendations, I have heard from I can't quote anything, but I've heard from bodies, governing bodies at that point. We cannot take action. On a project that is not before us. We cannot take action on a project that's not the application. Unless it is a minor review, add a tree, put a fence, change the rail. A substantial architectural change such as removing the third floor, I really hope that that was not come to on a whim. I mean that's a major, major change. And that is not before you this evening. You have rescinded your denial of appeal and my understanding of that this hearing is de novo and our project includes the third floor and that for for a number of reasons the square footage were allowed the there was never any discussion as far as the height of the building I'm not sure. blocking a view, casting a shadow, being detrimental to the neighborhood, and should the third floor be removed, if you were to review the drawings and we just lopped it off as So maybe it's not suggested that glibly, but if we were to just lop off the third floor, we would still have a retaining wall in the back. to accommodate the lower levels. which would still be present from the street. So the experience from the street would be worse because you would still have the cut in the hillside and you would see retaining walls to that height. And the detriment to my client would be grave, essentially, when we're looking at denying his development rights by such a substantial measure. We've already reduced. this project by 25% from the beginning. The size of this home has been reduced by 25%, and that's substantial. And maybe I fail, but I really tried to express that at our last hearing. that when people felt that maybe we had pushed too far with our development rights, even though allowing that we are well within our development rights, that we had pushed too far somehow, we reduced it by 25%. And again, I'll ask everybody in this room, what 25% of your home could you cut off tonight and be okay with that? I mean, it's a big deal. So I wanted to say that. When we talk about the, Council Member Burns had a question regarding subterranean discounts in garages. So, you know, Subterranean discounts are written into the zoning ordinance for a very specific reason because homes on the downhill side specifically are counted that discount due to the development nature of building in Sausalito garages are never counted nobody would count that in selling a residence nobody would say that they have a 2500 square foot home if it's 2000 square feet in the rest of this garage so i think we need to just look at you know we've we've worked within the zoning ordinance the zoning standards what is allowed for us what is required for us to maintain the other things |
| 00:48:06.55 | John | I need to make this quick because I know Steve wants to speak, I'm sorry Steve. You know, we've had, when we look at this and I look at staff's report, and I appreciate it, Calvin, that you guys did a thorough job. This was in my inbox this morning. I had a meeting at nine o'clock, I got to my office at 1030. That is the amount of time I've had to review the staff report. It feels very pushed and rushed. And with that said, I can't find any reasoning to remove the third floor. When we looked at reducing square footage from the very beginning, from the first hearing of the Planning Commission, they definitely expressed an opinion. that if we could remove some square footage and they never gave us a value that they felt that it could be more provable. My point then, which I may have poorly expressed, was it feels kind of arbitrary. I'll explain that real quickly again, and I don't mean it as, demeaning or insulting. Essentially, when you build into the hillside, to reduce floor area, you pull the rear wall forward. You can't do anything with a front wall. Because of the property lines and building into the hill, you pull the rear wall forward. So your expression and experience from the street and within the neighborhood remains the same. So we've reduced this house by 25%, and it's in essence, it appears the same. But when you get into the house, we've lost a bedroom, we've lost square footage, we've lost value. And in some instances, we've lost views. So it has an impact to my client, but not to the neighborhood. So to remove the third floor is, Again, I don't mean it to be demeaning or insulting. It feels very arbitrary to me. And I'll leave it at that and let Steve speak and come back to answer any questions. |
| 00:50:09.86 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Does another member of your team wish to talk? Thank you. |
| 00:50:25.28 | Steve Frazier | Steve Frazier, counsel for Mr. Holub, who is the applicant. I have a few points. I'm going to make them as quickly as I can. Number one, Ms. Wagner defined this as a de novo hearing. I don't know. I know what de novo is. Whether it is a de novo hearing or not, I'm not really sure because I don't know all the law on that subject, which is why I asked for more time. Fine. If it is a de novo hearing, then it means that it's as if the Planning Commission, well, the Planning Commission acted but as if the last meeting was completely gone. Well, the last meeting took about two or three hours. or something similar. You've given us a very short time. You've set this hearing for one hour, but you're proposing to tamper with this project in a major way. Again, as far as I'm concerned, it is improper, and it violates the concept of de novo. If you were holding it to just deal with one subject, minor little subject, the paint for example, or the concrete use, or something like that, I understand that. But you're not, you're dealing with the entire scope of the project, which means, which allows me to segue into another issue relative to the Housing Accountability Act because that Housing Accountability Act requires cities and municipalities to consider economic and environment. And there was one other factor I don't know, but the one that struck me as I read it quickly, because that's all the time I had, was economic. Ida can't recall a single discussion in our hearings except for some short lines by Mr. Holub, who will repeat it, on the subject, that this was going to have a significant financial impact on him. But the bottom line is this. If you build a project, you usually borrow money. If you borrow money, it must be it must show a likelihood of a good return to a lender, a bank. If you cut it down this significantly, and you cut it down without any consideration of the financial consequences, then, That constitutes, as far as I'm concerned, not only a violation of a Housing Accountability Act, but it may very well constitute a taking by the city. If you take it down and his property is this reduced to two stories, Without much of a view, you've gutted the entire project. but you haven't spent one second asking Mr. Holub about that? Nothing on it, there's nothing done. This reminds me of a case involving Miss Bruce over on Marion where the city wanted to make her build a set of stairs that were going to cost, it turned out, because nobody knew, $300,000 for a single family house. that was later reduced 50 informally. But again, no discussion of that subject at all by anyone on the staff. I think that is unacceptable and violates the law. Three, I incorporate into my comments the statements made by Mr. Holub. Please ignore that. I understand that. And I'm trying to rush through it, counsel. Mr. Halep has sent, at my request, a letter to you laying out the financial feasibility aspect of his project and dealing with projects in general. And I think you must take that into consideration. Other than his letter, you haven't had any discussion about it. You haven't referred the issue to counsel, you haven't consulted experts, you've just said this is it, to hell with the financial consequences. Well, I'm going to beg to differ with you. The law requires you to consider them. |
| 00:53:55.22 | Mayor Withey | Please ignore that. I understand that. |
| 00:54:34.95 | Steve Frazier | I'll just make a couple of briefings. You indicated that in 40 years, the city has not been sued by the Housing Accountability under the Housing Accountability Act. That's not a reason that you have to suddenly rush and have a hearing. I asked counsel during the break, the other counsel, did you demand an immediate hearing? And did you get a response to all the other items? Because there was about 20 of them or something in his letter. No. So that is not an argument to hold an immediate hearing of this nature, where you're trying to jam a project that you've come up with You've come up with this project. It's not acceptable, whatever. And that's not a reason for this hearing. There's no justification for that at all because you haven't been sued before. I'm sure you've been sued for many things. I think that's all I really want to deal with. Oh, finally. The Housing Accountability Act also calls, this is an important one, calls for you to be objective and to be able to quantify your reasons, quantify your reasons for the reduction. I haven't heard a single reason for a single quantifiable reason in this hearing or in a previous one that would justify it. The only one that sticks in my mind was a vague reference by the mayor to a transitional zone, and that that was his reason for now understanding what the Planning Commission was trying to do. That is the very definition. of ambiguity, confusion, and vagueness, and is not a basis on which to deny a project, it is not. |
| 00:56:27.84 | Steve Frazier | I will end my comments with that except one point. I will notice, Mr. Mayor, and I don't mean to be insulting, that you asked for more time at that last hearing because you felt, and I thought that was a legitimate point, you felt you did not have a full grasp of not only the design of the issue, but you were being asked to vote on several other, four or five more entitlements that were all complex. And you asked for more time, you demanded more time, or you said to Mr. Holub that we'll just go ahead basically and deny it. You didn't put it that way, you just said, okay, what if we then just deny the project? So that doesn't leave much choice. |
| 00:57:13.47 | Mayor Withey | Mr. Fraser, just as a point of clarification, that was not at the last meeting, that was at the meeting on July 11th, 2017. |
| 00:57:14.41 | Steve Frazier | Just as... |
| 00:57:20.52 | Steve Frazier | That's correct. What I'm trying to point out, Mayor, was that you then were, for your benefit, and God bless You took two months. or it took you two months, or you had a two-month period of time in which to review it. Now, we're here arguing for a much shorter period, but now there's about 26 days left in December for the Christmas holidays. We're asking for a much more reasonable time. You've denied us that. but what's good for the goose should be good for the gander too, maybe, I don't know. But at any rate, those are my objections, and with that I will stop and ask, if I may, ask Mr. Holub just to make a short presentation to you, and that will conclude our comments. |
| 00:58:13.12 | Mayor Withey | Please, Mr. Hall, I'd be happy to and recognize I've taken the clock off, right? |
| 00:58:19.99 | David Holub | Thank you Mayor with the I appreciate the additional minutes There's really not that much more to add. Amen. I have done my utmost. to accommodate the Planning Commission and the city council in this manner. and I'm I'm just trying to make financial sense out of this property. I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT I've been doing that for quite a while now. And I feel like the city's just has its own agenda. It doesn't have an agenda about sort of a responsible process regarding my applications. I mean, I don't want to go through the laundromat all of the things we've batted away across this process. the encroachment agreement where I was told that I should supply access to my own land. provide access to my own property in conjunction with an application that included an encroachment agreement. I mean, it was like a willful, we're going to just ignore the fact that you're asking for an encroachment agreement. We're going to tell you you should provide access to your own land. I mean, I can't even think of all the things I've batted away. that Inclusion, you know, the three year process, the first year of which was the lot line adjustment, right? And... I had to bat away. oh, well, why don't you put forward this as a lot split project rather than a condominium? Well, the reason the application is a condominium in the first place is because a lot split wasn't possible. I mean, again, I didn't have time. to prepare all of the things that I've had to some of the frankly ridiculous issues. I've had to deal with. in trying to exercise a property right. And I have been as accommodating to my neighbors as I could possibly be. I've been characterized as uncooperative and all these things. And I've got almost 20 letters of support. And yeah, there are some neighbors who've been well organized against this project. But let's be clear, in the first correspondence I sent to the Planning Commission, The word scale and mass appeared only once. This is the response that I drafted to the first hearing. Right? And the only mention by the public. of scale and mass. were as a complement to the project. At its original 2,500 square foot design, But the Planning Commission, brought up the scale and mass issues. And then members of the public who frankly are opposed to the existence of the House, adopted their argument. And that's the argument you've heard over and over again. And it's never been put forward as a basis related to anything else. And in fact, in the hearing that you've mentioned, Mayor, on July 11th. I went to extraordinary expense of doing a whole bunch of aerial photography. and establishing that even as designed, right, It's completely at scale. I mean, we went larger, larger, smaller. Smaller. I mean, all around this project, are larger mass houses. You've entertained from my direct neighbors, some of which may be in the audience here and about to speak. who have larger homes. Saying the house is out of scale. with the neighborhood. I mean, there's got to be a point at which We do. RATIONALLY AND WE USE NUMBERS AND THAT'S WHAT THE HAA IS ALL ABOUT THE HAA SAYS Look, you have to be able to objectify these standards. And I didn't want to bring this lawsuit. I told you that. I didn't want to change Sausalito. I don't want you to be under threat. of having to change sauce. I came here to develop my property. But. One, frankly, what seemed like you know, Manufactured obstacle after another. Moving goalposts. You know, new obstacle, new obstacle. Now take off the third floor. I mean, do you understand what John's saying? He says, take off the third floor. Keep going up. |
| 01:02:46.06 | Mayor Withey | David, could you talk into the mic? |
| 01:02:48.49 | David Holub | Thank you. He's saying the wall stays. You still have to hold back the hill. So what you'll do is you'll remove the third floor and you'll see a big triangular retaining wall holding back the For what reason? done. |
| 01:03:06.22 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Okay, we're going to open this for public comment. I realize I've sort of our time's gone a bit haywire, but that's okay. It's important you get to say, excuse me, I'm going to sneeze. |
| 01:03:22.68 | Unknown | you |
| 01:03:22.86 | Mayor Withey | Oh, boy. I'm allergic to something in this room. I don't know what it is. It's always a tar, it's like something, I don't know. I always sneeze up here. Anyway. So I'll give you another five minutes at the end to respond. Okay. So we're going to open this up for public comment. I have, if you do want to speak, could you please fill in one of these cards? You have three minutes in total. I have a number of cards. I will just read them in the order I have them here. And if anybody else wants to speak, please fill in a card. Okay, so the first person. Ryan Patterson, please. |
| 01:04:20.71 | Ryan Patterson | Thank you again Mayor Withee and Council Members. Ryan Patterson, I'm the attorney for the San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, Sonia Trous and Robert Tillman. Thank you again for your time tonight. I'll address a few things quickly as we don't have much time. The due process concern about rushing this hearing, I think that is a real thing. We requested in a communication I'm sure was shared with you, rehearing by February. This is obviously happening much sooner than that, at a time when the applicant is simply unable to prepare. And I think you have the reasons for that in front of you as well in communications. Um, If the concern really is about the litigation timeline, as I've previously expressed, we are happy to stipulate to extending your deadline to respond to the lawsuit so that you can have a fair hearing on this matter. To be clear, there's no reason why you have to have this hearing before you respond to our lawsuit, but if that's something you wanna do, which maybe you do for strategic reasons, we will accommodate that. That would be for filing your responsive pleading or answer to the lawsuit. The Housing Accountability Act, as I think you know at this point, prohibits a reduction of the density or prohibits the denial of a housing development project without specific health and safety findings. And that's what happened in the last go-round. That's why we were compelled to file the lawsuit. And that's what I'm afraid is about to happen today. Density, contrary to staff's presentation, density is not defined in the act. Density, this case may end up being a test case for the definition of that. If you are eliminating bedrooms from a project, there's good argument that that qualifies as reducing density. Same thing with square footage. A significant square footage decrease like this, this very well may be the test case for that. Denial of the project, you also stand poised to be the test case for that. you are about to potentially take off the most economically valuable portion of the project, rendering the remainder economically infeasible. That's tantamount to denial of the project if you can't build it for the cost of construction, which you'll hear expert testimony tonight on what that cost is and how that gets spread out over the value of the project as a whole. Lastly, there is no other application before you tonight that I'm aware of which has only two stories, not three. So if you vote, as I understand it, your procedural options are either a denial or a continuance. I hope you'll make the right decision. |
| 01:07:28.60 | Mayor Withey | Thank you, sir. Mary Thompson. |
| 01:07:40.53 | Mary Thompson | Mr. Mayor and Council, good evening. I'm Mary Thompson. My husband Greg and I live at 76 Crescent. And we submitted a letter for the September 11th hearing. We submitted a letter for this hearing. We have photos. And the reason is that we look at all these plans and we see pictures, and you've been through this process for years, but for us, we just moved into our house in July and we feel like we're kind of on ground zero. This property, if you've looked at the photos on our letter, |
| 01:07:59.78 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:08:13.62 | Mary Thompson | is directly out our front door, there is the property. And so we feel there's a collision of variables for us that we just like to personalize and bring to the council's attention. And if you would also make sure to look at the photos, it would be helpful to us. The collision of variables we see is that this is a narrow part of Crescent by my, Fabulous paces across the street, curb to curb, it's about 18 feet. And further down on Main, for example, it's about 24 feet. And at Main and Crescent, it's like 28 feet. Again, by my pace, it's not a measuring stick. So it's a narrow section of Crescent, so this steep slope is right upon us and the neighbors, and when you're talking about levels, you call garage level and three levels, but it's a level of garage, living level, living level, master bedroom on a steep slope, and it looks directly into our house. Our house has the parking area and then the front door windows that look right into our foyer, our upper staircase, and our office level. So our choice, it's the only western light on our house, just so you know, the choice will be privacy, by keeping the shutters open. or no Western light into our house if this structure's there. And what happens is I'm a residential real estate agent as well, I've been practicing for 15 years. And for me, if I were working now with a buyer and this structure was built, it's a disclosable item on a fishbowl effect. It's what I say to my buyers. It's like, you gotta feel good about people peering into your house, because you can't take that away. I'd love to be able to modify it if I could with brush or you know plantings we can't from the structure where it is to our house it's our driveway entrance to the front door we can't plant on cement and there literally would not be is tall enough for the So we will have to live day to day with somebody peering into our house. And for us, that is an economic argument. It is 100% a devaluation of property. to have a property put in the position of being in a fishbowl effect. Just plain and simple will affect us economically. I do also wanna make a comment about the neighborhood. I feel like this isn't arbitrary and random. I feel like it is very uncharacteristic of the neighborhood and I decided to walk it just to see kind of new to the neighborhood that my getting involved in something I don't really understand. So I walked down Main and walked down Crescent And what's interesting is not just, as Calvin pointed out, |
| 01:10:45.36 | Mayor Withey | Um... We really do need it. Just finish your sentence. OK. |
| 01:10:47.67 | Mary Thompson | Okay. Okay, that properties are designed with the knowledge of something being across the street, either at parity level. This property and our house and Trestle House were designed without the thought that there would be another property here because there's structures on this lot above. No one considered. |
| 01:11:05.51 | Mayor Withey | Thanks. |
| 01:11:09.68 | Mayor Withey | Considered. Thank you, ma'am. |
| 01:11:11.01 | Mary Thompson | it might be built. Thank you. |
| 01:11:12.14 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Thank you. Robert Tillman. |
| 01:11:17.10 | Mary Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:11:17.29 | Unknown | you |
| 01:11:23.85 | Bob Tillman | Thank you, it was such a pleasure to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance today. I haven't done that in a long time. My sole interest in being here is to enforce California Housing Law. The Housing Accountability Act was first put in place and has now been strengthened because municipalities have abused their discretion. And so that discretion is being taken away by the state legislature. And this is a perfect example of discretion being abused. This project, as it was proposed originally, is within zoning. And per the Housing Accountability Act, You can only turn it down, you can only change it. if there are issues of health or safety. Second thing is, the bulk of the expense of this project goes into building that foundation. That's a fixed cost. Already the project's been reduced 25% in size before it even got here. And now to take it down yet another 25% makes the project uneconomic because that fixed cost is spread over much more in the way of square footage. So from my point of view as a plaintiff in this lawsuit, I want to see one of two things. I want to see a continuance as per their request, or I want to see a denial so we can get on with the litigation. Thank you. |
| 01:12:58.01 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:13:03.11 | Mayor Withey | Catherine Priser? I'm sorry if I've not pronounced your name correctly. |
| 01:13:09.67 | Unknown | Hi, it's Kayten Preiser. Yeah, that's okay. |
| 01:13:12.09 | Mayor Withey | I did my best. |
| 01:13:13.18 | Unknown | My parents gave me that name, I get that all the time. 75 Crescent. |
| 01:13:20.76 | Unknown | You know, I don't... I stand by the letters I've written. I appreciate all the time that you guys have put into this. I do want to say I received notice on this 22nd, November 22nd. It was posted in the same place it's always posted for these meetings. And my neighbors received that notice as well, so that's on the record. you know, I think what's frustrating to me is that we're all here again, you know, looking at the same plans again. And, um, I understand that the applicant is, um, committed to this particular design, but I do, I've either attended every hearing or watched every hearing, He's consistently received concrete feedback and concrete direction on how to submit an approvable design. You're not denying development rights. You're just telling him it needs to be a little bit different. and in terms of quantifiable, factors, I think staff's presentation tonight actually showed quantifiable factors why a smaller design is more in keeping with the neighborhood. The only other thing I want to say is that I wasn't going to bring up mass and scale again, because I think you've heard it so Mr. Halub tonight. pointed out this design and said, you know, if you look around, there's 77 Crescent and then there's larger and larger. You know, my house should be right there. And it's not there. I think it's sort of a marketing ploy to say that everything around is larger and to basically show the one view where this house is smaller than all the masses above it. that's what I'm saying. I'm And again, this isn't on its own lot. The comparison to larger, larger, larger is to houses that are zoned for one or two family residences. Thank you. |
| 01:15:20.78 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Chris Peterson? |
| 01:15:31.09 | Chris Peterson | Chris Peterson, 89 Crescent Avenue. Thank you, Mayor, Council members. I can't really add that much more to what my neighbors are saying. I stand by the letters that we've submitted. I really appreciate it. Mayor, that you took the time to go out there to look at the property the last time you rendered your decision. Because to Caitlin's point, These renderings do not reflect the environment. it's a much tighter space, then this would lead you to believe. And I think you just have to go look at it and really see what it's like. So I can't comment on the Housing Accountability Act. I won't even try. Just to say I'll stand by what my neighbors have said around Crescent and the previous letters. Thank you. |
| 01:16:16.14 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. I have no more green cards. Please, sir. |
| 01:16:33.37 | Unknown | Good evening. My name is Patrick Buscovich, I'm a licensed civil instructional engineer, a permit consultant, and an entitlement consultant, and cost consultant. What is not being discussed, and I guess it's the main purpose here, is the fundamental cost of this project. And what is driving this project is the cost to do the foundation work, due to its unique topographic and geologic conditions. There are some preliminary estimates that I've seen by others. I would say they're low. I would estimate the cost to do the foundation work here on this footprint to be in excess of a million dollars. You then place the building on top of that, and you're creating a situation where there's no viable cost or economic model to build a two-story building on a million-dollar foundation. And making the foundation bigger doesn't solve the problem because the foundation cost gets bigger based on the square footage. The only economic model there is here is to build up that third floor. If you do a very simple analysis, and you can be done very easily, you'll see that the cost of the lower floors are less per square foot, or the value, which is an economic model. And until you get parity, where the cost to do the work, which is the foundation cost, plus the cost to build the additional three floors, and then you compare it to the value of the structure you don't get parity until you get to that additional third floor so if you remove the third floor the building isn't viable and these costs are based on hard costs they don't include the money that's already spent design fees uh soft costs just hard costs Without the third floor, this project's not viable, and if the third floor isn't there, I would recommend it. fees, soft costs, just hard costs. Without the third floor, this project's not viable, and if the third floor isn't there, I would recommend, they're not my client, that this building makes no sense to build. Thank you. |
| 01:18:31.28 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who'd like to comment on this matter? Okay. So we will end the public comment. Oh, no, we won't. We'll end the public comment and back over to you, John, to... either respond or amplify whatever |
| 01:18:54.85 | John | A little bit of both, and I want to reiterate my appreciation to the council for being so flexible with timing this evening. We really do appreciate it. I'm going to speak briefly just to the members of the public who spoke and then hopefully save a minute or two for David to speak again. Ms. Thompson's comments, essentially this narrow part of Crescent, My note says all of Crescent is narrow. The reality is just about. 99% of all streets in Sausalito are narrow, and we build houses here all the time, continually. Also, we've never heard raised over two years of planning hearings, not to mention applications and back and forth with staff. We've never heard one consideration for privacy issues yet and this is the first that's coming up we don't believe that it exists we think we've designed it so that we could mitigate all of that And the thing is, when she mentions that people would build these houses and look at this lot as there's nothing there, that's unfortunate that their real estate person advised them in that way, because this is a buildable lot with the development rights intact. And it always has been since that area of town was subdivided back, who knows when, 100 years ago probably. Additionally, when the members of the public speak about this being the size of this, directly adjacent is quote, the Trestle House, which is double the size. Next to that is another residence with a garage and two floors above it. And next to that is a garage and three floors above it. If you go the other way down the street at 3739, I believe, at Crescent, is a house almost four times as large. Which I brought to this, I'm sorry, not to this body, to the Planning Commission when it got approved. That was approved in a single hearing. One hearing. We had a larger movement of earth. We have a larger project when it's finished, we have actually two condominiums. with frontage and access on Crescent Avenue. So I've really been kind of shocked that this one has had met so much resistance when that one was approved in a single hearing. Ms. Preiser, her comments discussed notice. Glad she received notice. We did not receive notice until Thursday of last week by certified mail. I'm sorry. That's not true. I received a letter in my box that they attempted to deliver it, but I was in my office all day, so I don't know why it wasn't delivered. So it may have been the day before. I want to be really quick. There was a mention of this not being zoned for this. This lot is zoned for one unit per 5,000 square feet, so a minimum of three meets the general plan, the zoning ordinances, and all the other standards. We've talked about that before. There was a couple comments that I really took some offense to regarding this, not showing the other houses. We have multiple aerial views that we paid for and rendered that showed many surrounding houses. Um, I'm not trying to throw anybody under the bus here. I believe this image was cropped to fit the screen because our intent with this rendering was to show its relativity to its neighbors and we showed the trestle house and at least one, maybe two further up the street. So we're not trying to do a bait and switch in any fashion. We're completely confident that this house is compatible with the character and the size of the other homes in the neighborhood. And if you don't have any questions with that, I'd like to let David speak. |
| 01:22:58.91 | David Holub | I'll be brief. I just, as you know, I had a chance to send some late correspondents just a couple hours before the hearing. You know, removing the third floor is the part of the house that And I didn't. the Ryan and the, and the car people got this expert opinion. And so, even the estimates I have for the foundation were are outdated and probably in the neighborhood of 750 to $900,000 like I said. And you have to distribute that cost across more square footage. As we keep pointing out, you know, put parking in front. to set the house back so it doesn't interfere with anybody else's view requires a high retaining wall on that a lot and that high retaining wall and that in foundation as they're pointing out represent the preponderance of the cost of the project. And the way to recover that cost is to have a view. And not only, let's be clear, not only in your uh, proposed redesign that you're sort of I don't know how else to say it, kind of ramming down my throat, is, a reduction in the height of the project too. So you're basically limiting any view. And as I've pointed out, views are protected in Sausalito. Except not mine, apparently. And The view of that third floor is important in recovering the cost of the foundation and making the project viable. And absent the third floor, which is the most highly valued square footage in the property. It's simply not a viable project. And frankly, particularly with having all of this in the public record, I think it would probably amount to condemnation of my land. and I just don't know how else to express the seriousness of this. And again, I've also pointed out that the length of this process has put the property in jeopardy. And as you know, this lot line adjustment, I had two years to perform on the demolition. That was a long time. And now we're hurrying, hearing every couple of days, but for over two years I couldn't get through the process. And it's cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars that it shouldn't have cost me. And I'm sorry we're suing, but I've got no choice. protect my family's assets and this is my only family asset |
| 01:25:34.98 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Okay. |
| 01:25:41.68 | Mayor Withey | So I think we are. Now for city council discussion. First of all, is there any other questions you wanna ask staff that we need to clarify before we proceed? you Okay, does anybody want to go first? |
| 01:26:07.43 | Mayor Withey | OK, would you like me to go first? |
| 01:26:15.51 | Mayor Withey | Um, |
| 01:26:19.22 | Mayor Withey | I've pretty much over the last So, you know, partly, You've got to understand everybody, and I'm talking to all of our residents. You've got to understand that every word I speak is going to be in front of a judge. Okay? So that's the first thing. So I don't like trying to, you know, it's not very comfortable to be in a position where, out of the blue, we get sued saying we are in violation of the law. Now, I don't know whether we are. I'm not a lawyer. We've got lawyers. So... By denying a project, We are in violation of the law. |
| 01:27:15.13 | Mayor Withey | So that's what we're facing here. And that means then, if that's true, we can never deny a project again. |
| 01:27:28.44 | Mayor Withey | You know? And apparently, we've got to also, every project's got to be economically viable. That means we and a neighborhood has to guarantee that any developer makes profit. You know, the economics of this has never, in my mind, been part of a land use decision. So that's, you know, I'm just telling you how I recognize this. I want to pick up on a couple of points. First, the Planning Commission, there's been admittedly a a process where we've tried to, over time, have developers eventually submit a project that works and the planning rather than trying to designed from the dais. But when you have an applicant that just keeps saying no, when Commissioner Morgan Pearce in clearly indicated that in his mind this project could be approved if you removed the top floor. This isn't new. This is being talked about over and over again. You've just refused. to even consider it. That's why you got a denial, but now, Because apparently that denial is in violation of the Housing Accountability Act. were now Forced, basically, to say, okay, well here's what we will approve. We have never from this body, from this dais, ever said that you cannot build three dwelling units on this property. Ever. It's been very clear. on... January 24th. 2017. We clearly said the issues with 77 Crescent, and you need to make modifications to that structure. Okay. Perhaps in retrospect, the instructions from the bin by reducing the top floor. I just thought the Planning Commission had given you enough clearly guidance as that's what you want to do. The Planning Commission heard it. It came back, they couldn't make the findings, and quite frankly, when it came back, I was shocked. I was shocked that you hadn't removed the top floor. |
| 01:30:16.08 | Mayor Withey | You made some other designs, you tried to, but the whole point was that that Building is too large for that. particular space on that lot. And we've been trying to tell you that. |
| 01:30:36.99 | Mayor Withey | You came back. We said, okay, well let's have some more time to think about this. Yes, we did on July 11th. And then eventually we denied it. And apparently, We're now told that we can't deny projects anymore. You've pushed us here. Your attorney is telling us that The gentleman behind you doesn't represent you, and I've got to believe that. That's true. And yet, Mr. Holub, you said you didn't want to bring this lawsuit just now. It's on the record. So in my view, we have no choice We have no choice. If we, for the neighborhood, for the city of Sausalito, and for you. to approve this project with modifications. And the modifications that I personally, but I'd like to hear what my colleagues think is, |
| 01:31:46.04 | Mayor Withey | The project in front of us, if we choose to vacate our previous decision, the project in front of us was the project the Planning Commission denied. |
| 01:32:00.11 | Mayor Withey | Excuse me, that's our view. That's my view. I don't know whether it's my colleagues view. The project, the housing, the Planning Commission denied, is the project that you appealed. And as soon as we vacate this project, we're back to the appeal hearing. |
| 01:32:25.26 | Mayor Withey | In response to our request for you to reduce the size of the project, you didn't take off the top floor you didn't make the design modifications needed to do that instead you shrunk the the size of the building you shrunk the size of the building and reduced and um ended up proposing a project of 1 917 John, I'm hearing you. I'm hearing you. Okay. If we just take the top floor off, the last project, it was the last thing that at least you proposed, not the project the Planning Commission denied, but the last project you proposed to try and accommodate what we were trying to ask you to do, if we took the top floor off of that, that would reduce it to 1,481 square feet based on the numbers I've seen. And that would reduce it from three bedrooms to two bedrooms. So my proposal is, and what I'd like to see if my colleagues are interested in, is to approve the project based on the design that was denied by the Planning Commission. |
| 01:33:58.88 | Mayor Withey | with the removal of the top floor. With the change of the railings, I am actually I personally do not think I would support a reduction of the ceiling heights. I think the reduction of just the top floor is enough, but I like the railing idea because that makes it look a bit better. And if that were what we approved tonight, then we would be approved in 1,912 square feet with three bedrooms. on an overall lot with three dwelling units. So that's what I propose that we approve tonight, along with procedurally first the reversal vacation or vacating or whatever it is of the A previous decision... That would then have the appeal still pending. and then approve the project as I've just proposed. Now I've spoken for a long time. There were perhaps a lot of other things I should say. But I think that's generally what I think. And I think it's consistent with the instructions we gave, and I think it's very consistent with what the planning commission was trying to do. So, that's my view. |
| 01:35:39.67 | Joan Cox | I agree with that approach. I agree with that approach. I don't have anything else to add. Okay. |
| 01:35:44.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:49.11 | Unknown | WOULD COUNCIL MEMBER, SHOOT, IT'S ME. IT'S DOWN TO ME. |
| 01:35:57.04 | Joe Burns | Mayor including that Those items and structuring them in in in that give and take of some things The one element that then comes to question and I didn't ask it because I don't know from our staff who can answer it at this point, but it's something that we'd have to address, is how much of that wall could come down in the back or what can we do to shade it, paint it, tree it, living wall it, whatever. And I say if we want to somehow include that in a modification of approval to mitigate the... structure, the wall, the foundation structure that's left, or the wall structure that's left working with staff on a mitigation program something to that effect for that one part I like that I did me. |
| 01:36:50.28 | Mayor Withey | I like that idea. I mean, obviously there's going to have to be, I mean, you know, sorry, I know you, I'm realize you may be in a different place, but, you know, they haven't done their full structural drawings yet. The fact that they don't know, obviously, they don't know what the actual thing is going to really cost and what it's going to look like. I would definitely think of some way to mitigate, for whatever retention would need to go where that third floor would be, some mitigation with planting or painting and so on, could easily make that go away. So the argument that it would look the same is not true. |
| 01:37:10.97 | Unknown | You don't know. |
| 01:37:41.58 | Mayor Withey | So we could add that as a condition, I think. |
| 01:37:44.26 | Joe Burns | And then I just want to clarify the other point you were making, and I believe John wanted to chime in. The applicant did make a reduction in height at one point, as well as square footage going backwards. And then this is a proposal of another reduction in height, which you are, in this recommendation, providing back to the applicant to say... We're not taking it down that extra foot in this modification or we are. |
| 01:38:12.16 | Mayor Withey | I'm suggesting that we start from the project that was denied by the Planning Commission that is the subject of our appeal. The previous discussions with the Planning Commission around, there were prior early modifications to the project, but the final one that they denied is the one that would be reduced by 10 feet if you reduce the top floor. |
| 01:38:51.68 | Joan Cox | So are you sure you talking about project modification proposal number three? Were you reduced? |
| 01:38:56.84 | Mayor Withey | Yes. Oh, sorry, yes. Sorry, sorry, I misunderstood. Yeah, I'm suggesting that we don't demand... |
| 01:39:00.30 | Joan Cox | Yeah. Okay. |
| 01:39:03.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:05.38 | Mayor Withey | modification number three. I think the |
| 01:39:06.49 | Unknown | I've got to see. |
| 01:39:09.02 | Mayor Withey | the removal of the top floor is sufficient. It's sufficient and we don't need that extra three feet because it would be one foot per floor or maybe two feet, whatever it is. |
| 01:39:12.08 | Joe Burns | Yeah. |
| 01:39:16.85 | Joe Burns | Yep. I just wanted to confirm that. Thank you. |
| 01:39:20.21 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. So. Danny, Calvin, do you want to clarify that? By how much would we be reducing the height if we accepted modifications 1 and 2, but not 3, and then we did accept number 4? |
| 01:39:23.15 | Joe Burns | I didn't. |
| 01:39:40.48 | Mayor Withey | and compared to what the project that was denied by the Planning Commission. |
| 01:39:46.82 | Calvin | COMPARED TO THE PROJECT THAT WAS DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN DECEMBER OF 2016, IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET. |
| 01:39:52.46 | Mayor Withey | 2016. Thank you. |
| 01:39:55.38 | Calvin | Thank you. |
| 01:39:55.41 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:39:55.73 | Calvin | you Does that? |
| 01:39:57.74 | Joe Burns | Yes, and so then that, as you calculated, Mayor, 1912 square feet. |
| 01:39:57.76 | Calvin | Yes. |
| 01:40:03.85 | Joe Burns | that we have to do with the And I'm not going to add in the garage. I get it, John. We don't do that in real estate, but adding in the |
| 01:40:14.06 | Mayor Withey | 250 feet. |
| 01:40:14.65 | Joe Burns | 50 feet so we're back over 2000 square feet for this single family residence. in market. |
| 01:40:20.74 | Mayor Withey | I mean, it would be marketed as a 2,200 square foot. 250 plus 19 is... 2,200, right? 2,100, whatever, square foot residents. That's what it'd be marketed at. As the third dwelling, |
| 01:40:32.52 | Unknown | That's what |
| 01:40:36.94 | Mayor Withey | on the lot, as a third dwelling on the lot. Thank you. |
| 01:40:41.97 | Joe Burns | Thank you. My only other comments, so I appreciate that. that motion yet, but that process on the structure. I don't need to talk about what how I viewed this project in the past, but I will say that I think we've all spent a lot of time on the street, as far as in the dirt, in cars, on Google Earth, um, in different days at different times. I would hate to say that, you know, just go out and look, we've looked, I mean, from what I understand, we've looked, I know I have looked extensively at this and I've looked extensively at the properties around it. |
| 01:41:36.11 | Joe Burns | There a lot has been said tonight and the mayor wrapped up very articulately what we're dealing with at this point. I just feel the one point I do want to make about this over entire process and what we've heard both at the beginning motion that we had to make and then where we are now. I feel proper notice was given, and I feel a little that one counsel didn't have proper notice when it appeared that they did. And to suggest that nobody knew about this until Saturday or Friday, I think that's really disingenuous. It's insulting, actually. You can find a lot of different things that say, you know, this didn't happen or that didn't happen. We all knew where this was coming. We all knew, you know, for one attorney, he said we didn'tE THE HAA, BUT THEN HE QUOTED FROM THE HAA THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT. that's too bad. To me all this stuff has gotten in the way of a design and I've spoke about that design, what it means to both how I thought it blended in the community and as well as the environmental and sustainability of the project. All that's been lost now because of this process. But I do have tremendous respect for the people who opined on that, both in the Planning Commission as well as my fellow council members. I respect their process immensely. And I get that this is a vote of the majority. And given what the process we've gone through and where we are now, I am in the same camp as to support this motion, or this project as going to be motioned with modification for as the mayor has put forth. So thank you. |
| 01:43:24.16 | John | Yes. |
| 01:43:24.65 | Joe Burns | I think we'll provide that. |
| 01:43:26.88 | Mayor Withey | Um... going to hand it over to our staff to answer that question because i think it's very clear in the staff report what the modifications are and for clarity i think there's going to obviously be further work you're going to have to do with staff you know in as you're preparing if you choose to you know the move forward and prepare. your structural drawings. I mean, I think his staff has made it very clear. We removed the third floor. So that's fairly clear. |
| 01:44:05.15 | Calvin | Thank you. |
| 01:44:05.18 | John | THE END OF |
| 01:44:05.47 | Mayor Withey | isn't it? What's the lack of clarity, John? Were they |
| 01:44:09.47 | John | The lack of clarity is what staff has put forward to you and what you've agreed to prior to this hearing is removing the third floor So, removing the third floor from the plan that was presented at the, I believe, what you said, the second planning commission hearing or third, either way, it doesn't matter. proposing to remove The third floor. My question is. What is the overall height of this structure? that is agreeable to you because a floor is, we've already, we've maintained three floors and already taken well over eight feet off of the structure. So I'm trying to figure out if you're saying remove a third floor, what is the maximum height of the structure that this body feels is appropriate? |
| 01:44:59.91 | Mayor Withey | We have agreed with the modification number one that the staff proposed. Could I have the staff ask, well, what does that do to the reduction of the height? |
| 01:45:10.88 | Calvin | Thank you. The removal of the third floor under project modification one would be a decrease in 10 feet in the overall height of the structure when viewed from Crescent. That 10 feet comes from that third level living area, which is 10 feet from floor to ceiling. |
| 01:45:30.50 | John | I'm sorry. |
| 01:45:31.09 | Mayor Withey | Sorry, we're not in dialogue anymore. You asked to clarify. He's just answered your question. |
| 01:45:33.84 | John | I know. |
| 01:45:37.88 | John | If he says remove it by 10 feet, if I can fit three floors within 10 feet, is that acceptable? Within removing 10 feet, if I can fit three floors, is that acceptable? That's. My last question. |
| 01:45:56.94 | Mayor Withey | Well, staff also recommended that you reduce, or, and by the way, I just want to make a comment. Nothing was decided prior to this meeting. We're responding to the staff report like you are. |
| 01:46:16.47 | Mayor Withey | The staff has produced a recommendation for us to consider, and with a draft resolution for us to consider. If we accept there, we're already going to modify the resolution based on choosing which of the modifications to choose. The most important thing that we've tried to get across, which was not in the staff report, but which is part of this presentation, which I think is a good recommendation from staff, To reduce the square footage of this down to 1,400 or whatever it was, by just removing the top floor of the last iteration, doesn't seem to be right to me. Because in attempting to respond to the city councils, you squashed it in. You made it smaller overall. And we're saying, no, that's not what we wanted you to do. We wanted you to further reduce the height. I'm talking about the proposal that was denied by the Planning Commission. That is what is the subject of this appeal. |
| 01:47:26.59 | Joan Cox | I think Mary, if I'm not, or Danny, in response to John's comment, I think that would be another proposal. right that would go through the usual design review process if you wanted to submit another plan with three floors below whatever the calculation is for the maximum height right now if you reduce the third floor. So I think the response is that would be a new project design that would need another review. |
| 01:47:57.67 | Mayor Withey | Well, unless you're going to go to like seven foot, six foot ceilings, I don't know how you're going to get three fours out of this. No, thank |
| 01:48:06.55 | Mary Wagner | So Mr. |
| 01:48:09.06 | Mayor Withey | Excuse me, could everybody please sit down, including you, Mr. Holop. John's asked a point of clarification. I think that's been given. OK. So could we go back to the motion, please? |
| 01:48:31.44 | Mayor Withey | Okay, I move to vacate the previous resolution for the project denial and approve the project with three units, subject to conditions as in the resolution presented, including the following project modifications. So we approve the motion to approve the project subject to conditions to incorporate project modifications 1 and 2 only, and not condition 3. |
| 01:49:11.70 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, may I ask a point of clarification? Is it one or is it four? It's really both, I think. It's one. |
| 01:49:13.74 | Mayor Withey | Yes. That's brilliant. And to approve motion to approve the project subject to conditions to incorporate project motion four. Thank you very much. So it's one, two, and four, but not three. That is the motion I'm making. |
| 01:49:24.17 | Mary Wagner | Thank you very much. I apologize. |
| 01:49:31.83 | Mary Wagner | I apologize, Mr. Mayor. So one was the project, the last iteration you saw, the smaller project. I understood your motion to be, you wanted to go back to the project that was denied by the Planning Commission, the project plans dated December, |
| 01:49:47.57 | Mayor Withey | Okay, I got it. Let me rephrase some of it. I got it. |
| 01:49:48.32 | Mary Wagner | Let me rephrase that. Let me rephrase. Just also to clarify, if I may, that would result in a 19, |
| 01:49:52.08 | Mayor Withey | Yeah. |
| 01:49:55.22 | Mary Wagner | 1,912 square foot home. which is a three bedroom house and it would include Clearly, the three units on this lot, there's no reduction in the density. |
| 01:50:07.07 | Mayor Withey | That's correct. Thank you. So maybe let me try and slightly adjust the motion, which is to approve the project subject to the conditions, subject to the fact that the project that we're approving subject to the conditions is project modification four, and the conditions that we want applied to that are project modifications one and two. Is that clear? |
| 01:50:07.71 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:50:36.31 | Mayor Withey | Nope, Danny, tell us what to do. |
| 01:50:37.05 | Joan Cox | Tell us what to do. Should we take a break in place? And would it be easier if you guys drafted a motion for us? |
| 01:50:44.26 | Mayor Withey | Please clarify for us. I thought we had this. |
| 01:50:44.85 | Joan Cox | Okay. |
| 01:50:49.49 | Mayor Withey | I thought I'd understood from your presentation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. |
| 01:50:52.10 | Danny Castry | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. From your presentation. Danny Castry, a community development director. Project modification number one is the City Council denied project that is that that would be the removal of the third floor. It's project modification number four that is the planning commission in which there was an issue date When the Planning Commission denied that project, you were referring to that project plan that had the larger square feet and the three bedrooms. |
| 01:51:22.84 | Mayor Withey | Correct. So, |
| 01:51:23.43 | Danny Castry | So what I think I'm hearing is that you would incorporate project modification number four And project modification number two, which is the railing to be glass. So those are the two. |
| 01:51:36.30 | Mayor Withey | No, and to remove the |
| 01:51:39.20 | Danny Castry | And number four removes the third floor. Oh, I see. |
| 01:51:42.26 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:51:42.27 | Mary Wagner | But it removes it from that prior iteration. |
| 01:51:42.70 | Mayor Withey | Oh. |
| 01:51:45.09 | Mary Wagner | as you indicated. |
| 01:51:46.78 | Mayor Withey | G- Do we have a slide on project? Oh, I see. So you'd already embedded into the modification number four. OK, I see the clarity. Okay, I understand. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Yeah, that's my fault. That is totally my fault, okay? I did not realize, I thought project modification four was the original project. So let's make this clear. The motion is then, if we can go back to the motion, I'm sorry for that confusion. |
| 01:52:20.18 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, if I may, I'm not entirely sure that that is as helpful as it could be so that if I may |
| 01:52:27.58 | Mayor Withey | Please. |
| 01:52:28.07 | Mary Wagner | And what I have heard the council, what your motion is, is actually if you can go back, sorry Calvin, to four, is that your motion is to approve the, you project. with the issue date of project plans of October 14, 2016, And just for clarification, not as part of the motion, that was the project that was denied by the Planning Commission and appealed to the City Council. That will result in A 1,912 square foot three bedroom home at 77 Crescent and a total project of three dwelling units. And you would also like to include the change that was proposed by staff in the railings to glass. |
| 01:53:22.16 | Mayor Withey | That is exactly what I was. |
| 01:53:22.82 | Mary Wagner | I'm sorry. I THINK IT'S A LOT OF One other clarification, we will need to adjust the findings. This motion is to adopt the findings and conditions that are set forth in your staff report. To incorporate this change in the square footage, and I'm looking to Calvin to nod that that's correct. And to indicate if there are other changes that result from the change to these different plans, the October 14, 2016 plans. |
| 01:53:32.00 | Mayor Withey | that are set for. |
| 01:53:32.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:52.84 | Mary Wagner | No, I don't think there are. So this would be the motion then, would be to approve the project with the plans dated October 14, 2016, with modification four to remove the upper level of that project. And then to also change the railings as indicated in proposal two, modification two. And again, resulting in a 1,912 square foot home at 77 Crescent with three bedrooms and an overall project of three dwelling units. |
| 01:54:21.20 | Joan Cox | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:54:23.47 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:54:23.87 | Joan Cox | I MAKE A SUGGESTION. |
| 01:54:24.90 | Mary Wagner | Yes. |
| 01:54:27.08 | Joan Cox | Because of the I think because of the need that our findings be very clear and on the record that we're creating tonight. I would feel much more comfortable if we just hold in place while you draft the motion that we can read, rather than us sort of fumbling around up here with, this is- I'm happy to do that. |
| 01:54:47.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:47.46 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:54:47.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:47.51 | Mary Wagner | I'm sorry. |
| 01:54:47.58 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:47.68 | Mary Wagner | I'm happy to do that if you'd like to take a quick break, Mr. Mayor. |
| 01:54:50.90 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:54:50.95 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, or we'll just sit here and redo it. |
| 01:54:52.10 | Joan Cox | Um, Thank you. |
| 01:54:53.42 | Mayor Withey | YOU KNOW, The thing, and I've not helped because obviously I, you know, I was, I want absolute clarity here. So let's take a five-minute break. |
| 01:55:37.24 | Mayor Withey | So we're ready. Okay. We're back on the record. Thank you for that work. |
| 01:55:51.16 | Mayor Withey | We are reading this so that we can ask questions. |
| 01:55:54.99 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So we did take the time to incorporate the direction that we heard from the council in the motion. And I'm happy to either read it into the record or answer any questions or both. |
| 01:56:14.05 | Mayor Withey | And, okay, I was trying to find where the actual project that the Planning Commission denied, but that's the October 14th, 2016. Correct. Okay, so that's what that is. |
| 01:56:26.99 | David Holub | Thank you. |
| 01:56:27.04 | Mary Wagner | Correct. |
| 01:56:27.38 | David Holub | I'll see you next time. |
| 01:56:52.77 | Mayor Withey | as the word is for me. Okay, I've read this, that this conforms to what I was attempting to get across. Are my colleagues okay with this? If so, do you want to read this, or do I want to read this? I'm happy. |
| 01:57:14.09 | Mary Wagner | I'm happy to read it, Mr. Mayor, and again answer any questions. And we've actually, we're actually suggesting |
| 01:57:16.23 | Mayor Withey | I'm pleased to. |
| 01:57:19.82 | Mary Wagner | Two motions. The first motion would be to vacate the resolution for project denial. and approve the project with the plans dated October 14, 2016, with three dwelling units, with the findings and conditions set forth in attachment 1A of the staff report, with the following modifications. One, you'd be adding conditions to remove the uppermost level at 77 Crescent, resulting in a 1,912 square foot home with three bedrooms. Also to revise the steel and wood guardrails at 77 Crescent to glass. And as part of the building permit application, project plans shall reflect a design of the rear retaining wall located above the roof of the 77 Crescent Avenue structure. to match closely with the surrounding landscape and natural topography. You would delete the existing condition number one, which referenced the different project modifications that were suggested, which is then replaced with the conditions set forth in A on your screen. Revise all reference to the project plans, to the project plans dated October 14, 2016, and modify a design review finding three to change the square footage of 77 Crescent from 1,481 square feet to 1,912. That would be the first motion. |
| 01:58:41.84 | Mayor Withey | And we are going to vote on these separately. |
| 01:58:45.90 | Mary Wagner | Correct. |
| 01:58:46.43 | Mayor Withey | Okay, so that is the motion. I will... I'll make that motion, clarify that I'll make that motion. |
| 01:58:58.32 | Joan Cox | Second. |
| 01:59:00.11 | Mayor Withey | Okay, so all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries three zero. So then the second motion is to approve the resolution approving the accroachment agreement in attachment 1B of the staff report, revising references to the project plans dated October 14th, 2016. Do I have a second? |
| 01:59:03.15 | Joan Cox | Bye. |
| 01:59:24.06 | Joan Cox | second. |
| 01:59:24.11 | Mayor Withey | Thank you. Thank you. THE FAMILY. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries 3-0. |
| 01:59:26.12 | Joan Cox | Bye. Bye. |
| 01:59:34.22 | Mayor Withey | With that, we are adjourned. Thank you very much. |
Steve Frazier — Against: Strongly objected, calling the proceeding a 'star chamber' with insufficient notice and time to prepare, citing the inclusion of the Housing Availability Act as an example, and warning of due process violations and potential appeals. ▶ 📄
Ryan Patterson — Neutral: Supported reconsideration but objected to the rushed process, stating there wasn't enough time to consider the propriety of the procedural motion, suggesting a due process violation. ▶ 📄
Bob Tillman — Against: Stated he first learned of the hearing from Sausalito Currents on Friday morning and had to inform his team, implying insufficient notice. ▶ 📄
David Holub — Against: Requested a continuance of the matter. ▶ 📄